STAR TREK Logical Thinking #13 - Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2024
- Educational PSA where Mister Spock corrects some crewmembers after overhearing them employing a logical fallacy in their discussions.
Had NBC decided to teach principles of sound reasoning in the mid-1970's they could do no better than to have the logical Mister Spock do the teaching. As an addition to the the two-dozen or so Public Service Announcements I created featuring the animated crew of the Starship Enterprise, I have created a new series of PSAs featuring Mr. Spock called "Logical Thinking." Using the Vulcan science officer to educate them in proper reasoning is "Only Logical" as he states at the end of each PSA.
Done in the style of Filmation's 1973-75 Animated STAR TREK series.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs FS )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lD6z1BugdZw/mqdefault.jpg)
No conversation is too trivial for Mr. Spock to not butt in.
@CHDanhauser
I love these videos!!!
I use them all the time to point out & explain the logical fallacies people use in their arguments!
Thank you so much!!!
🖖
Ah good. More star trek. I like this. Continue making trek. good spock.
Fantastic work on multiple levels. Thanks for all your production Curt!
Love this. I love Mr. Spock
That crewman just got R E A S S E S S E D
*ass*
By the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation, both Dr. Beverly Crusher and her son Wesley imply that the common cold has in fact been cured.
That is correct, but McCoy stated in "The Omega Glory" (TOS) that the common cold had not been cured at that point.
They said in tng Fermat's Last Theorum was never solved but in real life in 94, it was
@@BlueJDMMR2 Maybe it was lost and never rediscovered? this is something that has come about in our own world. Like roman concrete or Damascus steel or greek fire. Well we have made analogies based on what we know of these things. We have never been able to 1 for 1 accurately replicate them.
What We have are adaptations due to us filling in the gaps. So we have concrete that well, seems to function like roman, is no where near as lasting or structure stable. Steel that LOOKS like it is damacian but lacks its inherent strength properties. And a chemical mix that functions like greekfire called napalm but the original pure organic formula is lost to time.
Such strange historical gap replica are a fascinating example of how we dont want to let the past history and knowledge go even despite our general gaps in understand and losses of information. The spirit to rediscover then becomes innovation and a new formula is made.
The desire to innovate is inherent to our species. But so is the desire to preserve the best aspects of our past for future generations to come. If we forget the steps of the past that brought us to where we are today. We can never advance even beyond. And we will be doomed to go back to the beginning.
*lowers sunglasses smugly* "Its only logical"
Interestingly, Star Trek is fictional
thank you so much, you are helping me find videos for my take homes quizzes for fallacy examples :D
I knew he was going to point out the speed of light
Yes, but it turns out all these conversations occur within one of Spock's fever dreams, where the crew responds positively to his logical influence and teachings, and not in their usual barbaric hysterical caveman grunts and eye rolls.
The dreams will continue, as always, until Dr. McCoy admits Spock was right and then he knows for sure it's a dream.
Mannn, Mr Spock is a person you always need to have a friend. I sometimes think that he has no biases😂😂. You know such a fallacy is common to almost everyone. If they think that something is not proven then it’s false not that we don’t know it. There is a middle ground between true and false which is “we don’t know.” Or if something is not false then it is definitely true. If it is proven that there is a truth in X thing that is different. But if we say something is true because it is not false then we are biasing.
I hope Spock won't catch it.
lt may be well be that the common cold will never be cured, but one cannot say this with absolute certainty.
I would say the mRNA vaccines have promise to prevent a lot of illnesses. But while the cold can cause unpleasantness and loss of work productivity, it doesn't result in hospitalization, which is one thing they're trying to prevent.
@@sandal_thong8631Those experimental gene therapies are a perfect example of industrial scale Argumentum ad Verecundium.
Authorites, completely unqualified to asses the specific risks abuse the trust of billions of people en masse to use them as lab rats.
"Trust the science" , "I am the science" said the politician.
Awesome
The awkward pause
I'm not certain that breaking the light speed barrier can be used as an effective example just yet.
It is an effective example, just not a true-science example. Logic examples featuring unicorns and bigfoot can be very effective.
in real life, yes, but in star-trek the speed of light was broken long ago
@@potatoheadpokemario1931 Technically, a warp field such as an Alcubierre drive does not break light speed as the spaceship is still traveling sunlight within a bubble of space which has space contracting in front of it and expanding behind it. Of course Star Trek as fiction predates the Alcubierre drive but there is a relationship as the Alcubierre drive was conceived to see if Star Trek's warp drive might be possible within our current theories and it turns out it is. Regardless, my comment was sarcasm if you hadn't noticed...
@@johnwang9914 well isn't the bubble moving superluminal or does it just leave a bubble behind
@@potatoheadpokemario1931 If I may butt in, yes; but nothing prevents spacetime itself from moving faster than light (and it did, apparently, early on, according to my knowledge of current understanding), so no violation is happening. It is the bubble which is the "workaround."
Agreed
Warp Drive doesn't break the speed of light.
However there are proofs that certain problems can never be solved by logic or mathematics. The continuum hypothesis, Godell incompleteness theorems and the strong form of Epeminedis paradox. There's numerous others such as the 5 color map conjecture where it is proven that neither proof nor disproof is possible. Soock used one, computing the exaxt value of pi, to drive a malevolent entity from the ship's computer.
While there are quantities that cannot be computed to the last digit, and mathematical proofs that cannot be proven is the strict mathematical definition of that term, these considerations have nothing to do with the logical fallacy dealt with in this video. The fallacy described here is stating that BECAUSE something is not known or proven, etc. that that is evidence that it will NEVER be known or proven. The unprovable things mentioned earlier are determined to be unprovable by rigorous application of the mathematical discipline, not by simply stating that they still haven't been proven yet.
@@CHDanhauser Correct, I was expanding that there is a set of unprovable and thus unknowable items that is rather large. The explanation suffers from an implicit excluded middle. There's unproven and unprovable.
The example of traveling faster than the speed of light, is a fallacy on Spock’s part, unless there’s a logical way to divide a number by zero.
how is it a fallacy when they break the speed of light all the time in startrek
Yeah, uhhh Spock, how bout you mind your own?
So anyway sweetheart, as I was saying.....
What crew position involves standing next to an empty sickbay bed and jabbering?
woah a proper female voice, that was unexpected lol
Great videos here! Btw - I think it's actually "ignorantiam", not "ignorantium". Am I wrong? : )
You'll have to excuse Mr. Spock. He speaks Latin with a pronounced Vulcan accent.
@@CHDanhauser : )
However there is nothing known faster than the speed of light and I DOUBT there ever will be.
The universe contains trillions upon trillions of stars and galaxies. Your knowledge is limitied. Curb your ignorance and narcissism
@@Ikaros23 Follow the guidelines and keep comments respectful. There is nothing known faster than the speed of light and your comment is both off topic and a personal attack.
he could've have a V8
So does that mean atheists should back off from their argument that God has not been proven to exist (which isn't exactly true based on one's perspective)?
No. The fallacy is in saying that something is not true simply because it has not been proven false. People arguing for the non-existence of god, do not do so by saying that he has not been proven to exist, they often argue that no non-faith-based evidence exists at all.
I think what he meant was that arguing that God doesn’t exist because he can’t be proven to exist is invalid because it employs the ignorance fallacy, which is correct.
Atheism is not;
"Believing that God does NOT exist"
Atheism is
"not being convinced that a god does in fact exist"
There is a huge difference between the two🖖
@@Alulim-Eridu
It is possible for someone to use the logical fallacy that the evidence in the favor is inconclusive and that therefore it cannot be true.
Or do you think that if an atheist said this, he / she would no longer be an atheist.
Can you still call yourself an atheist if you also give a positive opinion about the non-existence of god?
@@yannickm1396
I'm sorry
Your comment is confusing to me.
If the evidence in favor of something being true,
is inconclusive
...then, (if you're going to be intellectually honest about whether you think it is true)
you should answer;
"I don't know if it is true or not"
And to your 2nd part;
If you don't believe in a god,
you ARE an atheist
...whether you believe;
-that there is in fact no god
...Or
-that you're not sure whether there is a god or not
. . . Those are both
sub-categories of
"not believing"
that there is a god.
If you believe;
"Yes, I believe there is a god"
...then you are a theist
Any other position, would make you an atheist
-Like:
(1)Not being sure if there is a god.
&ALSO;
2)Being confident in your belief that "there is no god"
. . .both are atheistic positions.
So just because something hasn't been proven true that's no reason to not believe it's true? I guess Spock is saying it's illogical to not believe in God even though God's existence hasn't been proven. I think Spock is the illogical one.
We can't claim that God does or doesn't exist as an absolute fact. We don't have evidence for either. For these cases we have a concept called the Burden of Proof: the one who makes a claim has to support it with evidence. The theists claim that God exists, but don't provide evidence other than faith and the Bible (which is flawed). Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The logical position towards an unproven claim is to not accept it. Now, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist - we just don't have enough reason to believe that's the case. He could exist. Or not. Atheists just aren't convinced by religion. They don't claim God doesn't exist. Instead, they shoot down the arguments from the theists to show that they have no case, and therefore no reason to believe in God.
Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. In another thread I replied by mentioning Xenophilius Lovegood from _Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows_ whose very name means lover of the foreign. He believes in many things for which there is scant evidence or the evidence more likely points to something already known.
Suppose you say that you believe in the God that gave the Ten Commandments to Moses during the Exodus. Then someone digs up the desert looking for evidence of the Exodus between Israel and Egypt and finds nothing: few human or animal remains dated to a suitable period for it, and no detritus of a mass-migration, even if it didn't last 40 years. So if there's no evidence of an Exodus, then would that mean there's no evidence for God and the Ten Commandments?
That is the Strawman logical fallacy. There are three states, not two -- believing a proposition, disbelieving it, and reserving judgment.