Scroll down for some more logical fallacies. :) Subscribe for more puppets! th-cam.com/channels/CC38u45KCmNDe9X4ozxqlA.html Also, what do you think of the video? Was I too hard on Rogan and Shapiro? For the record, I struggle with being logical. The logical fallacies I am most guilty of are the strawman fallacy and the hasty generalization fallacy. Which ones are you guilty of the most? Edit: I'm getting a lot of comments that they were just having a "casual conversation," so therefore we shouldn't call them out for making logical fallacies. Two responses to this: 1) It's not a casual, informal conversation when it's broadcast to tens of millions of people 2) Logical fallacies are not just made in debates. Any time someone makes any claim, they can make a logical fallacy.
When my logic and philosophy teacher first told us about fallacies, he gave us a paper with 15 fallacies and their definitions, and went about his day. Our class was discussion based, but from then on, he called out every fallacy he heard us commit, *every single one*, until eventually, out of annoyance, we tried our hardest to not commit them when having a discussion.
@@guyferrari8124This shit is old. The fallacy fallacy means that concluding an argument is false because it has logical fallacies. Meaning, if someone has a logical argument fallacy, dont see them as wrong, just see them as flawed. Here, ill teach you since you probably heard this from someone who doesn't know how to argue. Premise 1: If the street is wet, its raining Premise 2: the street is wet Conclusion: its raining. Premise 1 and 2 are inconsistent, but it could still be raining so we shouldn't assume this argument is wrong because that would be a fallacy fallacy. We just see the argument as flawed and illogical.
The straw man fallacy is the one I have the hardest dealing with. I usually have discussions and debates in good faith, and then when I get hit with straw mans I spend all my time breaking them apart, only to be hit by other straw men. And then I'll realize we're on a completely different topic that's miles away from my original argument
Yup. I can relate to this. The problem is that strawmen are often set up as attention diverters. It often means the person is losing the argument and trying to distract (red herring) from the fact they're losing by trying to force you to argue against yourself. They run the risk of making themselves sound like they have comprehension problems, but it's worth it to them. They understand you just fine. While you're busy dismantling the strawman they are regrouping and trying to find a more successful argument. I personally try to make people pay for this strategy, politically, by pointing out that they misunderstood, and quickly going back on offense instead of getting stuck playing defense where either they can win by perception or force a draw.
That's the essence of the problem and its a real issue having to with human nature and the need to be right in the conversation rather than be truthful. Its very easy to argue in bad faith. I'm dealing with someone like that right now in a very long youtube comment war around the 2020 election.
i cant stand loaded misrepresentations of others....latest experience was: oliver stone's lex friedman interview......that felt like he was reliving 3rd year PoliSci; a personal narrative assigning grievances. so glad lex freidman brought on steve kotkin on the next show to give a less slack narrative. i felt oliver damaged himself.
I would solve this by trying to keep in mind exactly what you are oeiginally arguing. Cause then you can dismantle as many straw men as you want, you just have to check that it relates to what you are saying. It will just in general make the argument easier to deal with, I used to have problems with letting my points slide away from the original argument.
@@jp5568 not the usage of argument in this instance. An argument may be a disagreement between two people with differing views. It is also the presentation of one person's view, an argument for, against, or of 'something'. So two people may agree on a stance, and not be 'argueing' but they can still be presenting an 'argument'.
@@free2radke777 Most of this video seemed like people just talking and him picking it apart as if it was an argument when it wasn't. While I understand that in theory it could be construed as an argument as in a dissent that may challenge an opinion, that's not an actual argument. How you can pick apart a basic exchange of ideas with no real argument and nit pick every detail as if someone attempted to use it in a debate is beyond me. This seems ridiculous and completely out of context on nearly every detail. I found this video very difficult to watch and possibly the most irritating one of his videos I've ever watched.
You can't control how others speak, but you can control how you listen to them. Learning these fallacies are great tools to better your bullshit detector. I learned them in college and it's been five years since then. I love seeing a video like this pop up to remind me of them, so that I can continue keeping a critical ear in topical conversations. Thank you Mr. Beat!
Exactly. I’m autistic and this whole idea of think and listen with logic (probably) comes from my nature. It keeps my mind being fresh and not be tracking in to those bullshit ppl or society trying to sell you… I would say it also keeps you focusing on yourself too 😂
I have to do this too. I was always afraid to call people out on their bullshit because I didn't have anything to back it up with, just a feeling they were BSing. It turns out these were fallacies and now I have a word for it lol.
the most annoying thing is when someone spits out like 6 lies in one comment, it's impossible to correct them all as quickly, so they think they win the argument
a big reason why I believe we need media training for more academics and scientists, no wonder you can't out-talk a flat earther, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Yes it's not necessarily about "winning" an argument every time you engage in discourse, yet when the other person thinks it is there's hardly a way around that It's no secret that not being able to immediately say something when the other person consistently does so makes you appear less trustworthy than them in arguments, and you definitely can't completely refute everything on the spot because you don't know every scientific paper ever written by memory, yet some nutcase conspiracy theorist can continue to spew out argumentative feces like a busted sewer pipe for hours on end,. It's a shame the scientists who agree to engage these people in public discourse are almost always seemingly unaware of this dynamic
I mean, it is true. The dude gives more donations to Democrats and typically his views are more aligned with the left. A quick Google search shows that. He is economically conservative though, obviously, but hence which isn't left, just "left leaning".
We’re very often going to make some sort logical fallacy during unscripted conversation. It’s when people have glaring logical fallacies in their long-standing, pre-meditated arguments that they keep perpetuating that we need to seriously address these fallacies.
The issue with people like Shapiro and Rogan is they state their fallacies as if they are fact and people actually buy it. They just say whatever they want as if it’s fact.
Well, some fallacies are worst than others. Argument from ignorance (saying something is true because it's not been proven false) is probably the one that caused the most harm throughout history, from religious fanaticism to shady medical practices, it is a strangely very effective tool despite being very obvious.
Yeah it's so weird he wouldnt pick a debate to find logical fallacies in. This is just conversation. Everyone shares anecdotes in conversations. And the appeal to authority when Shapiro says "I don't know ask a rabbi?" He's laughing about these religious rules not trying to convince they're correct. This whole thing is so dishonest
Part-to-whole fallacy, just because the author of the video does it, doesn't mean that all people committing all the time Categorize every argument to a fallacy without a well through examination it's a fallacy itself It's a mistake of 1st grade philosophy student does
If we make the assumption that LA isn't one extreme or the other then MrBeat is technically correct. The problem is that saying a city is either way is just a matter of opinion and that people see things from different perspectives. When trying to prove an argument almost always they will exaggerate their point of view so the odds are that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
@@travisransdell5211 In my opinion (and it is quite generalized) is that drugs have had a huge impact on society. It has led to more violence, more mental health issues, more poverty, more homelessness than anything else. I'm not talking about alcohol or marijuana, per se, although it has impacted as well, I'm talking about the harder drugs: heroine, crack, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. First starting with the importing of drugs from South America and Asia and now also being produced and pushed by big pharma. Many cities around the world have been affected this way.
As a math student, I would say making genuine flawless arguments (To prove a statement with mathematical rigor) in daily life is nearly impossible, especially when you are talking about social problems and human nature, cause a lot of the theories in humanities and sociology are all based on certain assumptions of human nature, but in reality, none of them are "well-defined", there are no axioms that we can rely on, and the problem is often way more complex. But you still need to extract useful conclusions from a phenomenon for the world to make a better decision. When we talk about sample, then we need to talk about whether its statistically significant, how small of a sample are we talking about, what's your confidence level etc. I think learning to spot fallacies prevent you from blindly believing in any arguments made, and allow you to acquire knowledge better, but if you are making an argument, especially regarding malleable subjects, being too rigorous would be hard for you to make any arguments at all.
Yeah, I could only make it halfway through this video because so much of what he was calling out just kept hitting me as "wait, so you expect me to be 100% rigorous when I'm chatting with friends?" I could respect a callout video analyzing one of Shapiro's invited speeches, for instance. But the environment of this chat he's having with Rogan just comes off as pedantic even if Mr. Beat has kindof a point part of the time.
And sometimes it’s just 2 people having a conversation -- telling a story, which triggers another story to tell, etc. -- not all conversations are debates. I really enjoyed this video, though, and will definitely educated myself on all of the fallacies so I can spot them
Pretty sure this whole thread is an infestation of logical fallacies (not sure which though 😅). But yes, I would say it's at the very least reasonable to expect two speakers on one of most watched podcasts in the world to try and be more familiar about the facts and succumbing less to logical fallacies on the topics they talk about - especially when they talk about important topics like the ones in this video...
The real problem with logical fallacies is that even if you learn the most used ones and know how to explain that it’s not a good argument the other side can continue to use fallacies and veil their argument in a way where you can’t get any actual meaningful points in cause you are too busy dealing with and refuting their poor argument
Once you hear about the fallacy fallacy you realize that this whole talk about fallacies is pointless. The fact that this is talked about in philosophy class, arguably the most useless of them all it clear why nobody cares. In many cases I came to the conclusion that many things are consideres fallacies not because they are practically wrong but because they, or their final results might be morally wrong and in a factual discussion I couldnt care less about ethics. If you ask me its just one big sheme for smug philosophers to silence any opposition that isnt part of their game. And dont even try to claim this is a fallacy because your example pretty much confirms my point.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 it's not useless, something might be true but we need to avoid fallacies because then we wouldn't have the right explanation. For example if I said that oil is floats in water because it starts with the letter o and o comes before w, I'd be saying the true, oil does float on water but my explanation is wrong
Learning how to spot logical fallacies helps us detect when a person is giving us wrong information. I'm not good at argumentation, it takes me too long to process what I hear. But this skill is really valuable when I hear someone speak, or read an opinion article, and I can tell how honest and accurate the speaker is in what they are saying.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 just because something is viewed through a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect. I get your point, but I don't think we should forgo talking about fallacies at all just because of that.
@@GaryKlineCA The problem with it is that people will argue your point is a fallacy rather than actually prove you wrong. I work in a job where I deal with criminal activity is up. I can say the city is becoming trash. In a casual conversation I am not going to compile the statistics. I know it exists I've seen the numbers in a broad conversation all I've ever seen people use fallacy arguments for is to shut down discussion because people don't walk around with fact sheets.
There should be a course in late primary schools/grade schools on this topic. People do not think critically about life. Thanks for this amazing video, Mr Beat!
@@you2uber530 Bold of you to assume that atheists cannot lack critical thinking or that all religious people lack critical thinking. That is a logical fallacy.
@@toonyandfriends1915 it always matters if it can be proven or not. You can’t just consider something that could be or likely is false depending on the claim to be true immediately
@@ChildOfGorb if a person says that "in the industry it runs like this" and he uses his experience as an exemple and the experience of other people that he hear happened as an exaIle then it is more likely that what he claimed about the industry is more true than false. If it is true that it is more likely true than false, then it means that it is evidence. Again it depends on the claim and the anecdotes.
While I'm a fan of everyone exercising critical thinking, I wished you would have added a section on formal vs informal fallacies. The problem with informal fallacies is that they aren't automatically wrong like formal fallacies. Thank you for this video it was very informative and we need more of this.
Karl Lambert, William Ulrich, and Gerald Massey were all formal theorists. Lambert and Ulrich held that all that needed to be said about poor arguments was that they were not formally valid; one did not need ‘fallacy’ as an additional category. Massey held that to show that a fallacy occurred, one would need to demonstrate that poor arguments failed to be formally valid. But, given the asymmetry between valid and invalid arguments, it was not possible to formally prove invalidity. It was from a formalist standpoint, then, that these logicians argued against the very notion of fallacy.
The whole video is ridiculous since Rogan and Shapiro are having a causal discussion, not a debate (where calling out fallacies actually makes sense). If you expect someone to back up every single little point they make on the spot in a casual conversation, you’re an idiot.
@@PaxTubeChannel just because it's a casual conversation doesn't mean it can't be persuasive to the audience. if an audience is being persuaded into a certain belief through logical fallacies, then that's not ideal and i get why mr. beat would try to point it out
Well actually the video is about examples of fallacies, the video is not about hatred to anyone if you think it is. (well it is to hatred to the episode if you care about the logic used in the podcast)
Not really. He's wrong on the very first evaluation. The rubric he's using would make it impossible for anyone to speak colloquially and that's not the point of logical fallacies. Debates would never end based on his numerous miss attributions.
@@saquist When are Rogan or Shapiro speaking colloquially? What they are doing is having a one sided debate, presenting only their side and not letting anyone present the other side. They are trying to persuade people to their point of view.
@@theunintelligentlydesigned4931 What's being presented by Mr. Beat are frequently not even informal fallacies. They are just assertions. He's not presenting the fallacies in the form of 2 premises and the conclusion that is drawn from them. (A+B=C) That's the. The homelessness comment that Mr. Beat tries to offer as an informal fallacy is a perfect example. Joe didn't say all of San Francisco is has homeless on the street. You can't draw a fallacy from what you infer. Fallacies are factually based.
@@saquist You're partially correct. Rogan and Shapiro are making conclusions without presenting their premises, therefore it is impossible for Mr. Beat to point out what is wrong with their P+P=C equation but not all fallacies are fallacies of validity (fallacies of the P+P=C equation). I am going to grant you that Joe didn't say all homeless and therefore that is not a fallacy. Also, "take it up with the Rabbis" is not an appeal to authority. I am not on either side because both sides are making logical fallacies. I would appreciate if you would point out more of Mr. Beat's fallacies. Rogan and Shapiro are making logical fallacies but I am starting to notice the logical fallacies made by Mr. Beat as well.
@@98reivax Seems like we both got this recommended year after it has been released but they are smart. Yes some or even all of the things they say may be wrong, biased and have a specific goal in mind and no actual care for the truth. But you can’t argue that their mind functions better than the average person, not just average Americans. We could philosophise for hours about what it truly means to be smart but it cannot be argued that these men have comprehension skills, knowledge, and general “brain abilities” that are above average.
@@98reivax Just because he isn’t always right or you disagree with his ideas doesn’t mean he’s stupid. I don’t like him much but he is educated and intelligent. Also, being informed ≠ being educated. He is educated, and he’s informed on some things and not so much on others.
Honestly, this joke works better simply and cleanly: "People generalize too much." Add anything else and you're just trying too hard to make sure the person gets the joke, which is the quickest way to ruin any joke.
There’s a big difference between an appeal to authority and simply mentioning people in order to provide examples of people who have the same viewpoint. Appeal to authority is saying, “so and so said this, so it’s true.”
Exactly. Using quotes from someone is not a logical fallacy, in and of itself. Why would we even bother with citations in almost any scientific paper if all of it were a logical fallacy? This guy is far too broad.
@@ivankrushensky I mean that's cool, but that's not what he said. He explained the fallacious use of invoking authority, and did not say that invoking authority is inherently fallacious, or even that it's fallacious full-stop which would leave room for the implication.
@@QuikVidGuy it's the examples he gives. Shapiro saying "ask a Rabbi" when referring to questions about Judaism.....what's wrong with that? That's not a fallacy. If you want to know why Jewish policies are the way the are, you should probably ask a Rabbi. If you want to know why Catholic policies are the way they are, you should probably ask a Priest.
I would be fine with the poor examples if this were purely about the fallacies. But he seems to be trying to pull Ben down showing he's not as smart or logical as he is given credit for. And further explanation of those fallacies is given. He doesn't, just look at Ben use these fallacies.
Appeal to authority is a little more specific than "so and so said this, so it’s true". The "authority" part is also important, specifically, it relates to falsely believing a statement someone has made because they are perceived to be an authority on the topic. It's more like "so and so said this, and they've got experience in the field, so it's true". Or alternatively, "I think this, and I've got experience in the field, so it's true". I'm guilty of this from time to time. I'm an Astrophysicist, and sometimes overstate my knowledge and experience when trying to strengthen an argument I'm making to friends, family or even colleagues. The fact is, sometimes I'm wrong, or sometimes I try to talk about things I really don't know much about, but my status alone might convince someone that I do know know what I'm talking about. I try to prevent it as much as I can, but I sometimes slip up because I'm human.
As a college teacher, I tried to teach a unit on these very fallacies, and I found out that most of the students just didn't care about such things. After three successive classes, I removed the unit from my classes, giving in to the student evaluation pressure all college teachers struggle with ( unless one has tenure).
Because you're placing your topics in a bad context. If you want to discuss logical fallacies show videos analyzing arguments and debates, not podcasts where people have open minds and explore ideas. It's not a bad idea to teach this, you just are using the wrong medium. Explore like a Suits episode or something
I had to take a class in Logic in college. It was a requirement. I even was introduced to fallacies in high school. Maybe it should be taught in high school.
Although I don't know enough about your example to speak to it, I have to wonder if there was something else going on such as: Were you at a religious school? You say unit, do you mean less than an hour to cover the whole subject? Were you ignoring how logic fallacies apply to the issues that those students would be interested in? I loved learning about logic fallacies because I learned how they apply to my life but if they didn't apply to my life, I'd probably find them boring as well.
@@hidude1354 All of Joe Rogan's podcasts episodes involve some form argument analysis and debates. Being on a light-hearted, casual podcast doesn't exonerate you from making logical fallacies.
I would greatly implore anyone interested in logical argument to take a discrete mathematics or proofs class. People say they hate it but I genuinely think it’s some of the most fascinating framing of daily concepts.
The whole class involves logical thinking and teaches you how to construct argumentative proofs. Very applicable skills in everyday life. I know CS and philosophy majors who take the class to improve their logical thinking.
having a fallacious argument simply means that it is invalid. i could say “you shouldn’t eat mcdonalds because fat people eat mcdonalds.” this argument is obviously fallacious, as you can tell. therefore my argument is incorrect. however, there certainly is a causation that is becoming fat and eating mcdonalds. so my intention may be correct, and my argument can still be false. both characteristics can coexist
@@abhiklovesbadbitches not necessarily. for example, if your argument uses an ad hominem attack that is used in parallel with your main argument, i.e. it is not a step in the deductive reasoning for your main argument, it does not invalidate your argument. also, if i remember correctly, the fallacy fallacy also refers to the opposing party believing the conclusion of the other party's argument is false because their argument was fallacious. for example, in the evaluation of the limit as x approaches zero of sin(x)/x, if one uses l'hopital's rule (a rule that states that the limit of an indeterminate form of type 0/0 or inf/inf is equal to the derivative of the numerator over the derivative of the denominator) in order to yield cos(x)/1, yielding the answer 1, then that is technically circular reasoning, because that limit is used in order to evaluate the derivative of sin(x). however, this does not mean that the limit is not equal to 1.
@@hmmmmmmmmmm6868 im sorry if youre not trolling but english is my second language and i dropped maths in high school and my adhd mind is really struggling to read through your comment. can you please explain in simpler terms
@@hmmmmmmmmmm6868 “the fallacy fallacy is also the opponent believing the conclusion…” yes but does the argument itself not become invalid if you use a fallacy? the _idea_ may still be true, but within the vacuum of a debate, the argument must be deemed false.
Years ago I was arguing with a stranger in a pub (content doesn't matter). We were both drunk, me more than him, and I refuted his point but wasn't sober enough to recall the correct words to use, and he laughed and said he'd proved me wrong. I said "just because I'm too drunk to explain properly doesn't mean I'm wrong", and you know what? To his credit, he agreed with me and apologised. Huge respect!
I got 5 min in and had to stop. So far it's not even arguments being made so much as its just 2 people thinking out loud. This isn't a debate it's a conversation. And that's not an either or fallacy. That's just a fact of the matter.
@@BarbaPamino Why does it matter if it’s an informal conversation vs moderated debate? They’re still voicing their opinions to millions of people and supporting them poorly.
@@someoneelse4811 th-cam.com/video/LavCogrjPJQ/w-d-xo.html Steven Crowder's interview with Alex Jones has 1.2 million views, while this video of Mr Beat has only 0.2 million - the dumb always far outnumber everyone else - anecdotal evidence will remain mainstream
I actually learnt a lot about what fallacies and dichotomies are from this one video. Thank you Mr. Beat. It is also crazy how Joe and Ben are able to spit this many kinds of fallacies. It’s crazy
For someone who is so afraid of unionization and requires employees to go through detectors anytime they leave the building, it's hard to vision such a person as "left-leaning". Perhaps, they're referring to his man-hood. After all, I always wondered what that Arrow in the Amazon Logo represented ;)
Maybe the biggest lesson I took from this video is that it's enormously difficult to be truly _certain_ about pretty much anything except the most simplistic arguments.
I disagree. I have been learning about these fallacies for a while and now every time I hear a bad argument at least I can tell right away it's a bad one. It might take me a while to dissect and point out what fallacy was committed, but at least I have developed a basic "smell test" that's relatively unbiased. I think, and I hope, with time, the general population too can learn how to tell bad arguments from good ones.
@@sushivision he said certain. Unless you are talking about maths, fallacies will appear having political discussions. You can't make absolutely flawless arguments There is even a whole school of philosophy about breaking arguments. You can make them better and better, but it also won't mean you are correct, just more logically solid. They were even hired as lawyers, imagine Are good lawyers always correct? Or do they make solid arguments? Certainty =/= solid logic My english is not the best, sorry about that btw
It's probably worth stating that some fallacies are worse than others. Most of the fallacies in this video are informal fallacies and, as such, identifying them is somewhat subjective. I also thought it was interesting that people were saying in the comments, "You can't critique their comments because they were just having a conversation, not a debate." That doesn't matter at all. If people are making statements about what is real and what is true, then it's possible for them to make logical fallacies in those statements. And, if they do so, that undermines the validity of what they are saying, although what they are saying may still be true regardless.
Thats why the only ones that really come up are the ad homs and appeal to authority. However if you couldnt use anecdotes to argue you wouldnt have many arguments so yeah they all are not equal.
Agreed all of these so-called logical fallacies involve some of the least intellectual conversation that I've ever heard been involved in and he's not reporting to be some expert on most of this stuff
Well I'm not Joe Rogan and I live in Chicago and I haven't seen any tent cities until the last 7 years I've been to Portland Oregon life engine New York City I've been to San Francisco I've been all over the west coast and all over the east coast and like I said based in my travel thus far I haven't seen any big tent cities I seen homeless encampments but they're usually cardboard boxes and shanties and they're usually under an overpass or under some road that has a lower section like lower Wacker drive in Chicago where a lot of homeless people hang out because it protects you from certain elements like rain and snow I live in Chicago for 20 years and never saw any tent cities maybe they were being erected in every place that I wasn't at the time and then they were torn down when I went to those locations could be but why would you make this argument it's a fact that 10 cities have become a much bigger deal in the last several years and that's what he's basically saying and he didn't see me before that's his experience why is that a logical fallacy
When he comments on the human feces all over the streets of the two biggest cities in California do you think he's out of line and engaging in logical fallacy I've been all over California my whole life and never saw human feces save on a few occasions when it was probably one of my friends who had to take a dump
A potential "problem" with pointing out all these logical fallacies is the assumption that they're trying to convince you with pure logic, rather than just stating their or other people's beliefs and making some logical arguments based on those. That being said, it's important TO point out that that is effectively what they and many others are often doing, and that thus some amount of trust on your part is required for you to believe them and be logically convinced.
Excellent point!! This wasn't a formal debate or a testimony in court, more it was an informal conversation that used a lot of hyperbole and black and white to make points and keep it somewhat light.
Yes, this video is absurd. They're not writing a scientific paper or trying to prove any points, they're having a conversation. If people had to avoid using ANY "fallacies" then we might as well not speak, because we'd be nothing more than robots. "The sky is blue! Yes, it is blue. I just consumed food. I consumed food as well! ... part of what makes humans, humans is our ability to reason and speak in more than plain facts, and this guy just doesn't seem to get that.
Shapiro and his company the daily wire are progandad arms for the GOP. It's never the case that he doesn't tow the party line. He doesn't deserve that level of understanding
I understand that the standards are different when you're in casual conversation, and we shouldn't expect people to act like logical computers. Virtually every rhetorical technique is a logical fallacy. All of us naturally think in fallacies. That's exactly why we should be measured and skeptical when we hear these two men speak, and we should be aware of the techniques they're using to organize their ideas and communicate. I totally disagree that this kind of conversation is just innocuous bullshitting and it's mostly inconsequential. Their ideas and their justifications for those ideas are largely the same, whether you're using a casual tone or a formal tone. These are Ben Shapiro's real beliefs, and those are his real justifications. It's not like his rationale meaningfully changes when he's putting them in an essay. He makes the exact same arguments on the debate stage. If anything, people are more sincere and real in a conversation like this than in a rehearsed argument.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Those examples you gave avoid logical fallacies by simply having no attempts at logic whatsoever. They are simply statements you believe or disbelieve, even MORESO than what happened in the interview, so _perhaps_ it is not the best example of the alternative. That being said, there's not much you can say with PURE logic, certainly not about the world in a way that requires no trust on the part of your listener unless _you,_ as the speaker, trust that you know what you're listener is directly observing.
I took a 300-level philosophy class in college about logic. There are a surprising number of different types of logics, and I can't name any of them. Logical fallacies were in the 100-class.
100 level logic is more than most people have had or would care to have. Knowing what you don’t know and that emotion is different from intellect aren’t generally considered common sense.
i know this isnt really a comedy channel, but the dry, awkward humor mixed with the incredibly dead pan average guy is just so good, these videos are genuinely hilarious while still being an education-oriented presented channel!
7:39 the loaded question 12:57 tu quoque 13:58 whataboutism 14:23 genetic fallacy 20:01 hasty generalizations 22:03 personal incredulity 26:27 appeal to nature
@@Steerable6827 Mr. Beats seems to be mistaking colloquialisms as statements of truth and false. Fallacies are based on mathematical syllogisms. There must be 3 parts. Two parts to add and a conclusion A+B=C A= All creatures die B= You are a man C= Therefore, you will die. What Mr. Beats is doing is taking the last part. (C) "You will die" and attempting to evaluate an expression. (The difference between a mathematical expression and equation is one you can solve and the other you can only simplify)
@@luna_moth And I can say that you’re using an either or fallacy right now with stating he’s a logical dude at all. All of us share logical fallacies and I don’t believe it makes sense to dismiss and analyze every statement through these lenses because at the end you will be left with no one talking.
@@orikiz Shapiro is a public figure who has a big audience and who is actively causing harm to innocent people who are lgbtqia+, who are women, who are pro-choice, pro-democracy, pro-voting rights, anti-racist, etc. His bad takes show that he is not a logical dude as he repeats the same falsehoods wherever he goes. There are plenty of people out there that don't make bad arguments in bad faith, so there will be plenty of people who are left talking. No ONE is expecting perfection, but people do expect being a humble, decent human being, who doesn't perpetuate ideologies that get people killed.
Ideologies which get people killed? Isn't pro-choice an ideology which gets people killed, 4000 American babies per day. Also someone isn't illogical because you disagree with their takes, left wing beliefs are one side of a two sided coin, you should be more open minded instead of ostracizing the entire right-wing which is half of your country.
@@BrigsComics You don't have to agree but then you shouldn't support ideologies that seek to actively harm them either. We know rhetoric invites violence as seen by Trump's incitement of J6. Spread enough messages about LGBTQIA+ people being a menace to society, and someone somewhere will take action against innocent people.
@@aorihanazari524 you can make the same argument against Biden and Harris for saying Trump is a threat to democracy. Are they responsible for the assassination attempts? Works both ways
I love being able to watch anyone with any beliefs and still be able to spot biases and logical fallacies. Makes it easy to not fall into political tribalism that’s so common these days.
That's more important for me than any political affiliation or preference. Being smart and cool headed is more important than supporting anyone. Learning is more important than simply being right (or left lol).
Ah yes the appeal to Im a centrist so im more righteous anyone else fallacy. Its almost like atheist leftists are the worst. After all theres realistically no such thing as a morally correct leftist especially a religious one they dont exist and by religious i meant can only apply to christianity. Atheist existence fallacy!
after watching this video, I decided to never speak again. My girlfriend broke up with me first. Then my friends stopped calling & texting me one by one. My mother trashed my stuff at home and asked me to leave. My father ,who doesn't speak with me at all, started to complain about my silence. Yet, I am more content and peaceful than ever. I don't commit fallacies anymore and I'm always perfectly faultless when I speak, which is never.
It's about time someone addressed the abundance of logical fallacies in conversations like these that pretend to be scientific and rational. They're riddled with them. The human mind is a constant battleground between rationality and emotion and I think that fact should be more widely known, understood and accepted so we can all make a mutual conscious effort to be more logically sound when having these kinds of discussions, especially ones on platforms that reach so many people.
If the past decade taught me anything, it's that the people who assert the loudest they are "rational" and only care about "logic" they're often the most irrational and emotionally motivated people out there. I watched the 'skeptic' community turn into a herd of bleating anti-sjws and it just went to show how thin the veneer was.
@@matthewbadley5063 I agree. I used to be like that so I know how tempting it is to try and use logic to justify your emotional viewpoint. It makes you feel more certain and righteous in what you want to believe but it only leads to obfuscation, confusion and the proliferation of bad ideas and/or bad ways of thinking. I think logic is best viewed as a tool rather than an inherent virtue that can be used for both good and bad purposes and also as a skill that requires constant practice to stay competent at.
Yeah, it's ok to have _some_ logical fallacies as they can be unavoidable. I mean, I had probably at least three in _this_ video. But 58 in an hour and a half conversation is intense.
I also think Ben Shapiro debating college kids and calling it a destruction on his TH-cam channel is kinda disingenuous he’s a trained media figure of course he’s gonna win against the college student who’s never had that. Debate isn’t bad but I wish he would debate people on his level instead of eager 19 year olds
@@samstuff8554 he does debate alot of high profilers tho... its just few "dare" to.. (or w/e u wanna all it) - he asked AOC for example, but she called that misogynistic or oppressive or something.. akin to catcalling i think was the phrase... love how he dismantled Cenk Uygur for example, or other political opponents on various stages and interviews etc.. and its not just collage kids who come fourth and ask QnAs some professors and pundits and what have you come up too... and dont discount collage kids man they can be pretty insightful.. (especially as they often cite the people more "on shapiros level" etc)
Whenever someone says "they said" you always, ALWAYS need to stop and ask who "they" are, if it is true that "they" said anything of the sort, and what the *context* was. Context is so key.
As long as you’re careful about Schrodinger’s Douchebag situations where the “context” was added after the statement was made in order to change the meaning.
fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean their point is invalid. "Oh, you used ad hominem and called me evil, therefore your idea is crap."
It is not a cheat code but a tool to think and argue logically.. And it's not a new thing either, but a very old approach to insightful conversations and discussions. It only seems new because so-called American "intellectualism" is on an all time low. I mean check it out. All these youtube intellectuals are ridiculous dudes with ridiculously simple approaches. They are placed there, giving the uneducated mass of young people the feeling that they are thinking big. McDonalds for the brain.
The first 'fallacy' wasn't a fallacy. It was more of a deflection. He doesn't care about the first comment and he was simply moving the conversation forward. Sometimes what's considered a fallacy is just an individual's gut response rather than an attempt at logic.
Even a gut response is still a mental process. It's true that he was deflecting, but he made a statement, and when that statement was shown to be weak, he switched gears to try to protect himself: "I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me / That's above my pay grade / I couldn't possibly know that". Any way you go about it, he's still applying poor logic to the situation.
@@Mike-kc5ew Agreed. He isn't applying good logic. I just don't think he committed a fallacy. Hosts have to move the process along. The process has to go quickly. I'm not trying to defend him. I dislike this guy. I just don't see a fallacy there.
@@daxreyna5539 I have to agree. He was just stating a fact in the form of, "X practices Y per their belief". Yet he wasn't actually arguing the validity of practicing Y, instead saying, "Go ask X" if one were to seek insight into why that practice was performed like it was. Also, there is ANOTHER reason why this isn't a formal fallacy, or "logical" fallacy, as it's called in the video... The "appeal to authority" fallacy occurs when someone of credibility is said to confirm one's argument despite the credibility of that person being irrelevant to the argument. "You need to do X to invest your money wisely, my friend who is a doctor does that". Practicing medicine is irrelevant to being an investment advisor. Hence, that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. However, in the vid they are discussing kosher practices, a subject that directly applies to the knowledge of a rabbi, so a rabbi's credibility is completely relevant in this case. So the "appeal to authority" doesn't apply here. It would be no different than saying, "They use staples instead of stitches at hospitals nowadays. I don't know why. Ask a doctor." A doctor is a credible source to direct the question of the practice of using staples, so it's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Sometimes fallacies are tricky to spot and other times legit statements can be mistaken for a fallacy.
@@Mike-kc5ew it's not "poor logic". It's simply backpaddling. Nothing about the logic is inconsluive or weak. He weakens his own point by saying thst he doesn't know if its still the case now and basically just argues that he simply uses the food based on the way that the Rabis define it to be right. This is weak in the sense that its just a description of the person preference, but there is no objective claim and hence also no logical weaknesses.
It wasn't even an appeal to authority at all. Video author missed the point. Shapiro wasn't saying "it must be the most humane way because the rabbis say so", he was saying "I'm not going to defend the logic of the rule that hard, discuss the logic with the people that made the rule".
10:00 yeah I saw someone else say this but this is a double, correlation =/= causation fallacy too. Couples that live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced because they are less likely to be religious, and religious people are less likely to get divorced, not because they're better partners, but because of their perspective on marriage as a sacred act.
The “Fallacy fallacy” is a great. You may be commuting a logical fallacy every time you speak unless you cite a meta analysis after. Even then you may be committing some sort of appeal to authority fallacy because often times empirical data is flat out unreliable due to methodology, etc.
The fallacy fallacy only really applies when you're utilising calling out logical fallacies as your only means of debate. Calling out a fallacy should only really be used when the entire argument hinges on a fallacy, not just because someone happens to commit one.
Logical fallacies are why I generally avoid debates. I'm usually very aware of when I have made, or am about to make a logical fallacy, which makes arguing my own points an exercise in carefully navigating a minefield of potential fallacies. And compounding on that, I struggle to quickly point out when the people I'm in debate with make logical fallacies, and often they're unwilling to accept they've made fallacious arguments, which makes the debate almost meaningless. In my personal experience, few of Joe's arguments are without logical fallacies. He doesn't seem to have a very robust approach to making arguments. If I had to guess why, I'd guess it's because he just isn't aware of it - he doesn't know or think to criticise his own arguments as he makes them. Shapiro seems to be much more intentional with his fallacies. He's quick to point out fallacies in other people's logic when it suits his platform, but is also quick to throw in as many fallacies of his own as he can, to give his arguments more 'weight' to the untrained ear. For all public discourse, especially in the realm of politics, I wish there was a sort of peer-review stage where public figures have to acknowledge when they've employed false logic to argue a point. I think it would help to educate the public on logical fallacies, and most importantly, hold people in power accountable for the words they use. If they've made a false claim or employed false logic, they should have to acknowledge it publicly.
Just because someone uses lots of fallacies, especially off-the-cuff, doesn't make them "intentional". People typically give themselves and their arguments the benefit of the doubt, using a self-serving bias that makes it very easy to spot the fallacies of others and difficult to spot in themselves. _However..._ you're still probably right in that his bad arguments are intentional. I have seen Ben make bad arguments many times, get corrected, concede that they were bad arguments, and then build upon them as if he hadn't conceded. It's like as if he can spot the errors when pointed out to him, but _he just doesn't care_ because he knows that his audience will also not notice or care, though they will see him concede arguments verbally and think this makes him reasonable.
@@mihailmilev9909 I've tried, but... TH-cam can be tricky. I watch and comment on his videos from time to time, but my comments will repeatedly get reported by people who like his videos. They get re-instated after an admin has looked over them and realized that I wasn't breaking any rules, but by that point (days later), my comments are old and don't get noticed anymore. It's not fair, but it's the system we've got whether we like it or not.
"I just wanted to show you how two smart entertaining people can be guilty of a lot of logical fallacies in just an hour and a half of conversation." And a great job you did! I think you nailed the appropriate tone (respectful, inquisitive, constructive, instructive). Which is refreshing on a topic often lacking those things.
@@Old_Man_Fire It's important to realize that smart people are just as capable of making mistakes as everyone else. (It's not healthy/productive for you to hold that standard to yourself either). Joe Rogan is not a 'manufactured' celebrity like the kardashians or whatever; dude has nearly the most popular podcast in the world because he is smart and interesting largely on his own merit. That's not a compliment, it's just a fact. Not helpful to pretend otherwise.
lol @@Ruby_V_ you haven't answered my question, all you've done is shown that you're as stupid as Rogan is. the guy literally doesn't understand how homelessness works hahahahahahahahahaha
@J.R.R Tolkien Wittgenstein gives people the tools to avoid conversational traps and fallacies. My point is he's useful to avoid these, and would help people in philosophical discussion. That is not the no true Scotsman fallacy
The problem I have with the "Appeal to authority" fallacy is that it is also called out fallaciously. Flat earthers and climate deniers use these all the time to act like their opinion is more important than the observations of someone who actually studies the field.
It’s because an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the appeal is faulty. Scenario: someone says “I won’t vaccinate my kids because I don’t want them to get autism” You say “vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, if you don’t believe me because I’m just a lay person, Dr X and Y published a paper and spoke on the radio about it” Justified appeal to authority: Dr X is a psychiatrist who specialises in autism and Dr Y is a epidemiologist who specialises in vaccinology and they say “vaccines don’t cause autism, we have reviewed the evidence of the claim and there is no scientific weight to it. There is no scientific weight because…”. This is justified because you are saying I’m right because doctor X and Y are right. And doctor X and Y’s opinions are logically valid because they are experts in the topic. And the person you’re arguing with isn’t an expert and most likely falsely appealing to authority. A fallacy is using invalid, deceptive, flawed, unjustified etc reasonings and using information from a reliable source doesn’t meant that definition. An unjustified appeal to authority (fallacy): Dr X is a disgraced doctor who lost their license from unethical practices, Dr Y has a PhD in clouds they got for £3 and is only a Dr like if you pay some land in Scotland you’re a lord. And they say “vaccines don’t cause autism, check our blog or article we paid £500 to publish in a journal no one’s heard of”. You only trust them and use them in your argument because they’re “doctors”, you are falsely appealing to their status and authority from their title and not because of the validity of their statements. Hope that helps, I had to do fallacies 101 for some uni work a few years ago so I’m mainly leaving this comment to finally put it to some use. ✌️
In my opinion, merely pointing out an "appeal to authority" does not necessarily make the claim fallacious, its just showing what angle a person used to make their assertion more "appealing". As poster above said, now we just have to see whether such expert is true expert or is the expert statement being potrayed correctly or not. I agree that being too anti "appeal to authority" put one on slippery slope of thinking one's ignorantly construed "common sense" carry same weight with expert's expertise.
@@user-eg5kt9fy2j No there is no such thing as a "faulty" appeal to authority. An appeal to authroity is always faulty. Saying vaccines work because Dr X says so is still a appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. An appeal to authority is when you call your argument right, just because an authroity figure says so too. When you say that instead, Vaccines work because look at the evidence that Dr X and Dr Y have presented in this paper, and look at their statements and press releases where they explain how and why. That's just an argument, with evidence that presetned by an authority figure. It is not an appeal to authority or a "faulty" one at that. That's what people need to understand. Look at any reputable philosophical website or group they will not refer to it as a "faulty" appeal, it's just an appeal, it always a logical fallacy.
@@user-eg5kt9fy2j I don't think that's true. The reason appeal to authority is a fallacy is because you can't say just because someone of authority thinks something that that something is true. Doctor X and doctor Y (regardless of their qualifications) thinking something is true doesn't automatically make it true. That's why it's a fallacy. Now many people do call it out as if the person appealing to authority made some kind of mistake, but that's also unnecessary because if you have people who are known to be good at what they do being in support of your argument, chances are you are right - doesn't prove that you are right (it's a logical fallacy after all) but it does put it into perspective. And I highly doubt anyone says it to mean something like: "that person thinks like me therefore I am right" it's more like "that person thinks like me therefore my argument is worthy of consideration." So no, there is no justified appeal to authority, it's never a proving statement, but you absolutely can use it to show that your claim holds some weight regardless of the truth of the claim.
Man I am SO glad youtube recommended this video!! I've been curious about these for a long long time, but I had no idea how to find out more about them.. hell I didn't realize there were so many even! Also the puppets were AWESOME!! Thank you so so much for making this awesome video!!
I think it’s important to acknowledge that most fallacies are just a misuse of valid arguments. For example, the slippery slope argument is valid when applied properly. “If you don’t set your alarm in the morning, you’ll get in trouble at work.” You can call anything a fallacy, but that puts the burden on you as to why that argument isn’t valid.
That's false equivalency. A more accurate representation of slippery slope might be, "If you don't set your alarm in the morning, you'll get fired from your job, lose your apartment, and die on the streets"
I disagree. Logic must be valid and sound. This means the premises must be true and it must follow that the conclusion is true. All of the fallacies are examples of invalid reasoning. And your example of a slippery slope argument is faulty. Slippery slope means jumping to a far off conclusion. Like, “if you don’t set your alarm in the morning, you’ll get fired and never find another job.” It may be the case that that actually happens, but it’s not logical or valid.
Slippery slope fallacy would be more like "If you don't set your alarm in the morning, you'll get in trouble at work, get fired, become homeless, get addicted to heroin..." etc etc. Thats why it is a fallacy.
@@bluejay6595so is that argument not a fallacy if you say “you may get fired for being late” scrubbing the whole homelessness bit, cause I feel like it’s implied experiencing life ,that we don’t know things with concrete fact at any time, so it seems semantics to call out one’s failure to admit the potential miscalculation in their logic when they most likely are already aware of it at some level? I could be talking out my ass so don’t take this as me arguing I’m simply confused on the usefulness of labeling things as fallacies when everyone’s logic is flawed
@@felipegamino Gosh guys, what are you gonna do when your house is about to fucking drown? Sell it to some dude who likes submerged houses! Checkmate LIBBIES
No we don't! My wife told me that I'm too logical so I can't be using logical falacies regularly. No honest intellectual would ever use as many falacies as some right wing nut job. This just goes to show how all conservatives just play with words to get their way. I would never trust such a prominent individual's take on things anyway. They just want the publicity. Is that enough logical falacies in one paragraph? 😄 Yeah. I regularly try to fight them in my own thinking and speech, but it can take years to retrain thought processes and speech patterns. Always keep learning and growing.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 I didn’t see the bottom of that comment. I was wondering if you were serious or not. I was gonna say he couldn’t use the left wings actual nut jobs for examples on this subject because they don’t even use logic 90% of the time.
But Ben is more as prominent and popular than someone as, say, me. Lol he has a duty to at least argue properly if he's trying to get across all these points. If he can't argue properly, what else does he have?
I feel like you're taking conversations they're having about actual events that happened out of context and calling them fallacies. They aren't even arguing or debating. They're just having a conversation amongst themselves.
Great way of explaining logical fallacies and how we recognize each of them! Currently I’m studying for the LSAT and what you layed out in the video glued a lot of pieces together. Great video sir.
@@Dez.B Being bipartisan in the US is definitely right-leaning though. I'd say he's pretty centrist since i'm a leftist and i think he is slightly right-leaning.
@@Syuvinyabipartisan in the us definitely isn’t right leaning in 2024, you are most likely just heavily left leaning and call true centrists right leaning cause they disagree with you
@@iammrbeat not everything is a logical fallacy. People just talking to each other using anecdotes is just having a conversation. Another example is Ben "appealing to authority" talking about it not being his argument. The point of him mentioning them is not an appeal to authority. Instead its a show of his point not being a right wing push for something. This sort of thing is true for a lot of your examples. You're taking them out of context and or saying they're implying something they aren't. Also generally disregarding statistics.
This video is a good example of the appeal to fallacy fallacy, where in which you break down every viewpoint into a fallacy and there in which perceive it as incorrect
@@OscarUnrated Only if you take everything that they say to be "the truth". I really dont know why people put so much pressure on famous peoples words. I always approach their podcast with my own opinions and on make a distinction on what i agree and what i dont. They dont have to be 100% right all the time. But honestly, its the closes thing that we have of a place to share ideas freely. and thats the apealing. you dont have to buy everything that they say.
Exactly. Looks like the "well ackshually" non-STEM sophists didn't think too hard about what they were being taught in their freshman comp class. They are so bereft of critical thinking that they don't realize many fallacies are actually fallacious. Most fallacies are used by authority figures and sophists to shut down dissent and thought, particularly No True Scotsman. People of *that* particular political spectrum that think they're smarter than they are due to "earning" an unempirical joke degree love coining neologisms, engaging in semantics, and assigning labels hoping that it will win them an argument. Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy because the foot in the door phenomenon is a very fucking real, empirically measurable thing. If you ask someone for a little and they give it, then ask for something bigger later, they're way more likely to grant the second request. It's incontrovertibly true that defunding law enforcement will reduce the numbers of law enforcement. It's not a stretch to say it will lead to asking for no police funding. Even if it doesn't, the former is a terrible fucking idea when a single digit percentage of neighborhoods have 50% of the homicides. Even leftwing Socjus meme majors with that whopping 105 above-average IQ know to introduce change gradually as inconspicuously as possible to achieve their goals. If I were an evil autocrat, I'd invoke the slippery slope fallacy as much as possible while I slowly boiled the frog and eroded liberty. Slippery slope is a meme that is most often subjective. If it's emotionally true, it is true in the minds of sophists. No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because it fails to make a distinction between the authority figures of a movement and some fringe lunatic without followers. The FBI and the media loves this shit so they can do entrapment on both black and white radical movements. The black lives matter website literally fucking said that it was dedicated to tearing down the capitalist system from a marxist perspective before they realized it was bad PR. It's No True Scotsman to say the website doesn't count. I could go on, but appeal to fallacy fallacy is almost more common than actual fallacies. To qualify my statement, strawman is a pretty common and legitimate though. 90% of the time all the time it's a subjective accusation like this video. Many commenters have pointed out how there were fallacies used when pointing out the fallacies. So I'll rest my case.
@@picklerix6162 if you talk fast enough, your opponent won’t have enough time to point out where they’re wrong. benny boy just goesalongwiththewordsaladargument He’s probably well aware of what he’s doing, it’s the only thing he’s really got
This was a good overview of fallacies, but I'm wondering why you chose to use a casual conversation. My suspicion for you using this conversation, and feel free to correct me, is because these are 2 highly popular, nfluencial, and somewhat controversial people; and pointing out that they can make fallacies the same as we can would get the most clicks.
@BBonds-f3v I mean the word casual isn't in the description once, but maybe it could be inferred. Nevertheless, he likely picked these two for their propensity to get clicks. 🤷♂️
The annoying thing with a few common fallecies, is that they look pretty similar to actual valid logical ways of thinking, and what makes it a fallecy or not is in the details.
Yeah like appeal to authority for example. “The DSM-5 recognizes depression as a valid mental illness, therefore it is real.” ✅ “The Pope says that depression is the work of the devil and isn’t physically real.” ❌ The Pope is an authority, but can’t speak on this matter because he is not the correct authority for the situation.
The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is like possibly one of the most dangerous fallacies of all. Because of how innate it is, like I’m gonna be honest never heard of it. I’m not a “fallacy guy” but I do know a million ways it applies to related shit. Like people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes, it’s so easy to do by accident. Like say your buddy finally makes a good point about flat earth and you’re curious now, 95 out of 100 people would probably just start looking up flat earth videos or whatever “research” there is. When you should be looking up stuff that disproves flat earth, especially because it’s comically easy to disprove. You can only fall deeper and deeper when you only care about and look for confirmatory information. And basically governs a large amount of how we fall into our worse opinions
Learning about logical fallacies has helped me see them when I’m speaking/writing, which tells me I’m coming from an emotional standpoint or when I’m feeling unsure of myself/low self esteem (which I can then tend to).
This is really a sign of true maturity. Our emotions and biases can lead to bad decisions or beliefs and we need to stop and examine them sometimes. Of course, pure reason can lead to a pretty emotionally barren existence, which is also not so good.
Understanding logic and argument structure I feel is huge for a functioning society. I had the same experience as you when I had to take a logic and reasoning class for my degree. It is ultimately part of the foundation of critical thinking.
I remember 'slippery slope' being brought up in college, and over 20 years it has always bugged me. Of course, the examples in that course were clear absurdities, but in politics, slippery slope is almost always a valid argument because of the incrementalism tactic. Whenever a controversial desired outcome cannot be achieved with a simple piece of legislation, more minor, popular, and incremental changes are written into law with the end goal of achieving the aforementioned outcome. And just to be clear, no negative connotations are intended, as incrementalism is a basic ingredient of change. A lot of advancements in civil rights were the result of decades of incremental steps. To the other side, it was indeed a slippery slope toward something they didn't like.
@@mantaszmenskis5619 Did you read the part where I said no negative connotations are intended? Also, we live in a time where constituencies openly talk about their end goals with an issue on social media, while politicians stop short so as to not rally the other side. Incrementalism a widespread tactic, used by everyone...your allies and your opponents, regardless of who is reading. To deny this is to deny reality. Just to be clear, this is non-partisan. You can insert any modern contentious issue, any side of said issue, and it fits.
@sarysa Very great point! This needs to be pointed out more to avoid falsely labeled good counter arguments as fallacies. A great set of examples today in the USA are the oil production scene and the abortion issue. It’d be lying if either side wanted to levy the slippery slope fallacy at criticism when the ultimate goals are pretty apparent. :P
Slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy when there is assumed to be only one outcome from an action with multiple causal steps. It ignores the other choices/outcomes that could be made along each step which could result in a different outcome. Usually its use is fallacious when not acknowledging the other possible outcomes.
That was not an anecdotal fallacy. Sharing experiences is not a fallacy. It’s a fallacy to come to a conclusion based on your experience. Here, they were just sharing experiences not concluding anything based on those experiences. That is not a fallacy.
@@masterjtk286 I think it's naive to think they came away from that without reciprocating those sentiments. They may not flaunt that anecdote like it's a smoking gun, but it's still informing their beliefs when it probably shouldn't be.
This was a casual conversation not a debate. How would you know if there is not other evidence informing their beliefs? Their beliefs can be based on evidence that went unsaid in casual conversation.
@@masterjtk286 it doesn't matter if it wasn't a debate. It's still a dialogue in which people suggest, propose, argue, or assert ideas, and those ideas can still be wrong. As long as an idea could be flawed, we should generally be pointing the flaws out. Unless you're talking to, like, a dementia patient or something. Also, I never said that there was no evidence supporting the sentiments taken from anecdotes, I'm just pointing out that the anecdotes themselves shouldn't be considered that, to any extent. Which, again, they likely did. And to boot, even if they did not personally come away from those experiences with a new or newly reinforced belief, they're recounting said anecdotes on a podcast, where, get this, other people are listening; people that are even more likely to reciprocate these anecdotes.
@@mildlyinvested2992 Firstly, anecdotes can be evidence. It’s just not strong evidence of broader trends. Secondly, I agree with you that the ideas can be wrong. And if the idea is wrong we should point out the flaws in the idea. Further, the other side should also have an opportunity to point out flaws in your reasoning as well so that an audience can come to the truth. That’s what a debate is for. My point is, even if their ideas are wrong, these anecdotes are not fallacies. The definition of a a fallacy is an error in reasoning rendering an argument invalid. They are not making an argument. They are just sharing experiences. If they were in a debate setting or making an argument… I’m sure they wouldn’t rely on these anecdotes to make their arguments. However, in casual conversation people tell stories all the time, stories help people connect and are useful for many reasons. Every time you tell a story that is not an anecdotal fallacy. It’s only a fallacy if you are heavily relying on it as evidence for an argument or assertion.
@@masterjtk286 I think you're basically right in saying anecdotes can be evidence, but what that statement is missing is that anecdotes can beCOME evidence, but are not evidence on their own. When we look at statistics charting things like how many people have experienced a thing or believe a thing, those are all, individually, anecdotes. It's when they're combined with outside information, in this case other accounts, that they are taken _into_ account. Meanwhile, everything you said about anecdotes and fallacies is true, anecdotes are not fallacies. But the point of contention here is saying that there is not an arguement being made here. Because while I do think that statement is technically true, I think it's shortsighted to act as if it is not impacting people's beliefs. Ben Shapiro is not _arguing_ anything when he gives the anecdote. But he is suggesting something. To think that he is not suggesting something would imply that he is simply offhandedly recounting something he sees as unrelated, and that the conversation is comparable to a couple of buddies kicking it back and chatting aimlessly. But it isn't. Mainly because one of the buddies is a political pundant being interviewed in part about his political views, and the other buddy has one of the largest podcasts ever, along with a similarly large audience (I'd assume). Ben Shapiro is not formally making an argument, and therefore it cannot be declared to be fallacious. But people don't need a formal argument to be swayed or even convinced about something. And it's that convincement that _would_ be fallacious. Now, I'm not arguing that he's slyly inserting suggestive thoughts to lead the audience towards the conclusion he would rather them come to.
a few points to make 1) When Ben Shapiro makes the point about "Martin Luther King believed X", he isn't saying "I'm right, cuz Dr. King". What he's doing is preemptively addressing a common concern that the majority of people have in debates: if all of your sources are from people or institutions that share your own beliefs, it is more likely you will fall victim to confirmation bias and bandwagon fallacy. Today in particular, we are living through a period of severe mistrust and cynicism that keeps people wary of giving attention to any arguments that go against their beliefs. As such, it's a matter of practicality to address not only "this is why I'm right", but also "this is why you should listen to me in the first place". 2) Similarly, the fallacy, as you correctly put it, is appeal to a FAULTY authority. It's not logically fallacious to cite a credible expert on a given topic. It's logically fallacious to either a) put said expert's opinion beyond the pail of criticism or b) cite someone whom people have no reason to believe is an expert in the first place. 3) The point about LA is a technicality that misses the basic point. If ANY part of LA is ridden with tent dwellings overflowing with human feces, that is cause for concern. To clarify what I mean, let's use another example from the left's perspective: the phrase "not all men are rapists" is one that liberals readily brush off for an obvious reason: all men don't need to be rapists for there to be cause for alarm. If even, say, 20% were, then that is a serious issue which the public would reasonably be paying attention to. 4) More informally, while you are technically correct about anecdotal evidence, I think there is something to be said for putting some level of trust in your own observations and trusting your gut. Yes, the ability to use said observations in a debate is more limited, but if we take mistrust of personal observations to it's extreme, what you basically get is gaslighting: trying to sew seeds of doubt in an individual that they, in fact, cannot trust their own recollection of given events (this is seldom the actual intention of the skeptical person, only an illustration of why it's reasonable not to veer to far in that direction). There are a lot of people out there who are very well educated and have debate folders full of evidence on a given topic, yet lack the most common sense abilities of observation that have the effect of locking them away in ivory towers away from an understanding of what most flesh and blood people experience.
@@BaconPizzaWaffles Yeah I know right, this video itself was so full of the fallacies he's claiming to point out, it's as if if he gives a definition and plays footage, there you go. And the sheep lap it up. Breakdown of arguments not necessary, and if he does, full of assertions of fact that aren't, strawmans, appeals to authority/popular opinion, and so on. SHILL DETECTED (even tho Rogan and Shapiro themselves are also controlled opp mason shills too haha just at a different level of gatekeeping)
But he doesn't actually present any evidence to support his points on race ever. Him and his fashie friends just point to King because he's dead so he can't make a video response to contradict them. Dr. King did not agree with Shapiro's perspective, and framing it that way is a appeal to faulty authority because the authority you're appealing to (the legitimacy of Dr King's name) is distorted and invalid.
Referring to an authoritative source is not necessarily a fallacy, it’s the argument from Ethos. It can be fallacious, but assigning it as fallacious simply because they argue from Ethos is fallacious.
Though technically correct (nice use of the word necessarily BTW), I don't believe that he was "...assigning it as fallacious simply because they argue from Ethos...". The cadence of Shapiro's argument seemed to inferred an appeal to authority. To "know" for sure as to if the understanding and judgment is a fallacy or not on Shapiro's behalf, we might need better clarification as to his intent and meaning. But, I think that there's reasonable evidence to suggest that his intent was indeed an appeal to authority fallacy. 🤷♂️ Knowing the content that Shapiro was talking about is pretty helpful too. He misattributed the argument being made by King and the people he name dropped in that section. They actually were ironically arguing specifically against what Shapiro was arguing for. Thus he used them as evidence (their names as authorities and not their arguments) for his own argument.
@@tygon13 i mean he didn't use their names he used their names followed by their arguments. by this logic quoting anyone for any reason is an appeal to authority. also what exactly do you expect in a very lose general chill talk between peoples. its like people on the right are held to this absolute insane standard that if you don't concisely define the entire nature of all past, present and future events throughout the entire galaxy in a single sentence you are a deeply logically flawed person that must be outcast.
@@mayainverse9429 well to be completely Fair, what I expect from even a relaxed conversation is that if you're going to use someone's argument you use their argument rather than literally the exact opposite of their argument... like Shapiro did. 🤷♂️
@@tygon13 what do you mean like shapiro did" shapiro isn't the one doing an ultra hardcore logical analysis of a casual conversation nitpicking every grammatical inefficiency
You were very nitpicky-Thank you for that objective and hilarious acknowledgment 🤣 And it was Glorious! I would come back for more if you felt that there were just more videos like this that were worth pointing out the fallacies for. Good to learn and raise awareness.
Explaining logical fallacies is very important. Everybody falls for them from time to time and many dont see trough them at all. Wouldnt it be a good idea to make this analysis with regular / legacy news channels (Fox / MSNBC) and politicians? This is were most people base their reality on.
I think it's probably only fair to call something a logical fallacy when the conversation would be classified as an argument of some kind. People talking about their experiences isn't necessarily an argument. It's not really genuine or interesting to hold a person to a logical standard when they're just attempting to bond with another person
Exactly. People use generalizations and logic shortcuts to keep conversations flowing. Having to pre-qualify everything you say by negating the absolutes would make a conversation go boring rather quickly
These are stupid comments. Shapiros whole career is to sell fraudulent narratives. He's payed by fossil fuel Barron's to spread these narratives. He's always "on". He's not having a casual conversation with Rogan, He's getting payed by Rogan on a professional level to be on the show so that Shapiro can represent his "ideas". And when Ben is on the show, on a professional level, he spreads horrible and dangerous misinformation that decreases the civil rights of human beings. He deserves NO such good faith from us, that he's "just having a casual conversation". What he does for a living should be fucking illegal.
This reminds me of my friend trying to say I was using a no true Scotsman fallacy. I simply changed my argument to his side, took it to the extreme and claimed I was on his side. Then he said I wasn't really making the argument in good faith and I accused him of making a no true Scotsman fallacy. Proving how easy it is to become an agent provocateur. Which is what the no true Scotsman "fallacy" attempts to point out. By dismissing the capability of people to lie for their own purpose, you open yourself up to manipulation.
Personal experience is not a logical fallacy, it is only when a disproportionate authority is granted to one’s own experience that it becomes fallacious.
Exactly. They are not asserting that their anecdote proves a point. If you say this city is going to hell, that is an opinion. Maybe hyperbolic, but that is obvious. You are not trying to prove that point in a debate. But even if you were, if you said this city sucks. I saw a guy passed out in the gutter in front of my house, that is a perfectly good reason to support your belief that, for you, the city that used to not have that now does and is going to hell. there is no fallacy there. Only if you said, the entire city is overrun by drug addicts because I saw one in front of my house, then it would be a fallacy.
@@matthewreichlin4993 They are absolutely asserting that their personal observations (anecdotal experience) is an argument supporting a position and that's where the fallacy occurs. What one has to face is that we all rely too much on anecdotal experience and that subjective experiences are about the worst metrics for assessing the validity of an argument. You may be being hyperbolic when you say, "LA sucks," but it is a logical fallacy to deduce something about the whole city based on your individual experience of seeing a guy passed out in your gutter (which could happen in a city that was actually functioning quite well).
@@christophercousins184 It can also happen in a city that isn't functioning quite well, and tossing the claim out because it was made by someone you don't like or you don't observe the same thing in your subjective experience is what we call shitlib logic.
@@JungleLoveOeOeO Okay, see, right there! You just committed a logical fallacy! That is what's called an ad hominem attack. Instead of responding with a counter-argument, you just (metaphorically) point your finger at me at say, "You use shitlib logic." I'm assuming you mean I'm a stupid liberal and that is name calling 101. Now for a real counter-argument: I am not tossing out a claim based on my feelings about a person, I am saying they have not supported their claim because all they have to offer for evidence is anecdotal experience. And, yes, it because I have not observed what the claimant has observed, that the claimant has to provide some sort of evidence to support his claim that the city is getting worse (i.e., some data or stats). Really, it's not that complicated. Okay, standing by for the next logical fallacy, let 'er rip!
A bunch of these could've been avoided by Joe or Ben steering clear of absolutes or specifying "sometimes" or "for the most part" before making a point. I can see how this is dangerous and I could see how it'd be better if they did that.
Yep. Over generalizing and authority i suspect are the most common kinds of fallacies today. By appending "sometimes" it goes from an over generalization to just a generalization.
Yes but “sometimes” and “most of the time” don’t narrow anything down either. For example, sometimes can mean 1% of the time to 49% of the time. Also, many statements that are being critiqued and tested for logical fallacies are opinions in this video, they aren’t citing statistics.
@@limes-x6l yea it seemed kind of lazy that he called their stories and opinions anecdotal fallacies. Every individual story or experience is anecdotal. If this podcast episode was titled “California is a shit hole” then maybe it would be more justified but they were stating reasons they didn’t like California/bad experiences they’ve had. Regardless of how lazy calling their stories anecdotal fallacies is, they are actually all really good firsthand accounts of what happens in bigger cities that have poor legislation regarding the homeless (the su bject matter of Ben and Joe’s conversation). If you’ve been to LA or San Diego you have likely seen some of this wacky stuff and can agree that California is on a decline.
There's also the fallacy fallacy, just because an argument has 1 or more fallacies it doesn't mean that the argument is false or incorrect. (maybe it was mentioned in the video but I didn't notice it)
yeah, but it's by coincidence, not by merit of the argument, i.e. "all dolphins are mammals; Lord is a mammal; therefore, Lord is a dolphin" is a logical fallacy and yet it can very well be true, Lord can very well be a dolphin regardless of the argument made hence making it true not on the merit of the argument but despite the argument, by sheer coincidence. We're talking about logic here (which ironically that fallacy is also called argument to logic, or bad reasons fallacy). The error is in assuming that just because there's a fallacy the conclusion can't be independently true, by coincidence. And yes, it does mean that the argument is false or incorrect, just does not mean that the conclusion has to be false because of it.
@@DDanV And that's a really massive point that *needs* to be brought up. A fallacy does not make an argument inherently wrong. It doesn't even inherently make the reasoning wrong. But people throw out fallacies like it is some sort of gotcha, when in reality the truth of the matter is more complex than that.
Thanks for this comment. The fallacy of fallacies is my favorite fallacy. Even if an argument is fallacious, the conclusion isn't necessarily wrong. I like to think that fallacies are more of an alert to be on guard than they are absolute disproofs of the speaker's conclusions.
Logical Fallacy could be a course since there is such wide variety of types. From my own life experience there are two type of people: those who are constrained to truth and facts and often lose arguments and those who only care about winning an argument and never let the facts get in their way.
@@entertainedsheep7668 your knowledge of logical fallacies have been informed by a single source - Mr. Beat - so I’m afraid you’ve fallen to the “appeal to authority fallacy”
@@richardvilla2303 every video I go to I hear the same shitty comments. Go to a video about trump and Nancy Pelosi. They whole comment section talks about mike pence. I’m tired of these unoriginal comments.
theres the fallacy fallacy in which we deem a statement or reasoning as fallacious just because it seem to appeal to one of the fallacies. Remember logic does not determine truth, but helps us to reach truth based on sound reasoning if certain criteria are met.
Well yeah. That's kinda his job. Breaking down complex things into simple ideas that most people can understand. Yea its right leaning but at least he's open about it.
@@vortexcascade8488 to call it a lean is comical its a hard right turn im moderate conservative on most social issues but listening to ben shapiro talk and misrepresent things was extremely jarring considering his following
@@jorgenoname6062 I disagree. His pretty much a milk toast conservative with some libertarian values. I disagree with many of his points but still there's nothing radical about him. He runs a conservative news site and is open about it no duh its gonna have a twist in the news thats his job.
What do you mean by Joe Rogan? It makes it sound like Joe Rogan is a hyper genius but idk he’s probably a similar intelligence level as Ben. Joes mostly just a chill dude. The issue with Ben is even though he’s plenty smart his apparent confidence is fucking absurd. I have no sympathy for Ben and think he’s mostly a clown but I think I can admit personally he’s not like literally stupid. He’s bad that’s what I think he is, just a generally bad dude
@@monhi64 You don't have to like Shapiro, but he's one of the most influential ppl in politics and graduated top of Harvard Law at 22....lol - "Dunning-Kruger". So obnoxious.
You say that but Ben Shapiro is a literal genius or at least close in terms of IQ. I'm not a fan of him but I'm saying that your just a dude on the internet you're not Einstein.
Scroll down for some more logical fallacies. :)
Subscribe for more puppets! th-cam.com/channels/CC38u45KCmNDe9X4ozxqlA.html
Also, what do you think of the video? Was I too hard on Rogan and Shapiro?
For the record, I struggle with being logical. The logical fallacies I am most guilty of are the strawman fallacy and the hasty generalization fallacy. Which ones are you guilty of the most?
Edit: I'm getting a lot of comments that they were just having a "casual conversation," so therefore we shouldn't call them out for making logical fallacies.
Two responses to this:
1) It's not a casual, informal conversation when it's broadcast to tens of millions of people
2) Logical fallacies are not just made in debates. Any time someone makes any claim, they can make a logical fallacy.
Henlo
H
@@adamsrankings8860 h
ok
I like slay vampires and pickles
When my logic and philosophy teacher first told us about fallacies, he gave us a paper with 15 fallacies and their definitions, and went about his day. Our class was discussion based, but from then on, he called out every fallacy he heard us commit, *every single one*, until eventually, out of annoyance, we tried our hardest to not commit them when having a discussion.
I'd love to have a teacher like that
That's a good exercise.
It sounds like your teacher needs to learn about the fallacy fallacy
Baller move
@@guyferrari8124This shit is old. The fallacy fallacy means that concluding an argument is false because it has logical fallacies. Meaning, if someone has a logical argument fallacy, dont see them as wrong, just see them as flawed.
Here, ill teach you since you probably heard this from someone who doesn't know how to argue.
Premise 1: If the street is wet, its raining
Premise 2: the street is wet
Conclusion: its raining.
Premise 1 and 2 are inconsistent, but it could still be raining so we shouldn't assume this argument is wrong because that would be a fallacy fallacy. We just see the argument as flawed and illogical.
The straw man fallacy is the one I have the hardest dealing with. I usually have discussions and debates in good faith, and then when I get hit with straw mans I spend all my time breaking them apart, only to be hit by other straw men. And then I'll realize we're on a completely different topic that's miles away from my original argument
That seems to me to be a form of Gish Gallop.
Yup. I can relate to this. The problem is that strawmen are often set up as attention diverters. It often means the person is losing the argument and trying to distract (red herring) from the fact they're losing by trying to force you to argue against yourself. They run the risk of making themselves sound like they have comprehension problems, but it's worth it to them. They understand you just fine. While you're busy dismantling the strawman they are regrouping and trying to find a more successful argument. I personally try to make people pay for this strategy, politically, by pointing out that they misunderstood, and quickly going back on offense instead of getting stuck playing defense where either they can win by perception or force a draw.
That's the essence of the problem and its a real issue having to with human nature and the need to be right in the conversation rather than be truthful. Its very easy to argue in bad faith. I'm dealing with someone like that right now in a very long youtube comment war around the 2020 election.
i cant stand loaded misrepresentations of others....latest experience was: oliver stone's lex friedman interview......that felt like he was reliving 3rd year PoliSci; a personal narrative assigning grievances. so glad lex freidman brought on steve kotkin on the next show to give a less slack narrative.
i felt oliver damaged himself.
I would solve this by trying to keep in mind exactly what you are oeiginally arguing. Cause then you can dismantle as many straw men as you want, you just have to check that it relates to what you are saying. It will just in general make the argument easier to deal with, I used to have problems with letting my points slide away from the original argument.
Me: “Wow, is everything a fallacy?”
Mr Beat: “That’s an existential fallacy.”
If you take one logic class you will realize most people do not make sound argumants
But it should be noted that not everyone is trying to make an argument. Sometimes they are just talking
@@free2radke777 ya it seems Joe and Ben are having a conversation moreso than arguments
@@jp5568 not the usage of argument in this instance. An argument may be a disagreement between two people with differing views.
It is also the presentation of one person's view, an argument for, against, or of 'something'.
So two people may agree on a stance, and not be 'argueing' but they can still be presenting an 'argument'.
@@free2radke777 Most of this video seemed like people just talking and him picking it apart as if it was an argument when it wasn't. While I understand that in theory it could be construed as an argument as in a dissent that may challenge an opinion, that's not an actual argument. How you can pick apart a basic exchange of ideas with no real argument and nit pick every detail as if someone attempted to use it in a debate is beyond me. This seems ridiculous and completely out of context on nearly every detail. I found this video very difficult to watch and possibly the most irritating one of his videos I've ever watched.
You can't control how others speak, but you can control how you listen to them. Learning these fallacies are great tools to better your bullshit detector. I learned them in college and it's been five years since then. I love seeing a video like this pop up to remind me of them, so that I can continue keeping a critical ear in topical conversations. Thank you Mr. Beat!
Exactly. I’m autistic and this whole idea of think and listen with logic (probably) comes from my nature. It keeps my mind being fresh and not be tracking in to those bullshit ppl or society trying to sell you… I would say it also keeps you focusing on yourself too 😂
@@MovieBuffer9000 this comment sounds like an ad read i was half expecting a product
I have to do this too. I was always afraid to call people out on their bullshit because I didn't have anything to back it up with, just a feeling they were BSing. It turns out these were fallacies and now I have a word for it lol.
Focusing on what you can control is the best thing ever. That's why I love stoicism.
Five years out of college. Please give us your wisdom, learned scholar.
the most annoying thing is when someone spits out like 6 lies in one comment, it's impossible to correct them all as quickly, so they think they win the argument
"Gish Gallop" is what that is called
@@hicksboson1 thought it was called steam rolling
That's the worst 😑
The biggest problem part of that is talking with someone who wants to win an argument instead of have a discussion.
a big reason why I believe we need media training for more academics and scientists, no wonder you can't out-talk a flat earther, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Yes it's not necessarily about "winning" an argument every time you engage in discourse, yet when the other person thinks it is there's hardly a way around that
It's no secret that not being able to immediately say something when the other person consistently does so makes you appear less trustworthy than them in arguments, and you definitely can't completely refute everything on the spot because you don't know every scientific paper ever written by memory, yet some nutcase conspiracy theorist can continue to spew out argumentative feces like a busted sewer pipe for hours on end,. It's a shame the scientists who agree to engage these people in public discourse are almost always seemingly unaware of this dynamic
"Jeff Bezos is left leaning" has got to be the funniest shit I've heard all year.
did you see how he treats his workers?
I mean, it is true. The dude gives more donations to Democrats and typically his views are more aligned with the left. A quick Google search shows that. He is economically conservative though, obviously, but hence which isn't left, just "left leaning".
He's no true Scotsman indeed
He's a socialist sociopath with egocentric capitalist, a dangerous combination 😂
@@Bewefau
Like a capitalist ??
We’re very often going to make some sort logical fallacy during unscripted conversation. It’s when people have glaring logical fallacies in their long-standing, pre-meditated arguments that they keep perpetuating that we need to seriously address these fallacies.
The issue with people like Shapiro and Rogan is they state their fallacies as if they are fact and people actually buy it. They just say whatever they want as if it’s fact.
You just described Ben Shapiro and the rest of the right-wing debate bros.
@@n0tareas0n How so?
Well, some fallacies are worst than others. Argument from ignorance (saying something is true because it's not been proven false) is probably the one that caused the most harm throughout history, from religious fanaticism to shady medical practices, it is a strangely very effective tool despite being very obvious.
Yeah it's so weird he wouldnt pick a debate to find logical fallacies in. This is just conversation. Everyone shares anecdotes in conversations. And the appeal to authority when Shapiro says "I don't know ask a rabbi?" He's laughing about these religious rules not trying to convince they're correct. This whole thing is so dishonest
"I make hasty generalisations all the time, you the one watching, you do it all the time" lol
Part-to-whole fallacy, just because the author of the video does it, doesn't mean that all people committing all the time
Categorize every argument to a fallacy without a well through examination it's a fallacy itself
It's a mistake of 1st grade philosophy student does
@jonathancooper5104 I don't know if your talking to me, but thank you for the observation
“I think we all agree that LA is somewhere in the middle”
That’s an appeal to popular opinion fallacy Mr. Beat 😏
Haha well played
@@iammrbeat I love what a good sport you are about this sort of thing. You seem pretty down to earth to me, man. Keep the content up!
Anyone with open eyes in California has watched it go to shit for decades…
Unless you’re rich and never really need to leave your suburb.
If we make the assumption that LA isn't one extreme or the other then MrBeat is technically correct. The problem is that saying a city is either way is just a matter of opinion and that people see things from different perspectives. When trying to prove an argument almost always they will exaggerate their point of view so the odds are that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
@@travisransdell5211 In my opinion (and it is quite generalized) is that drugs have had a huge impact on society. It has led to more violence, more mental health issues, more poverty, more homelessness than anything else. I'm not talking about alcohol or marijuana, per se, although it has impacted as well, I'm talking about the harder drugs: heroine, crack, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. First starting with the importing of drugs from South America and Asia and now also being produced and pushed by big pharma. Many cities around the world have been affected this way.
As a math student, I would say making genuine flawless arguments (To prove a statement with mathematical rigor) in daily life is nearly impossible, especially when you are talking about social problems and human nature, cause a lot of the theories in humanities and sociology are all based on certain assumptions of human nature, but in reality, none of them are "well-defined", there are no axioms that we can rely on, and the problem is often way more complex. But you still need to extract useful conclusions from a phenomenon for the world to make a better decision. When we talk about sample, then we need to talk about whether its statistically significant, how small of a sample are we talking about, what's your confidence level etc. I think learning to spot fallacies prevent you from blindly believing in any arguments made, and allow you to acquire knowledge better, but if you are making an argument, especially regarding malleable subjects, being too rigorous would be hard for you to make any arguments at all.
Yeah, I could only make it halfway through this video because so much of what he was calling out just kept hitting me as "wait, so you expect me to be 100% rigorous when I'm chatting with friends?" I could respect a callout video analyzing one of Shapiro's invited speeches, for instance. But the environment of this chat he's having with Rogan just comes off as pedantic even if Mr. Beat has kindof a point part of the time.
And sometimes it’s just 2 people having a conversation -- telling a story, which triggers another story to tell, etc. -- not all conversations are debates. I really enjoyed this video, though, and will definitely educated myself on all of the fallacies so I can spot them
Pretty sure this whole thread is an infestation of logical fallacies (not sure which though 😅). But yes, I would say it's at the very least reasonable to expect two speakers on one of most watched podcasts in the world to try and be more familiar about the facts and succumbing less to logical fallacies on the topics they talk about - especially when they talk about important topics like the ones in this video...
As a math student, you have a poor understanding of the social sciences.
@@jirehjirehjireh then shed some light then other than giving patronising comments🤮
The real problem with logical fallacies is that even if you learn the most used ones and know how to explain that it’s not a good argument the other side can continue to use fallacies and veil their argument in a way where you can’t get any actual meaningful points in cause you are too busy dealing with and refuting their poor argument
Once you hear about the fallacy fallacy you realize that this whole talk about fallacies is pointless. The fact that this is talked about in philosophy class, arguably the most useless of them all it clear why nobody cares.
In many cases I came to the conclusion that many things are consideres fallacies not because they are practically wrong but because they, or their final results might be morally wrong and in a factual discussion I couldnt care less about ethics.
If you ask me its just one big sheme for smug philosophers to silence any opposition that isnt part of their game. And dont even try to claim this is a fallacy because your example pretty much confirms my point.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 it's not useless, something might be true but we need to avoid fallacies because then we wouldn't have the right explanation.
For example if I said that oil is floats in water because it starts with the letter o and o comes before w, I'd be saying the true, oil does float on water but my explanation is wrong
Learning how to spot logical fallacies helps us detect when a person is giving us wrong information. I'm not good at argumentation, it takes me too long to process what I hear. But this skill is really valuable when I hear someone speak, or read an opinion article, and I can tell how honest and accurate the speaker is in what they are saying.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 just because something is viewed through a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect. I get your point, but I don't think we should forgo talking about fallacies at all just because of that.
@@GaryKlineCA The problem with it is that people will argue your point is a fallacy rather than actually prove you wrong. I work in a job where I deal with criminal activity is up. I can say the city is becoming trash. In a casual conversation I am not going to compile the statistics. I know it exists I've seen the numbers in a broad conversation all I've ever seen people use fallacy arguments for is to shut down discussion because people don't walk around with fact sheets.
There should be a course in late primary schools/grade schools on this topic.
People do not think critically about life.
Thanks for this amazing video, Mr Beat!
@@DarthJarJar10 Or in short just call it religion is b.s.
@@you2uber530 Bold of you to assume that atheists cannot lack critical thinking or that all religious people lack critical thinking.
That is a logical fallacy.
Some students would get it but I think it would go over most of their heads at that age
Ben: “Facts don’t care about your feelings”
Also Ben: uses anecdotal fallacy
Anecdotal evidence is still factual it just doesn't apply more broadly.
@@gamermonkey153 … the whole problem with anecdotes is that they can’t be proven without video evidence
@@ChildOfGorb it doesn't really matter depending on the claim you are trying to make, it's still evidence
@@toonyandfriends1915 it always matters if it can be proven or not. You can’t just consider something that could be or likely is false depending on the claim to be true immediately
@@ChildOfGorb if a person says that "in the industry it runs like this" and he uses his experience as an exemple and the experience of other people that he hear happened as an exaIle then it is more likely that what he claimed about the industry is more true than false. If it is true that it is more likely true than false, then it means that it is evidence. Again it depends on the claim and the anecdotes.
Everybody had a Ben Shapiro in their class
“sir you forgot to check the homework”
I was a college instructor for a few years and dealt with a handful of students like Ben.
I was the Ben Shapiro in my class, I didn’t have fun in middle school
My Ben Shapiro is actually named Ben
@@ryleighrage those are the worst😫😫😫😫
It's called pulling a Shapiro - throwing arguments at you faster than you can react.
gish gallop
@@bailewen That too. Duane Gish or Ben Shapiro.
idk how anyone takes ben seriously he’s a complete clown
@@smears6039 the only reason to listen to Benny Shapeño is confirmation bias.
And it helps when Shapiro talks like an AK-47 on rapid fire. Thus the perjorative "fast talker". How do people trust this guy?
„I do hasty generalizations all the time, you do it all the time.“ Aaand you just did it 😂
And so do I, all the time
While I'm a fan of everyone exercising critical thinking, I wished you would have added a section on formal vs informal fallacies. The problem with informal fallacies is that they aren't automatically wrong like formal fallacies. Thank you for this video it was very informative and we need more of this.
Karl Lambert, William Ulrich, and Gerald Massey were all formal theorists. Lambert and Ulrich held that all that needed to be said about poor arguments was that they were not formally valid; one did not need ‘fallacy’ as an additional category. Massey held that to show that a fallacy occurred, one would need to demonstrate that poor arguments failed to be formally valid. But, given the asymmetry between valid and invalid arguments, it was not possible to formally prove invalidity. It was from a formalist standpoint, then, that these logicians argued against the very notion of fallacy.
@Trade Bum Simmons, wrong. He spent the whole time disrespecting LA. All of those "experiences" were to back his negative feelings
@@elijahf8 Whole time? “experiences”? presumptuous about his feelings cherry-picking for themselves rather than being inductively concluded? trollface
@Trade Bum Simmons, that's the point.
AND even now, we don't understand the fallacy?
@@PoorEdward 🤣😂 when people pretend their experiences are the norm, that's an issue. If you're unaware of that, I can't help U.
Mr. Beat sounds like he's about to call me out on a fallacy when I ask him to pass the salt
This is a straw man
The whole video is ridiculous since Rogan and Shapiro are having a causal discussion, not a debate (where calling out fallacies actually makes sense). If you expect someone to back up every single little point they make on the spot in a casual conversation, you’re an idiot.
@@PaxTubeChannel just because it's a casual conversation doesn't mean it can't be persuasive to the audience. if an audience is being persuaded into a certain belief through logical fallacies, then that's not ideal and i get why mr. beat would try to point it out
Well actually the video is about examples of fallacies, the video is not about hatred to anyone if you think it is. (well it is to hatred to the episode if you care about the logic used in the podcast)
fallacy
The more I watch the more I realize that it is hard to avoid these fallacies
Not really. He's wrong on the very first evaluation. The rubric he's using would make it impossible for anyone to speak colloquially and that's not the point of logical fallacies. Debates would never end based on his numerous miss attributions.
It is hard to avoid these fallacies but it is important to work at getting better at avoiding these fallacies.
@@saquist When are Rogan or Shapiro speaking colloquially? What they are doing is having a one sided debate, presenting only their side and not letting anyone present the other side. They are trying to persuade people to their point of view.
@@theunintelligentlydesigned4931 What's being presented by Mr. Beat are frequently not even informal fallacies. They are just assertions. He's not presenting the fallacies in the form of 2 premises and the conclusion that is drawn from them. (A+B=C) That's the.
The homelessness comment that Mr. Beat tries to offer as an informal fallacy is a perfect example. Joe didn't say all of San Francisco is has homeless on the street. You can't draw a fallacy from what you infer. Fallacies are factually based.
@@saquist You're partially correct. Rogan and Shapiro are making conclusions without presenting their premises, therefore it is impossible for Mr. Beat to point out what is wrong with their P+P=C equation but not all fallacies are fallacies of validity (fallacies of the P+P=C equation).
I am going to grant you that Joe didn't say all homeless and therefore that is not a fallacy. Also, "take it up with the Rabbis" is not an appeal to authority.
I am not on either side because both sides are making logical fallacies. I would appreciate if you would point out more of Mr. Beat's fallacies. Rogan and Shapiro are making logical fallacies but I am starting to notice the logical fallacies made by Mr. Beat as well.
28:13 Smart? 💀
@@98reivax Seems like we both got this recommended year after it has been released but they are smart. Yes some or even all of the things they say may be wrong, biased and have a specific goal in mind and no actual care for the truth. But you can’t argue that their mind functions better than the average person, not just average Americans. We could philosophise for hours about what it truly means to be smart but it cannot be argued that these men have comprehension skills, knowledge, and general “brain abilities” that are above average.
@@98reivax Just because he isn’t always right or you disagree with his ideas doesn’t mean he’s stupid. I don’t like him much but he is educated and intelligent. Also, being informed ≠ being educated. He is educated, and he’s informed on some things and not so much on others.
"In general people generalize too much." hahaha
The media always genirilises!!
Haha, I agree
All Major Assholes want to Generalize.
To be fair it's hard to summarise any topic without generalising
Honestly, this joke works better simply and cleanly: "People generalize too much."
Add anything else and you're just trying too hard to make sure the person gets the joke, which is the quickest way to ruin any joke.
There’s a big difference between an appeal to authority and simply mentioning people in order to provide examples of people who have the same viewpoint. Appeal to authority is saying, “so and so said this, so it’s true.”
Exactly. Using quotes from someone is not a logical fallacy, in and of itself. Why would we even bother with citations in almost any scientific paper if all of it were a logical fallacy? This guy is far too broad.
@@ivankrushensky I mean that's cool, but that's not what he said. He explained the fallacious use of invoking authority, and did not say that invoking authority is inherently fallacious, or even that it's fallacious full-stop which would leave room for the implication.
@@QuikVidGuy it's the examples he gives. Shapiro saying "ask a Rabbi" when referring to questions about Judaism.....what's wrong with that? That's not a fallacy. If you want to know why Jewish policies are the way the are, you should probably ask a Rabbi. If you want to know why Catholic policies are the way they are, you should probably ask a Priest.
I would be fine with the poor examples if this were purely about the fallacies. But he seems to be trying to pull Ben down showing he's not as smart or logical as he is given credit for. And further explanation of those fallacies is given. He doesn't, just look at Ben use these fallacies.
Appeal to authority is a little more specific than "so and so said this, so it’s true".
The "authority" part is also important, specifically, it relates to falsely believing a statement someone has made because they are perceived to be an authority on the topic.
It's more like "so and so said this, and they've got experience in the field, so it's true".
Or alternatively, "I think this, and I've got experience in the field, so it's true".
I'm guilty of this from time to time.
I'm an Astrophysicist, and sometimes overstate my knowledge and experience when trying to strengthen an argument I'm making to friends, family or even colleagues.
The fact is, sometimes I'm wrong, or sometimes I try to talk about things I really don't know much about, but my status alone might convince someone that I do know know what I'm talking about.
I try to prevent it as much as I can, but I sometimes slip up because I'm human.
As a college teacher, I tried to teach a unit on these very fallacies, and I found out that most of the students just didn't care about such things. After three successive classes, I removed the unit from my classes, giving in to the student evaluation pressure all college teachers struggle with ( unless one has tenure).
Because you're placing your topics in a bad context. If you want to discuss logical fallacies show videos analyzing arguments and debates, not podcasts where people have open minds and explore ideas. It's not a bad idea to teach this, you just are using the wrong medium. Explore like a Suits episode or something
I had to take a class in Logic in college. It was a requirement. I even was introduced to fallacies in high school.
Maybe it should be taught in high school.
Although I don't know enough about your example to speak to it, I have to wonder if there was something else going on such as: Were you at a religious school? You say unit, do you mean less than an hour to cover the whole subject? Were you ignoring how logic fallacies apply to the issues that those students would be interested in? I loved learning about logic fallacies because I learned how they apply to my life but if they didn't apply to my life, I'd probably find them boring as well.
@@sami7388 The important question here is how the teacher reached the conclusion that most of students just didn't care about such things.
@@hidude1354 All of Joe Rogan's podcasts episodes involve some form argument analysis and debates. Being on a light-hearted, casual podcast doesn't exonerate you from making logical fallacies.
0:43 deserved a like
I would greatly implore anyone interested in logical argument to take a discrete mathematics or proofs class. People say they hate it but I genuinely think it’s some of the most fascinating framing of daily concepts.
i dont understand where discrete maths comes here, but i will never attend or do anything related to a maths proof class. EVER in my life.
The whole class involves logical thinking and teaches you how to construct argumentative proofs. Very applicable skills in everyday life. I know CS and philosophy majors who take the class to improve their logical thinking.
logical argument doesn’t exist when you’re speaking with a conservative
Taking one right now. Can confirm. One of my favorite classes.
My favorite fallacy is the fallacy fallacy, wherein a point invoking or implying a fallacy does not _necessarily_ make it any less valid.
having a fallacious argument simply means that it is invalid.
i could say “you shouldn’t eat mcdonalds because fat people eat mcdonalds.” this argument is obviously fallacious, as you can tell. therefore my argument is incorrect.
however, there certainly is a causation that is becoming fat and eating mcdonalds. so my intention may be correct, and my argument can still be false. both characteristics can coexist
@@abhiklovesbadbitches not necessarily. for example, if your argument uses an ad hominem attack that is used in parallel with your main argument, i.e. it is not a step in the deductive reasoning for your main argument, it does not invalidate your argument. also, if i remember correctly, the fallacy fallacy also refers to the opposing party believing the conclusion of the other party's argument is false because their argument was fallacious. for example, in the evaluation of the limit as x approaches zero of sin(x)/x, if one uses l'hopital's rule (a rule that states that the limit of an indeterminate form of type 0/0 or inf/inf is equal to the derivative of the numerator over the derivative of the denominator) in order to yield cos(x)/1, yielding the answer 1, then that is technically circular reasoning, because that limit is used in order to evaluate the derivative of sin(x). however, this does not mean that the limit is not equal to 1.
@@hmmmmmmmmmm6868 im sorry if youre not trolling but english is my second language and i dropped maths in high school and my adhd mind is really struggling to read through your comment. can you please explain in simpler terms
@@hmmmmmmmmmm6868 “the fallacy fallacy is also the opponent believing the conclusion…” yes but does the argument itself not become invalid if you use a fallacy? the _idea_ may still be true, but within the vacuum of a debate, the argument must be deemed false.
Years ago I was arguing with a stranger in a pub (content doesn't matter). We were both drunk, me more than him, and I refuted his point but wasn't sober enough to recall the correct words to use, and he laughed and said he'd proved me wrong. I said "just because I'm too drunk to explain properly doesn't mean I'm wrong", and you know what? To his credit, he agreed with me and apologised. Huge respect!
I love how he used Joe and Ben explaining anecdotal fallacies to explain anecdotal fallacies
anecdotal evidence is mainstream; I don't think this video will change that
I got 5 min in and had to stop. So far it's not even arguments being made so much as its just 2 people thinking out loud. This isn't a debate it's a conversation. And that's not an either or fallacy. That's just a fact of the matter.
@@ireneuszpyc6684 Neither will ignoring it.
@@BarbaPamino Why does it matter if it’s an informal conversation vs moderated debate? They’re still voicing their opinions to millions of people and supporting them poorly.
@@someoneelse4811 th-cam.com/video/LavCogrjPJQ/w-d-xo.html
Steven Crowder's interview with Alex Jones has 1.2 million views, while this video of Mr Beat has only 0.2 million - the dumb always far outnumber everyone else -
anecdotal evidence will remain mainstream
I actually learnt a lot about what fallacies and dichotomies are from this one video. Thank you Mr. Beat. It is also crazy how Joe and Ben are able to spit this many kinds of fallacies. It’s crazy
And they use them so often because it's easier for most people to listen and believe to a simple fallacy than a complicated fact.
Petition for Mr. beat to go on the Joe Rogan experience
That would be awesome!
"That's crazy man. Have you ever done dmt?"
That would be a dream come true.
@@iammrbeat do you like DMT?
I would definitely watch that.
I have heard Jeff Bezos described in a lot ways but never before as "left-leaning"
I don't remember when he left Amazon, but he owns The Washington Post, so somethings gotta be related given what TWP...posts.
@@streetguru9350 might be but not necessarily. Could just be that left leaning is kind of the save bet and good for public image.
@@streetguru9350 the guy who makes his workers work like robots without a piss break is not a left leaning socialist.
For someone who is so afraid of unionization and requires employees to go through detectors anytime they leave the building, it's hard to vision such a person as "left-leaning". Perhaps, they're referring to his man-hood. After all, I always wondered what that Arrow in the Amazon Logo represented ;)
@@jpdoe9005 He is basically the epitome of having an lgbt version of your company logo in pride month
Maybe the biggest lesson I took from this video is that it's enormously difficult to be truly _certain_ about pretty much anything except the most simplistic arguments.
Who is right and who is wrong?
I disagree. I have been learning about these fallacies for a while and now every time I hear a bad argument at least I can tell right away it's a bad one. It might take me a while to dissect and point out what fallacy was committed, but at least I have developed a basic "smell test" that's relatively unbiased.
I think, and I hope, with time, the general population too can learn how to tell bad arguments from good ones.
Pointless video, especially when Mr. Beat commits a fallacy or two while calling out their fallacies.
@@sushivision he said certain. Unless you are talking about maths, fallacies will appear having political discussions. You can't make absolutely flawless arguments
There is even a whole school of philosophy about breaking arguments. You can make them better and better, but it also won't mean you are correct, just more logically solid. They were even hired as lawyers, imagine
Are good lawyers always correct? Or do they make solid arguments? Certainty =/= solid logic
My english is not the best, sorry about that btw
Not necessarily. Science is all about falsification, which demonstrates that some hypotheses are necessarily false
Is there an over-reliance on fallacy identification fallacy?
It's probably worth stating that some fallacies are worse than others. Most of the fallacies in this video are informal fallacies and, as such, identifying them is somewhat subjective.
I also thought it was interesting that people were saying in the comments, "You can't critique their comments because they were just having a conversation, not a debate." That doesn't matter at all. If people are making statements about what is real and what is true, then it's possible for them to make logical fallacies in those statements. And, if they do so, that undermines the validity of what they are saying, although what they are saying may still be true regardless.
Bruh
Thats why the only ones that really come up are the ad homs and appeal to authority. However if you couldnt use anecdotes to argue you wouldnt have many arguments so yeah they all are not equal.
Agreed all of these so-called logical fallacies involve some of the least intellectual conversation that I've ever heard been involved in and he's not reporting to be some expert on most of this stuff
Well I'm not Joe Rogan and I live in Chicago and I haven't seen any tent cities until the last 7 years I've been to Portland Oregon life engine New York City I've been to San Francisco I've been all over the west coast and all over the east coast and like I said based in my travel thus far I haven't seen any big tent cities I seen homeless encampments but they're usually cardboard boxes and shanties and they're usually under an overpass or under some road that has a lower section like lower Wacker drive in Chicago where a lot of homeless people hang out because it protects you from certain elements like rain and snow I live in Chicago for 20 years and never saw any tent cities maybe they were being erected in every place that I wasn't at the time and then they were torn down when I went to those locations could be but why would you make this argument it's a fact that 10 cities have become a much bigger deal in the last several years and that's what he's basically saying and he didn't see me before that's his experience why is that a logical fallacy
When he comments on the human feces all over the streets of the two biggest cities in California do you think he's out of line and engaging in logical fallacy I've been all over California my whole life and never saw human feces save on a few occasions when it was probably one of my friends who had to take a dump
A potential "problem" with pointing out all these logical fallacies is the assumption that they're trying to convince you with pure logic, rather than just stating their or other people's beliefs and making some logical arguments based on those. That being said, it's important TO point out that that is effectively what they and many others are often doing, and that thus some amount of trust on your part is required for you to believe them and be logically convinced.
Excellent point!! This wasn't a formal debate or a testimony in court, more it was an informal conversation that used a lot of hyperbole and black and white to make points and keep it somewhat light.
Yes, this video is absurd. They're not writing a scientific paper or trying to prove any points, they're having a conversation. If people had to avoid using ANY "fallacies" then we might as well not speak, because we'd be nothing more than robots.
"The sky is blue!
Yes, it is blue.
I just consumed food.
I consumed food as well!
... part of what makes humans, humans is our ability to reason and speak in more than plain facts, and this guy just doesn't seem to get that.
Shapiro and his company the daily wire are progandad arms for the GOP. It's never the case that he doesn't tow the party line. He doesn't deserve that level of understanding
I understand that the standards are different when you're in casual conversation, and we shouldn't expect people to act like logical computers. Virtually every rhetorical technique is a logical fallacy. All of us naturally think in fallacies. That's exactly why we should be measured and skeptical when we hear these two men speak, and we should be aware of the techniques they're using to organize their ideas and communicate.
I totally disagree that this kind of conversation is just innocuous bullshitting and it's mostly inconsequential. Their ideas and their justifications for those ideas are largely the same, whether you're using a casual tone or a formal tone. These are Ben Shapiro's real beliefs, and those are his real justifications. It's not like his rationale meaningfully changes when he's putting them in an essay. He makes the exact same arguments on the debate stage. If anything, people are more sincere and real in a conversation like this than in a rehearsed argument.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Those examples you gave avoid logical fallacies by simply having no attempts at logic whatsoever. They are simply statements you believe or disbelieve, even MORESO than what happened in the interview, so _perhaps_ it is not the best example of the alternative. That being said, there's not much you can say with PURE logic, certainly not about the world in a way that requires no trust on the part of your listener unless _you,_ as the speaker, trust that you know what you're listener is directly observing.
I took a 300-level philosophy class in college about logic. There are a surprising number of different types of logics, and I can't name any of them. Logical fallacies were in the 100-class.
It’s all good he took an online class and wanted to make real issues boil down to idealism
100 level logic is more than most people have had or would care to have. Knowing what you don’t know and that emotion is different from intellect aren’t generally considered common sense.
So did I. If I remember correctly, there are over 400 fallacies.
@@chicken29843 Lol, socrates said it best!
@@Tarantula_Fangs Socrateez nutz!
"I do have puppets to help, so. That's different." was the moment I subscribed. The delivery was perfect.
"We all over generalize... oh wait I just over generalized, but wait I have evidence!" :D
Exactly! I committed at least three logical fallacies in my video about logical fallacies.
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
i know this isnt really a comedy channel, but
the dry, awkward humor mixed with the incredibly dead pan average guy
is just so good, these videos are genuinely hilarious while still being an education-oriented presented channel!
7:39 the loaded question
12:57 tu quoque
13:58 whataboutism
14:23 genetic fallacy
20:01 hasty generalizations
22:03 personal incredulity
26:27 appeal to nature
More than likely none of them are actually fallacy
@@saquist explain
@@Steerable6827 Mr. Beats seems to be mistaking colloquialisms as statements of truth and false. Fallacies are based on mathematical syllogisms. There must be 3 parts. Two parts to add and a conclusion
A+B=C
A= All creatures die
B= You are a man
C= Therefore, you will die.
What Mr. Beats is doing is taking the last part. (C) "You will die" and attempting to evaluate an expression. (The difference between a mathematical expression and equation is one you can solve and the other you can only simplify)
And talking as fast as you can so they don't have a chance to process the crap you're saying. (Shapiro's style)
23:06 middle ground fallacy
23:50 begging the question fallacy
24:42 argument from ignorance fallacy
24:46 bandwagon fallacy
25:47 ad hominem fallacy
Shapiro is not at all a logical dude. He just speaks fast and sounds logical, but his logic can be taken apart if given enough time.
@@luna_moth And I can say that you’re using an either or fallacy right now with stating he’s a logical dude at all.
All of us share logical fallacies and I don’t believe it makes sense to dismiss and analyze every statement through these lenses because at the end you will be left with no one talking.
@@orikiz Shapiro is a public figure who has a big audience and who is actively causing harm to innocent people who are lgbtqia+, who are women, who are pro-choice, pro-democracy, pro-voting rights, anti-racist, etc. His bad takes show that he is not a logical dude as he repeats the same falsehoods wherever he goes. There are plenty of people out there that don't make bad arguments in bad faith, so there will be plenty of people who are left talking. No ONE is expecting perfection, but people do expect being a humble, decent human being, who doesn't perpetuate ideologies that get people killed.
Ideologies which get people killed? Isn't pro-choice an ideology which gets people killed, 4000 American babies per day. Also someone isn't illogical because you disagree with their takes, left wing beliefs are one side of a two sided coin, you should be more open minded instead of ostracizing the entire right-wing which is half of your country.
@@BrigsComics You don't have to agree but then you shouldn't support ideologies that seek to actively harm them either. We know rhetoric invites violence as seen by Trump's incitement of J6. Spread enough messages about LGBTQIA+ people being a menace to society, and someone somewhere will take action against innocent people.
@@aorihanazari524 you can make the same argument against Biden and Harris for saying Trump is a threat to democracy. Are they responsible for the assassination attempts? Works both ways
I love being able to watch anyone with any beliefs and still be able to spot biases and logical fallacies. Makes it easy to not fall into political tribalism that’s so common these days.
That's more important for me than any political affiliation or preference. Being smart and cool headed is more important than supporting anyone. Learning is more important than simply being right (or left lol).
@@JLchevz Being wrong counts for a lot. Being right is the only goal.
so...just a centrist
An honest person will point out any bs on their side of the political spectrum. Many leftists do that, but few conservatives do.
Ah yes the appeal to Im a centrist so im more righteous anyone else fallacy. Its almost like atheist leftists are the worst. After all theres realistically no such thing as a morally correct leftist especially a religious one they dont exist and by religious i meant can only apply to christianity. Atheist existence fallacy!
after watching this video, I decided to never speak again. My girlfriend broke up with me first. Then my friends stopped calling & texting me one by one. My mother trashed my stuff at home and asked me to leave. My father ,who doesn't speak with me at all, started to complain about my silence. Yet, I am more content and peaceful than ever. I don't commit fallacies anymore and I'm always perfectly faultless when I speak, which is never.
Well you committed the silent fallacy
You are wrong because you don't speak
Low key hilarious, v nice
That is not healthy, humans are social beings and shouldn't keep everything to themselves. You have the ability to communicate for a reason.
@@greenlight4412 what you feel is healthy for you may not be healthy for others
Tl;dr: guy can’t comprehend logical fallacies, talks about it directly after saying he will never talk again
It's about time someone addressed the abundance of logical fallacies in conversations like these that pretend to be scientific and rational. They're riddled with them. The human mind is a constant battleground between rationality and emotion and I think that fact should be more widely known, understood and accepted so we can all make a mutual conscious effort to be more logically sound when having these kinds of discussions, especially ones on platforms that reach so many people.
If the past decade taught me anything, it's that the people who assert the loudest they are "rational" and only care about "logic" they're often the most irrational and emotionally motivated people out there. I watched the 'skeptic' community turn into a herd of bleating anti-sjws and it just went to show how thin the veneer was.
@@matthewbadley5063 I agree. I used to be like that so I know how tempting it is to try and use logic to justify your emotional viewpoint. It makes you feel more certain and righteous in what you want to believe but it only leads to obfuscation, confusion and the proliferation of bad ideas and/or bad ways of thinking. I think logic is best viewed as a tool rather than an inherent virtue that can be used for both good and bad purposes and also as a skill that requires constant practice to stay competent at.
Yeah, it's ok to have _some_ logical fallacies as they can be unavoidable. I mean, I had probably at least three in _this_ video. But 58 in an hour and a half conversation is intense.
I also think Ben Shapiro debating college kids and calling it a destruction on his TH-cam channel is kinda disingenuous he’s a trained media figure of course he’s gonna win against the college student who’s never had that. Debate isn’t bad but I wish he would debate people on his level instead of eager 19 year olds
@@samstuff8554 he does debate alot of high profilers tho... its just few "dare" to.. (or w/e u wanna all it) - he asked AOC for example, but she called that misogynistic or oppressive or something.. akin to catcalling i think was the phrase...
love how he dismantled Cenk Uygur for example, or other political opponents on various stages and interviews etc..
and its not just collage kids who come fourth and ask QnAs some professors and pundits and what have you come up too...
and dont discount collage kids man they can be pretty insightful.. (especially as they often cite the people more "on shapiros level" etc)
I can’t imagine listening to an entire Joe Rogan podcast.
@@brianp9268 is this not a logical fallacy lol ?
Whenever someone says "they said" you always, ALWAYS need to stop and ask who "they" are, if it is true that "they" said anything of the sort, and what the *context* was. Context is so key.
As long as you’re careful about Schrodinger’s Douchebag situations where the “context” was added after the statement was made in order to change the meaning.
A they said fallacy
I think learning logical fallacy is definitely the meta rn. It’s like having a cheat code.
fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean their point is invalid. "Oh, you used ad hominem and called me evil, therefore your idea is crap."
@@flyingturret208thecannon5 ah yes “with great power comes with great responsibility” as uncle Ben once said
@@MetaDiscussions Lol
It is not a cheat code but a tool to think and argue logically.. And it's not a new thing either, but a very old approach to insightful conversations and discussions.
It only seems new because so-called American "intellectualism" is on an all time low.
I mean check it out. All these youtube intellectuals are ridiculous dudes with ridiculously simple approaches. They are placed there, giving the uneducated mass of young people the feeling that they are thinking big.
McDonalds for the brain.
Just like every other meta, it devolves into cvnts thinking they're superior and infallible for employing techniques other people created.
The first 'fallacy' wasn't a fallacy. It was more of a deflection. He doesn't care about the first comment and he was simply moving the conversation forward. Sometimes what's considered a fallacy is just an individual's gut response rather than an attempt at logic.
Even a gut response is still a mental process. It's true that he was deflecting, but he made a statement, and when that statement was shown to be weak, he switched gears to try to protect himself: "I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me / That's above my pay grade / I couldn't possibly know that". Any way you go about it, he's still applying poor logic to the situation.
@@Mike-kc5ew Agreed. He isn't applying good logic. I just don't think he committed a fallacy. Hosts have to move the process along. The process has to go quickly. I'm not trying to defend him. I dislike this guy. I just don't see a fallacy there.
@@daxreyna5539 I have to agree. He was just stating a fact in the form of, "X practices Y per their belief". Yet he wasn't actually arguing the validity of practicing Y, instead saying, "Go ask X" if one were to seek insight into why that practice was performed like it was.
Also, there is ANOTHER reason why this isn't a formal fallacy, or "logical" fallacy, as it's called in the video...
The "appeal to authority" fallacy occurs when someone of credibility is said to confirm one's argument despite the credibility of that person being irrelevant to the argument. "You need to do X to invest your money wisely, my friend who is a doctor does that". Practicing medicine is irrelevant to being an investment advisor. Hence, that would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
However, in the vid they are discussing kosher practices, a subject that directly applies to the knowledge of a rabbi, so a rabbi's credibility is completely relevant in this case. So the "appeal to authority" doesn't apply here.
It would be no different than saying, "They use staples instead of stitches at hospitals nowadays. I don't know why. Ask a doctor." A doctor is a credible source to direct the question of the practice of using staples, so it's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy.
Sometimes fallacies are tricky to spot and other times legit statements can be mistaken for a fallacy.
@@Mike-kc5ew it's not "poor logic". It's simply backpaddling. Nothing about the logic is inconsluive or weak. He weakens his own point by saying thst he doesn't know if its still the case now and basically just argues that he simply uses the food based on the way that the Rabis define it to be right. This is weak in the sense that its just a description of the person preference, but there is no objective claim and hence also no logical weaknesses.
It wasn't even an appeal to authority at all. Video author missed the point.
Shapiro wasn't saying "it must be the most humane way because the rabbis say so", he was saying "I'm not going to defend the logic of the rule that hard, discuss the logic with the people that made the rule".
10:00 yeah I saw someone else say this but this is a double, correlation =/= causation fallacy too. Couples that live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced because they are less likely to be religious, and religious people are less likely to get divorced, not because they're better partners, but because of their perspective on marriage as a sacred act.
The “Fallacy fallacy” is a great. You may be commuting a logical fallacy every time you speak unless you cite a meta analysis after. Even then you may be committing some sort of appeal to authority fallacy because often times empirical data is flat out unreliable due to methodology, etc.
The fallacy fallacy only really applies when you're utilising calling out logical fallacies as your only means of debate.
Calling out a fallacy should only really be used when the entire argument hinges on a fallacy, not just because someone happens to commit one.
@@benf6822 that’s a bit of a hasty generalization there. I’m gonna need some citations.
@@hedark1135 sounds like you want to appeal to authority
@@benf6822 that’s what I said in my original comment. Is this circular argument fallacy?
@@hedark1135 that's not what a circular argument is
Just sold my underwater house and moved so I can watch this
To aquaman I hope?
Your lucky you can afford it
Underrated comment
🧱🔨
@@highsun76 No, to the Innsmouth people.
Logical fallacies are why I generally avoid debates.
I'm usually very aware of when I have made, or am about to make a logical fallacy, which makes arguing my own points an exercise in carefully navigating a minefield of potential fallacies.
And compounding on that, I struggle to quickly point out when the people I'm in debate with make logical fallacies, and often they're unwilling to accept they've made fallacious arguments, which makes the debate almost meaningless.
In my personal experience, few of Joe's arguments are without logical fallacies. He doesn't seem to have a very robust approach to making arguments. If I had to guess why, I'd guess it's because he just isn't aware of it - he doesn't know or think to criticise his own arguments as he makes them.
Shapiro seems to be much more intentional with his fallacies. He's quick to point out fallacies in other people's logic when it suits his platform, but is also quick to throw in as many fallacies of his own as he can, to give his arguments more 'weight' to the untrained ear.
For all public discourse, especially in the realm of politics, I wish there was a sort of peer-review stage where public figures have to acknowledge when they've employed false logic to argue a point. I think it would help to educate the public on logical fallacies, and most importantly, hold people in power accountable for the words they use. If they've made a false claim or employed false logic, they should have to acknowledge it publicly.
Just because someone uses lots of fallacies, especially off-the-cuff, doesn't make them "intentional". People typically give themselves and their arguments the benefit of the doubt, using a self-serving bias that makes it very easy to spot the fallacies of others and difficult to spot in themselves.
_However..._ you're still probably right in that his bad arguments are intentional. I have seen Ben make bad arguments many times, get corrected, concede that they were bad arguments, and then build upon them as if he hadn't conceded. It's like as if he can spot the errors when pointed out to him, but _he just doesn't care_ because he knows that his audience will also not notice or care, though they will see him concede arguments verbally and think this makes him reasonable.
@@Starcrash6984 omg thank u so much, this is very valuable information belive me
@@Starcrash6984 someone should call him out on this it would be gold
@@mihailmilev9909 I've tried, but... TH-cam can be tricky. I watch and comment on his videos from time to time, but my comments will repeatedly get reported by people who like his videos. They get re-instated after an admin has looked over them and realized that I wasn't breaking any rules, but by that point (days later), my comments are old and don't get noticed anymore. It's not fair, but it's the system we've got whether we like it or not.
It’s because ben shapiro is a JEW
Multiple times throughout this video made me want to like it, only to see that I've already liked it. Fantastic examples.
This was probably more valuable to me than the actual podcast.
Almost anything can be more valuable than listening to those 2...
Yeah, that's a fallacy and Idgaf
😂
Not probably. Definitely.
Was there something of value in that podcast?
Exponentially
There are two kinds of people in this world. People who think in binaries, and those that don't.
There are 10 kinds of people
Those who understand binary
And those who do not!! 😂😅😊
You are clearly the 1st one
@@volgar2045 If I wasn't making a joke I would be.
@@volgar2045 bro fell for the trap
@@cueshq789 My falling for the trap was a trap for you to fall into.
"If you wanna be on the team, you're going to have to have a good jumpshot"
Ben simmons : 👁👄👁
LMAO
@Ben Tomasic Rondo actually had one later in his career but yeah
Isnt it wierd that this is the way so many discussions go.
And these two consider themselves the "intellectuals."
"I just wanted to show you how two smart entertaining people can be guilty of a lot of logical fallacies in just an hour and a half of conversation."
And a great job you did! I think you nailed the appropriate tone (respectful, inquisitive, constructive, instructive). Which is refreshing on a topic often lacking those things.
Well thank you Patrick. That means a lot. I didn't want to make it sound like I didn't like Shapiro and Rogan.
so who was the other smart person in this video? because the only one i spotted was Mr Beat.
@@Old_Man_Fire It's important to realize that smart people are just as capable of making mistakes as everyone else. (It's not healthy/productive for you to hold that standard to yourself either). Joe Rogan is not a 'manufactured' celebrity like the kardashians or whatever; dude has nearly the most popular podcast in the world because he is smart and interesting largely on his own merit. That's not a compliment, it's just a fact. Not helpful to pretend otherwise.
@@Old_Man_Fire that puppet saying not to eat the weird plant seemed like a smart cookie
lol @@Ruby_V_ you haven't answered my question, all you've done is shown that you're as stupid as Rogan is. the guy literally doesn't understand how homelessness works hahahahahahahahahaha
It is hard to have a conversation without invoking logical fallacies
Not if you read Wittgenstein
@@poopamultimatepoopyisn't saying that an appeal to authority?
@Trashcan't Saying that reading Wittgenstein, a language philosopher who outlined what causes linguistic confusion, is an appeal to authority?
@@poopamultimatepoopy that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I think. Changing the definition of the object of discussion
@J.R.R Tolkien Wittgenstein gives people the tools to avoid conversational traps and fallacies. My point is he's useful to avoid these, and would help people in philosophical discussion. That is not the no true Scotsman fallacy
The problem I have with the "Appeal to authority" fallacy is that it is also called out fallaciously.
Flat earthers and climate deniers use these all the time to act like their opinion is more important than the observations of someone who actually studies the field.
It’s because an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the appeal is faulty.
Scenario: someone says “I won’t vaccinate my kids because I don’t want them to get autism”
You say “vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, if you don’t believe me because I’m just a lay person, Dr X and Y published a paper and spoke on the radio about it”
Justified appeal to authority: Dr X is a psychiatrist who specialises in autism and Dr Y is a epidemiologist who specialises in vaccinology and they say “vaccines don’t cause autism, we have reviewed the evidence of the claim and there is no scientific weight to it. There is no scientific weight because…”.
This is justified because you are saying I’m right because doctor X and Y are right. And doctor X and Y’s opinions are logically valid because they are experts in the topic. And the person you’re arguing with isn’t an expert and most likely falsely appealing to authority. A fallacy is using invalid, deceptive, flawed, unjustified etc reasonings and using information from a reliable source doesn’t meant that definition.
An unjustified appeal to authority (fallacy): Dr X is a disgraced doctor who lost their license from unethical practices, Dr Y has a PhD in clouds they got for £3 and is only a Dr like if you pay some land in Scotland you’re a lord. And they say “vaccines don’t cause autism, check our blog or article we paid £500 to publish in a journal no one’s heard of”. You only trust them and use them in your argument because they’re “doctors”, you are falsely appealing to their status and authority from their title and not because of the validity of their statements.
Hope that helps, I had to do fallacies 101 for some uni work a few years ago so I’m mainly leaving this comment to finally put it to some use. ✌️
In my opinion, merely pointing out an "appeal to authority" does not necessarily make the claim fallacious, its just showing what angle a person used to make their assertion more "appealing". As poster above said, now we just have to see whether such expert is true expert or is the expert statement being potrayed correctly or not.
I agree that being too anti "appeal to authority" put one on slippery slope of thinking one's ignorantly construed "common sense" carry same weight with expert's expertise.
@@user-eg5kt9fy2j No there is no such thing as a "faulty" appeal to authority. An appeal to authroity is always faulty. Saying vaccines work because Dr X says so is still a appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.
An appeal to authority is when you call your argument right, just because an authroity figure says so too.
When you say that instead, Vaccines work because look at the evidence that Dr X and Dr Y have presented in this paper, and look at their statements and press releases where they explain how and why.
That's just an argument, with evidence that presetned by an authority figure. It is not an appeal to authority or a "faulty" one at that. That's what people need to understand. Look at any reputable philosophical website or group they will not refer to it as a "faulty" appeal, it's just an appeal, it always a logical fallacy.
that is the use of fallacy fallacy
@@user-eg5kt9fy2j I don't think that's true. The reason appeal to authority is a fallacy is because you can't say just because someone of authority thinks something that that something is true. Doctor X and doctor Y (regardless of their qualifications) thinking something is true doesn't automatically make it true. That's why it's a fallacy. Now many people do call it out as if the person appealing to authority made some kind of mistake, but that's also unnecessary because if you have people who are known to be good at what they do being in support of your argument, chances are you are right - doesn't prove that you are right (it's a logical fallacy after all) but it does put it into perspective. And I highly doubt anyone says it to mean something like: "that person thinks like me therefore I am right" it's more like "that person thinks like me therefore my argument is worthy of consideration."
So no, there is no justified appeal to authority, it's never a proving statement, but you absolutely can use it to show that your claim holds some weight regardless of the truth of the claim.
Man I am SO glad youtube recommended this video!! I've been curious about these for a long long time, but I had no idea how to find out more about them.. hell I didn't realize there were so many even! Also the puppets were AWESOME!! Thank you so so much for making this awesome video!!
I think it’s important to acknowledge that most fallacies are just a misuse of valid arguments. For example, the slippery slope argument is valid when applied properly. “If you don’t set your alarm in the morning, you’ll get in trouble at work.” You can call anything a fallacy, but that puts the burden on you as to why that argument isn’t valid.
That's false equivalency. A more accurate representation of slippery slope might be, "If you don't set your alarm in the morning, you'll get fired from your job, lose your apartment, and die on the streets"
Precisely!!
I disagree. Logic must be valid and sound. This means the premises must be true and it must follow that the conclusion is true. All of the fallacies are examples of invalid reasoning. And your example of a slippery slope argument is faulty. Slippery slope means jumping to a far off conclusion. Like, “if you don’t set your alarm in the morning, you’ll get fired and never find another job.” It may be the case that that actually happens, but it’s not logical or valid.
Slippery slope fallacy would be more like "If you don't set your alarm in the morning, you'll get in trouble at work, get fired, become homeless, get addicted to heroin..." etc etc. Thats why it is a fallacy.
@@bluejay6595so is that argument not a fallacy if you say “you may get fired for being late” scrubbing the whole homelessness bit, cause I feel like it’s implied experiencing life ,that we don’t know things with concrete fact at any time, so it seems semantics to call out one’s failure to admit the potential miscalculation in their logic when they most likely are already aware of it at some level? I could be talking out my ass so don’t take this as me arguing I’m simply confused on the usefulness of labeling things as fallacies when everyone’s logic is flawed
Ben “sell your house and move” Shapiro
Sell your submerged in water due to climate change, house*
@@felipegamino
Gosh guys, what are you gonna do when your house is about to fucking drown? Sell it to some dude who likes submerged houses! Checkmate LIBBIES
@@felipegamino Aquaman approves
His logic 🤮
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI His voice 🤮. I don't get how anybody can withstand listening to him talk.
This video made me realize that everything we say has some kind of fallacy in it. It’s not just Ben Shapiro, we ALL do it
No we don't! My wife told me that I'm too logical so I can't be using logical falacies regularly. No honest intellectual would ever use as many falacies as some right wing nut job. This just goes to show how all conservatives just play with words to get their way. I would never trust such a prominent individual's take on things anyway. They just want the publicity.
Is that enough logical falacies in one paragraph? 😄
Yeah. I regularly try to fight them in my own thinking and speech, but it can take years to retrain thought processes and speech patterns. Always keep learning and growing.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 🤦🏼♂️
@@Man11235 you're welcome 🙂 but honestly I do feel kinda bad responding there...there is too much stuff like that said seriously.
@@johnathanrhoades7751 I didn’t see the bottom of that comment. I was wondering if you were serious or not. I was gonna say he couldn’t use the left wings actual nut jobs for examples on this subject because they don’t even use logic 90% of the time.
But Ben is more as prominent and popular than someone as, say, me. Lol he has a duty to at least argue properly if he's trying to get across all these points. If he can't argue properly, what else does he have?
I feel like you're taking conversations they're having about actual events that happened out of context and calling them fallacies. They aren't even arguing or debating. They're just having a conversation amongst themselves.
Great way of explaining logical fallacies and how we recognize each of them! Currently I’m studying for the LSAT and what you layed out in the video glued a lot of pieces together. Great video sir.
Hope you do/did well on the test buddy!
Alternate Title: Mr. Beat DESTROYS Ben Shapiro with LOGIC and FACTS
You need to capitalize LOGIC and FACTS too
@@patmcclung7205 my bad lol
lmao
Ok pointing out "fallacies" without stating the truth is a fallacy itself
Flashback to 2014
I really respect the fact that you have no specific political bias, you just logically dismantle bad faith arguments
😂😂😂
He definitely left leaning. But he does try to be bipartisan sometimes
@@Dez.B Being bipartisan in the US is definitely right-leaning though. I'd say he's pretty centrist since i'm a leftist and i think he is slightly right-leaning.
@@Syuvinyabipartisan in the us definitely isn’t right leaning in 2024, you are most likely just heavily left leaning and call true centrists right leaning cause they disagree with you
Sorry. Did you watch this video?
With this logic every conversation ever can be labeled as full of fallacies.
Definitely. That was kind of my point. It doesn't have to be a debate to have logical fallacies.
@@iammrbeat now do one with AOC talking to a non-Fox mediaperson and bring out the fallacies.
👐Postmodernism 👐
It isn't "this logic." It's just logic.
@@iammrbeat not everything is a logical fallacy. People just talking to each other using anecdotes is just having a conversation. Another example is Ben "appealing to authority" talking about it not being his argument. The point of him mentioning them is not an appeal to authority. Instead its a show of his point not being a right wing push for something. This sort of thing is true for a lot of your examples. You're taking them out of context and or saying they're implying something they aren't. Also generally disregarding statistics.
This video is a good example of the appeal to fallacy fallacy, where in which you break down every viewpoint into a fallacy and there in which perceive it as incorrect
But he didn’t say all of the points were incorrect, just that the logic was incorrect
@@OscarUnrated Only if you take everything that they say to be "the truth". I really dont know why people put so much pressure on famous peoples words. I always approach their podcast with my own opinions and on make a distinction on what i agree and what i dont. They dont have to be 100% right all the time. But honestly, its the closes thing that we have of a place to share ideas freely. and thats the apealing. you dont have to buy everything that they say.
Your grammar hurt my feelimgs.
@@Alexxxxx19 tell me why brands pay celebrities or influencers to endorse a product
Exactly. Looks like the "well ackshually" non-STEM sophists didn't think too hard about what they were being taught in their freshman comp class. They are so bereft of critical thinking that they don't realize many fallacies are actually fallacious. Most fallacies are used by authority figures and sophists to shut down dissent and thought, particularly No True Scotsman. People of *that* particular political spectrum that think they're smarter than they are due to "earning" an unempirical joke degree love coining neologisms, engaging in semantics, and assigning labels hoping that it will win them an argument.
Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy because the foot in the door phenomenon is a very fucking real, empirically measurable thing. If you ask someone for a little and they give it, then ask for something bigger later, they're way more likely to grant the second request. It's incontrovertibly true that defunding law enforcement will reduce the numbers of law enforcement. It's not a stretch to say it will lead to asking for no police funding. Even if it doesn't, the former is a terrible fucking idea when a single digit percentage of neighborhoods have 50% of the homicides. Even leftwing Socjus meme majors with that whopping 105 above-average IQ know to introduce change gradually as inconspicuously as possible to achieve their goals. If I were an evil autocrat, I'd invoke the slippery slope fallacy as much as possible while I slowly boiled the frog and eroded liberty. Slippery slope is a meme that is most often subjective. If it's emotionally true, it is true in the minds of sophists.
No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because it fails to make a distinction between the authority figures of a movement and some fringe lunatic without followers. The FBI and the media loves this shit so they can do entrapment on both black and white radical movements. The black lives matter website literally fucking said that it was dedicated to tearing down the capitalist system from a marxist perspective before they realized it was bad PR. It's No True Scotsman to say the website doesn't count.
I could go on, but appeal to fallacy fallacy is almost more common than actual fallacies. To qualify my statement, strawman is a pretty common and legitimate though. 90% of the time all the time it's a subjective accusation like this video. Many commenters have pointed out how there were fallacies used when pointing out the fallacies. So I'll rest my case.
Ben Shapiro sounds like he’s been breathing helium.
Yeah, I think that this is Kalifornia thing. I have a good friend who grew up in Whittier and he talks so fast.
@@picklerix6162 is not that it's fast, it's that he sounds like one of alvin's chipmunks
Ben is always 'high'. Comes natural with him he is a highly intelligent man! No wonder!
@@picklerix6162 if you talk fast enough, your opponent won’t have enough time to point out where they’re wrong. benny boy just goesalongwiththewordsaladargument
He’s probably well aware of what he’s doing, it’s the only thing he’s really got
This was a good overview of fallacies, but I'm wondering why you chose to use a casual conversation.
My suspicion for you using this conversation, and feel free to correct me, is because these are 2 highly popular, nfluencial, and somewhat controversial people; and pointing out that they can make fallacies the same as we can would get the most clicks.
@BBonds-f3v I mean the word casual isn't in the description once, but maybe it could be inferred.
Nevertheless, he likely picked these two for their propensity to get clicks. 🤷♂️
The annoying thing with a few common fallecies, is that they look pretty similar to actual valid logical ways of thinking, and what makes it a fallecy or not is in the details.
Yeah like appeal to authority for example.
“The DSM-5 recognizes depression as a valid mental illness, therefore it is real.” ✅
“The Pope says that depression is the work of the devil and isn’t physically real.” ❌
The Pope is an authority, but can’t speak on this matter because he is not the correct authority for the situation.
This made me realize how often I used the Texas Sharpshooter, faulty appeal to authority, and many others.
The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is like possibly one of the most dangerous fallacies of all. Because of how innate it is, like I’m gonna be honest never heard of it. I’m not a “fallacy guy” but I do know a million ways it applies to related shit. Like people who fall down conspiracy rabbit holes, it’s so easy to do by accident. Like say your buddy finally makes a good point about flat earth and you’re curious now, 95 out of 100 people would probably just start looking up flat earth videos or whatever “research” there is. When you should be looking up stuff that disproves flat earth, especially because it’s comically easy to disprove. You can only fall deeper and deeper when you only care about and look for confirmatory information. And basically governs a large amount of how we fall into our worse opinions
I use the appeal to nature too much loll
Learning about logical fallacies has helped me see them when I’m speaking/writing, which tells me I’m coming from an emotional standpoint or when I’m feeling unsure of myself/low self esteem (which I can then tend to).
Learning about logical fallacies helps me use them more effectively lol the vast majority of people will never notice they are a wonderful tool
This is really a sign of true maturity. Our emotions and biases can lead to bad decisions or beliefs and we need to stop and examine them sometimes. Of course, pure reason can lead to a pretty emotionally barren existence, which is also not so good.
Understanding logic and argument structure I feel is huge for a functioning society. I had the same experience as you when I had to take a logic and reasoning class for my degree. It is ultimately part of the foundation of critical thinking.
True these are logical fallacies, but fallacies are typically only brought up in debates not a casual conversation
True
ah Ben 'sell your home and move' Shapiro renowned for his extremely competent use of logic and facts
He normally is but yes he’s had some bad takes before
@@colepratt7538 “Ben Shapiro has good takes” ok name one. He literally defended the British monarchy as an *American* like four days ago lmaoooo.
@White Wolf are you interested in buying flooded estate lol?
@@nineteeneighty-four7483 based
SELL THEIR HOUSES TO WHO BEN? F*CKING AQUAMAN?
Ben “I know tons of cops” Shapiro and Joe “A good buddy of mine” Rogan
I remember 'slippery slope' being brought up in college, and over 20 years it has always bugged me. Of course, the examples in that course were clear absurdities, but in politics, slippery slope is almost always a valid argument because of the incrementalism tactic. Whenever a controversial desired outcome cannot be achieved with a simple piece of legislation, more minor, popular, and incremental changes are written into law with the end goal of achieving the aforementioned outcome.
And just to be clear, no negative connotations are intended, as incrementalism is a basic ingredient of change. A lot of advancements in civil rights were the result of decades of incremental steps. To the other side, it was indeed a slippery slope toward something they didn't like.
No, it's still a fallacy. Incrementalism is nothing other than fear mongering.
@@mantaszmenskis5619 Did you read the part where I said no negative connotations are intended? Also, we live in a time where constituencies openly talk about their end goals with an issue on social media, while politicians stop short so as to not rally the other side. Incrementalism a widespread tactic, used by everyone...your allies and your opponents, regardless of who is reading. To deny this is to deny reality.
Just to be clear, this is non-partisan. You can insert any modern contentious issue, any side of said issue, and it fits.
@sarysa
Very great point! This needs to be pointed out more to avoid falsely labeled good counter arguments as fallacies.
A great set of examples today in the USA are the oil production scene and the abortion issue. It’d be lying if either side wanted to levy the slippery slope fallacy at criticism when the ultimate goals are pretty apparent. :P
Slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy when there is assumed to be only one outcome from an action with multiple causal steps. It ignores the other choices/outcomes that could be made along each step which could result in a different outcome. Usually its use is fallacious when not acknowledging the other possible outcomes.
@@mrpickle6290
Very well put!
That was not an anecdotal fallacy. Sharing experiences is not a fallacy. It’s a fallacy to come to a conclusion based on your experience. Here, they were just sharing experiences not concluding anything based on those experiences. That is not a fallacy.
@@masterjtk286 I think it's naive to think they came away from that without reciprocating those sentiments. They may not flaunt that anecdote like it's a smoking gun, but it's still informing their beliefs when it probably shouldn't be.
This was a casual conversation not a debate. How would you know if there is not other evidence informing their beliefs? Their beliefs can be based on evidence that went unsaid in casual conversation.
@@masterjtk286 it doesn't matter if it wasn't a debate. It's still a dialogue in which people suggest, propose, argue, or assert ideas, and those ideas can still be wrong. As long as an idea could be flawed, we should generally be pointing the flaws out. Unless you're talking to, like, a dementia patient or something.
Also, I never said that there was no evidence supporting the sentiments taken from anecdotes, I'm just pointing out that the anecdotes themselves shouldn't be considered that, to any extent. Which, again, they likely did. And to boot, even if they did not personally come away from those experiences with a new or newly reinforced belief, they're recounting said anecdotes on a podcast, where, get this, other people are listening; people that are even more likely to reciprocate these anecdotes.
@@mildlyinvested2992 Firstly, anecdotes can be evidence. It’s just not strong evidence of broader trends.
Secondly, I agree with you that the ideas can be wrong. And if the idea is wrong we should point out the flaws in the idea. Further, the other side should also have an opportunity to point out flaws in your reasoning as well so that an audience can come to the truth. That’s what a debate is for.
My point is, even if their ideas are wrong, these anecdotes are not fallacies. The definition of a a fallacy is an error in reasoning rendering an argument invalid. They are not making an argument. They are just sharing experiences. If they were in a debate setting or making an argument… I’m sure they wouldn’t rely on these anecdotes to make their arguments. However, in casual conversation people tell stories all the time, stories help people connect and are useful for many reasons. Every time you tell a story that is not an anecdotal fallacy. It’s only a fallacy if you are heavily relying on it as evidence for an argument or assertion.
@@masterjtk286 I think you're basically right in saying anecdotes can be evidence, but what that statement is missing is that anecdotes can beCOME evidence, but are not evidence on their own. When we look at statistics charting things like how many people have experienced a thing or believe a thing, those are all, individually, anecdotes. It's when they're combined with outside information, in this case other accounts, that they are taken _into_ account.
Meanwhile, everything you said about anecdotes and fallacies is true, anecdotes are not fallacies. But the point of contention here is saying that there is not an arguement being made here. Because while I do think that statement is technically true, I think it's shortsighted to act as if it is not impacting people's beliefs. Ben Shapiro is not _arguing_ anything when he gives the anecdote. But he is suggesting something. To think that he is not suggesting something would imply that he is simply offhandedly recounting something he sees as unrelated, and that the conversation is comparable to a couple of buddies kicking it back and chatting aimlessly. But it isn't. Mainly because one of the buddies is a political pundant being interviewed in part about his political views, and the other buddy has one of the largest podcasts ever, along with a similarly large audience (I'd assume).
Ben Shapiro is not formally making an argument, and therefore it cannot be declared to be fallacious. But people don't need a formal argument to be swayed or even convinced about something. And it's that convincement that _would_ be fallacious. Now, I'm not arguing that he's slyly inserting suggestive thoughts to lead the audience towards the conclusion he would rather them come to.
a few points to make
1) When Ben Shapiro makes the point about "Martin Luther King believed X", he isn't saying "I'm right, cuz Dr. King". What he's doing is preemptively addressing a common concern that the majority of people have in debates: if all of your sources are from people or institutions that share your own beliefs, it is more likely you will fall victim to confirmation bias and bandwagon fallacy. Today in particular, we are living through a period of severe mistrust and cynicism that keeps people wary of giving attention to any arguments that go against their beliefs. As such, it's a matter of practicality to address not only "this is why I'm right", but also "this is why you should listen to me in the first place".
2) Similarly, the fallacy, as you correctly put it, is appeal to a FAULTY authority. It's not logically fallacious to cite a credible expert on a given topic. It's logically fallacious to either a) put said expert's opinion beyond the pail of criticism or b) cite someone whom people have no reason to believe is an expert in the first place.
3) The point about LA is a technicality that misses the basic point. If ANY part of LA is ridden with tent dwellings overflowing with human feces, that is cause for concern. To clarify what I mean, let's use another example from the left's perspective: the phrase "not all men are rapists" is one that liberals readily brush off for an obvious reason: all men don't need to be rapists for there to be cause for alarm. If even, say, 20% were, then that is a serious issue which the public would reasonably be paying attention to.
4) More informally, while you are technically correct about anecdotal evidence, I think there is something to be said for putting some level of trust in your own observations and trusting your gut. Yes, the ability to use said observations in a debate is more limited, but if we take mistrust of personal observations to it's extreme, what you basically get is gaslighting: trying to sew seeds of doubt in an individual that they, in fact, cannot trust their own recollection of given events (this is seldom the actual intention of the skeptical person, only an illustration of why it's reasonable not to veer to far in that direction). There are a lot of people out there who are very well educated and have debate folders full of evidence on a given topic, yet lack the most common sense abilities of observation that have the effect of locking them away in ivory towers away from an understanding of what most flesh and blood people experience.
Glad to see at least one other person not just blindly accepting this ironically fallacious information
@@BaconPizzaWaffles Yeah I know right, this video itself was so full of the fallacies he's claiming to point out, it's as if if he gives a definition and plays footage, there you go. And the sheep lap it up. Breakdown of arguments not necessary, and if he does, full of assertions of fact that aren't, strawmans, appeals to authority/popular opinion, and so on.
SHILL DETECTED (even tho Rogan and Shapiro themselves are also controlled opp mason shills too haha just at a different level of gatekeeping)
It's interesting that you wrote a very long response and didn't even Andreea 1/3 of the video
@@danillogoncalves6082 I didn't need to address all of it. Only the parts I disagreed with.
But he doesn't actually present any evidence to support his points on race ever. Him and his fashie friends just point to King because he's dead so he can't make a video response to contradict them. Dr. King did not agree with Shapiro's perspective, and framing it that way is a appeal to faulty authority because the authority you're appealing to (the legitimacy of Dr King's name) is distorted and invalid.
Referring to an authoritative source is not necessarily a fallacy, it’s the argument from Ethos. It can be fallacious, but assigning it as fallacious simply because they argue from Ethos is fallacious.
Thank you I thought I was the only one thinking that
Though technically correct (nice use of the word necessarily BTW), I don't believe that he was "...assigning it as fallacious simply because they argue from Ethos...". The cadence of Shapiro's argument seemed to inferred an appeal to authority. To "know" for sure as to if the understanding and judgment is a fallacy or not on Shapiro's behalf, we might need better clarification as to his intent and meaning. But, I think that there's reasonable evidence to suggest that his intent was indeed an appeal to authority fallacy. 🤷♂️
Knowing the content that Shapiro was talking about is pretty helpful too. He misattributed the argument being made by King and the people he name dropped in that section. They actually were ironically arguing specifically against what Shapiro was arguing for. Thus he used them as evidence (their names as authorities and not their arguments) for his own argument.
@@tygon13 i mean he didn't use their names he used their names followed by their arguments. by this logic quoting anyone for any reason is an appeal to authority. also what exactly do you expect in a very lose general chill talk between peoples. its like people on the right are held to this absolute insane standard that if you don't concisely define the entire nature of all past, present and future events throughout the entire galaxy in a single sentence you are a deeply logically flawed person that must be outcast.
@@mayainverse9429 well to be completely Fair, what I expect from even a relaxed conversation is that if you're going to use someone's argument you use their argument rather than literally the exact opposite of their argument... like Shapiro did. 🤷♂️
@@tygon13 what do you mean like shapiro did" shapiro isn't the one doing an ultra hardcore logical analysis of a casual conversation nitpicking every grammatical inefficiency
You were very nitpicky-Thank you for that objective and hilarious acknowledgment 🤣 And it was Glorious! I would come back for more if you felt that there were just more videos like this that were worth pointing out the fallacies for. Good to learn and raise awareness.
One of my favorite channels i recently discovered.
Explaining logical fallacies is very important. Everybody falls for them from time to time and many dont see trough them at all. Wouldnt it be a good idea to make this analysis with regular / legacy news channels (Fox / MSNBC) and politicians? This is were most people base their reality on.
Our generation tends to base our reality on types like these guys
I think it's probably only fair to call something a logical fallacy when the conversation would be classified as an argument of some kind. People talking about their experiences isn't necessarily an argument. It's not really genuine or interesting to hold a person to a logical standard when they're just attempting to bond with another person
Exactly. People use generalizations and logic shortcuts to keep conversations flowing. Having to pre-qualify everything you say by negating the absolutes would make a conversation go boring rather quickly
Exactly. This is clearly just a bad faith attack not something meant to be educational.
That's the rub, Mr Shapiro thinks everything is a debate anyway lol.
@@jynxycats bingus shaboingus lives to argue and debate, it's in his blood. kinda cringe tbh
These are stupid comments. Shapiros whole career is to sell fraudulent narratives. He's payed by fossil fuel Barron's to spread these narratives. He's always "on". He's not having a casual conversation with Rogan, He's getting payed by Rogan on a professional level to be on the show so that Shapiro can represent his "ideas". And when Ben is on the show, on a professional level, he spreads horrible and dangerous misinformation that decreases the civil rights of human beings. He deserves NO such good faith from us, that he's "just having a casual conversation". What he does for a living should be fucking illegal.
This reminds me of my friend trying to say I was using a no true Scotsman fallacy. I simply changed my argument to his side, took it to the extreme and claimed I was on his side. Then he said I wasn't really making the argument in good faith and I accused him of making a no true Scotsman fallacy. Proving how easy it is to become an agent provocateur. Which is what the no true Scotsman "fallacy" attempts to point out. By dismissing the capability of people to lie for their own purpose, you open yourself up to manipulation.
The biggest logical fallacy is assuming that if you have found a logical fallacy you have disproved the argument.
Personal experience is not a logical fallacy, it is only when a disproportionate authority is granted to one’s own experience that it becomes fallacious.
Exactly. They are not asserting that their anecdote proves a point. If you say this city is going to hell, that is an opinion. Maybe hyperbolic, but that is obvious. You are not trying to prove that point in a debate. But even if you were, if you said this city sucks. I saw a guy passed out in the gutter in front of my house, that is a perfectly good reason to support your belief that, for you, the city that used to not have that now does and is going to hell. there is no fallacy there. Only if you said, the entire city is overrun by drug addicts because I saw one in front of my house, then it would be a fallacy.
@@matthewreichlin4993 They are absolutely asserting that their personal observations (anecdotal experience) is an argument supporting a position and that's where the fallacy occurs. What one has to face is that we all rely too much on anecdotal experience and that subjective experiences are about the worst metrics for assessing the validity of an argument.
You may be being hyperbolic when you say, "LA sucks," but it is a logical fallacy to deduce something about the whole city based on your individual experience of seeing a guy passed out in your gutter (which could happen in a city that was actually functioning quite well).
@@christophercousins184 It can also happen in a city that isn't functioning quite well, and tossing the claim out because it was made by someone you don't like or you don't observe the same thing in your subjective experience is what we call shitlib logic.
@@JungleLoveOeOeO Okay, see, right there! You just committed a logical fallacy! That is what's called an ad hominem attack. Instead of responding with a counter-argument, you just (metaphorically) point your finger at me at say, "You use shitlib logic." I'm assuming you mean I'm a stupid liberal and that is name calling 101.
Now for a real counter-argument: I am not tossing out a claim based on my feelings about a person, I am saying they have not supported their claim because all they have to offer for evidence is anecdotal experience. And, yes, it because I have not observed what the claimant has observed, that the claimant has to provide some sort of evidence to support his claim that the city is getting worse (i.e., some data or stats).
Really, it's not that complicated.
Okay, standing by for the next logical fallacy, let 'er rip!
💯
A bunch of these could've been avoided by Joe or Ben steering clear of absolutes or specifying "sometimes" or "for the most part" before making a point. I can see how this is dangerous and I could see how it'd be better if they did that.
Yep. Over generalizing and authority i suspect are the most common kinds of fallacies today. By appending "sometimes" it goes from an over generalization to just a generalization.
Do you do that in your own conversations?
Which is every conversation in the real world.
Yes but “sometimes” and “most of the time” don’t narrow anything down either. For example, sometimes can mean 1% of the time to 49% of the time. Also, many statements that are being critiqued and tested for logical fallacies are opinions in this video, they aren’t citing statistics.
@@limes-x6l yea it seemed kind of lazy that he called their stories and opinions anecdotal fallacies. Every individual story or experience is anecdotal. If this podcast episode was titled “California is a shit hole” then maybe it would be more justified but they were stating reasons they didn’t like California/bad experiences they’ve had.
Regardless of how lazy calling their stories anecdotal fallacies is, they are actually all really good firsthand accounts of what happens in bigger cities that have poor legislation regarding the homeless (the su
bject matter of Ben and Joe’s conversation). If you’ve been to LA or San Diego you have likely seen some of this wacky stuff and can agree that California is on a decline.
alt title: local Kansas history teacher DESTROYS fast speaking guy named Ben with FACTS AND LOGIC.
Hmmm Facts dont care about my feelings😪
Wait, he's from Kansas? Very cool.🙂
@@heathernks8 yeah he is
@@minet3225 , but they care about your feelings, right?
He actually didn’t though. He just cried “fallacy” at every available opportunity and didn’t address any actual arguments.
This is a conversation, not a debate.
That doesn't matter. Fallacies can happen in conversations.
There's also the fallacy fallacy, just because an argument has 1 or more fallacies it doesn't mean that the argument is false or incorrect.
(maybe it was mentioned in the video but I didn't notice it)
This is nuts XD Hilarious
He does directly mention that. 27:05
yeah, but it's by coincidence, not by merit of the argument, i.e. "all dolphins are mammals; Lord is a mammal; therefore, Lord is a dolphin" is a logical fallacy and yet it can very well be true, Lord can very well be a dolphin regardless of the argument made hence making it true not on the merit of the argument but despite the argument, by sheer coincidence.
We're talking about logic here (which ironically that fallacy is also called argument to logic, or bad reasons fallacy). The error is in assuming that just because there's a fallacy the conclusion can't be independently true, by coincidence. And yes, it does mean that the argument is false or incorrect, just does not mean that the conclusion has to be false because of it.
@@DDanV And that's a really massive point that *needs* to be brought up. A fallacy does not make an argument inherently wrong. It doesn't even inherently make the reasoning wrong. But people throw out fallacies like it is some sort of gotcha, when in reality the truth of the matter is more complex than that.
Thanks for this comment. The fallacy of fallacies is my favorite fallacy. Even if an argument is fallacious, the conclusion isn't necessarily wrong. I like to think that fallacies are more of an alert to be on guard than they are absolute disproofs of the speaker's conclusions.
Logical Fallacy could be a course since there is such wide variety of types. From my own life experience there are two type of people: those who are constrained to truth and facts and often lose arguments and those who only care about winning an argument and never let the facts get in their way.
you've just done 2 logical fallacies
anecdotal fallacy
either or fallacy
@@entertainedsheep7668 your knowledge of logical fallacies have been informed by a single source - Mr. Beat - so I’m afraid you’ve fallen to the “appeal to authority fallacy”
@@suetotzke1633 the problem with what you said is that you don't have any way to prove your claim and if you do then that is creepy.
@@entertainedsheep7668 you are incorrect.
@@suetotzke1633 you are incorrect .
Mr beat comment section is gonna be something.
People like you ruin the comment section.
@@Joe-sd2kx It's certainky not an useful or insightful comment, but Dark Fluid isn't ruining things by making it??
Mostly a bunch of logical fallacies and calling out my own logical fallacies in the video. :)
@@richardvilla2303 every video I go to I hear the same shitty comments. Go to a video about trump and Nancy Pelosi. They whole comment section talks about mike pence. I’m tired of these unoriginal comments.
@@Joe-sd2kx I made just one obvious comment, like I get your point but a little overreacting.
theres the fallacy fallacy in which we deem a statement or reasoning as fallacious just because it seem to appeal to one of the fallacies. Remember logic does not determine truth, but helps us to reach truth based on sound reasoning if certain criteria are met.
"It's a very boring movement, the logic movement."
Last album was alright
I actually do love Logic's music.
I don't listen to much hip hop (need to tho) but yeah No Pressure is pretty good
Ben Shapiro always tries to explain the most complex, often subjective things in a simple and seemingly objective way and I can't stand it
Well yeah. That's kinda his job. Breaking down complex things into simple ideas that most people can understand. Yea its right leaning but at least he's open about it.
Sadly that's how people need to be told because of how stupid many have become.
@@vortexcascade8488 to call it a lean is comical its a hard right turn im moderate conservative on most social issues but listening to ben shapiro talk and misrepresent things was extremely jarring considering his following
@@jorgenoname6062 I disagree. His pretty much a milk toast conservative with some libertarian values. I disagree with many of his points but still there's nothing radical about him. He runs a conservative news site and is open about it no duh its gonna have a twist in the news thats his job.
It's what demegauges who spread propaganda love to do
Ben Shapiro getting interviewed by Joe Rogan is like the Dunning-Kruger Effect incarnate.
fr
What do you mean by Joe Rogan? It makes it sound like Joe Rogan is a hyper genius but idk he’s probably a similar intelligence level as Ben. Joes mostly just a chill dude. The issue with Ben is even though he’s plenty smart his apparent confidence is fucking absurd. I have no sympathy for Ben and think he’s mostly a clown but I think I can admit personally he’s not like literally stupid. He’s bad that’s what I think he is, just a generally bad dude
@@monhi64 You don't have to like Shapiro, but he's one of the most influential ppl in politics and graduated top of Harvard Law at 22....lol - "Dunning-Kruger".
So obnoxious.
You say that but Ben Shapiro is a literal genius or at least close in terms of IQ. I'm not a fan of him but I'm saying that your just a dude on the internet you're not Einstein.
@@Baconcatboy A lot of people are literal geniuses based on a score. But being a genius isn't the same as being smart.
Thanks for the video Mr. Beat I'm using this for an English assignment and it's helping me sooooo' much