ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- Mr. Beat reacts to an episode of the Joe Rogan Experience featuring Ben Shapiro to point out and define common logical fallacies.
Join me for my upcoming seminar about logical fallacies! www.speakeasy.com/e/logical-f...
Thanks to Paul and The Felt Show for helping me make this video! Subscribe to his channel: / @thefeltshow
The full episode I'm reacting to: • Joe Rogan Experience #...
Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Electric Needle Room (Mr. Beat's band).
Much of this video was based on the book "The Fallacy Detective."
Purchase here: amzn.to/3rChcgJ
Additional sources/additional reading:
www.mindtools.com/pages/artic...
www.logicallyfallacious.com/
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
I'm now on Cameo! www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1...
Snail mail Mr. Beat: PO Box 1982 Lawrence, KS 66044
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat's book, The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
More merch: www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
Creative commons credits:
Larry D. Moore
I regularly listen to both Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro’s podcasts.
So I was excited last summer to see that Shapiro had once again appeared as a guest on The Joe Rogan Experience. Episode 1512 on July 22, 2020. However, something really stood out to me as I listened. There were A LOT of logical fallacies in this episode. Like, more than normal. This was disappointing to me, especially since Shapiro is known as a logical dude (clip at 2:10)
Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning based on bad logic.
Puppet: Wait, what is logic?
Well I’m glad you asked puppet. There are many definitions of logic. The one I’m gonna use for this video is reaching a reasonable conclusion by adequately analyzing facts.
For example, if someone spends too much money to a point where they can’t afford basic necessities, then it is logical to conclude they should save their money to have more of it.
At first glance, a logical fallacy seems to be true, but once we apply the rules of logic, it is problematic. Often, we use logical fallacies and we don’t even realize it. Logical fallacies hurt our ability to argue, but more importantly, they cause us to fall for crappy arguments.
So back to the latest Joe Rogan Experience with Ben Shapiro. What I’ll do is first play the clip and then explain the logical fallacy you just heard. I even have puppets to help me out again.
I know I was a bit nitpicky, and perhaps I even got some of these wrong, but 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. I counted _____ of them.
For the record, I still enjoyed the episode.
And I am also definitely guilty of using logical fallacies himself. One of my goals lately has been to stop using them when I form arguments.
So join me. Let’s all be logical. And boring. Yeah. Woohoo.
#logicalfallacies #benshapiro #joerogan
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.
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
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.
"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 ??
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.
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?
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
“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.
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😫😫😫😫
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
I really respect the fact that you have no specific political bias, you just logically dismantle bad faith arguments
😂😂😂
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.
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 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.
Ben Shapiro sounds like he’s been breathing helium.
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
"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.
"Of course you would say that, you're a jerk" got me so good.
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!
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.
I try to use averages. Estimates if you will. I’m a pilot, among other things, and now and then I’m required to calculate something. I follow this up with an estimate just to be sure I didn’t jump a decimal point. For example, intelligence on the whole is average. I therefore estimate that half of the people in the world have below average intelligence. I don’t like like those kinds of odds so I give up trying to change the world and write silly comments on youtube.
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.
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
i mean it IS a podcast not an official debate so it carries a more conversational tone meaning a lot of these fallacies aren’t nearly as bad as they would be in a different format
To be completely fair, this is supposed to be a casual conversation. We’re all guilty of using anecdotes when talking with our mates.
This is a talk show, a presentation of these points and discussions to literally millions of viewers. They should be held to a higher level of standards than a 1:1 conversation.
@@Alex-tx7ihExactly, also considering Bens stature and position as MANY (the right) look to him for political opinion and guidance, and also... casual convo or not, wrong is still wrong
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.
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.
Glad my students have me for a social studies teacher.
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
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.
@@soapmaker9000 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
@@soapmaker9000 “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!
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.
This man is single handedly educating Gen Z & putting Kansas back on the map. The hero we need but don't deserve.
when was kansas ever put on a map?
idk i think they’re just talking
Talking sh!t
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
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
This is a fantastic review of a very common problem with a lot of content we are exposed to, I believe. I think anytime you offer any of these reviews of any number of media would be wonderfully useful, especially for any political dialogue.
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.
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.
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.
Hi sir, 5:28 about the part to whole fallacy, does that mean we can't use studies or surveys?
Studies, when done as intended, are constructed in a way that they represent the whole by taking a sample and applying statistics to see how likely it is that they are correct given the opposite being true. This means in the context or homelessness in LA, a good survey or study would take rather evenly spaced out random locations and look for homelessness around them. Then the finding could likely be extrapolated due to the randomness and the „law of large numbers“. Although studies about that would also of course suffer from the question of how to choose the locations. By density or by space or by something else?
On the other hand, oftentimes medical studies are case studies where a specific case of illness or surgery or the like is looked at which then serves as an anecdotal point of reference.
Starting from anecdotes or knowing parts as motivation for going on further is valid and often part of scientific work. Just taking those and not investigating any further or making blanket statements is simply bad practice.
Nah definitely not, I mean that would be absurd and I know you’re saying that more so to point out the fallacy being weak. But I think you gotta take it with the grain of salt that it’s impossible to avoid all fallacies all the time and Mr. Beat is just pointing out potential examples. There’s a whole nother fallacy just about how something being a fallacy doesn’t make it inherently worse. Fallacies pretty easily turn into one of the more annoying subjects lol
I commend you sir for actually sitting through a podcast with Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro.
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.
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.
Geez. I think I just about had a stroke with all these logical fallacies in this Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro podcast. I mean though, what else would you expect with those two.
This constant and purposeful reliance on logical fallacies instead of making cogent arguments is what drove me away from the Right back when they at least tried to come across as rational. It's a shame more people aren't armed with the critical thinking skills to not get caught in by these tricks.
Historically, the right always slides to the left over time and left slides to the right. Liberal ideas become traditional, and new liberal ideas pop up. Happy to hear you're open to changing your mind!
@@metalcake2288 I think it's more that under normal circumstances most people shift left the more they understand things, and what was "leftist" just becomes normalized over time. The only times people ever actually move right is when they get radicalized by propaganda trying to use them towards selfish or malicious ends.
They're not "caught in by these tricks." They found an argument that supports what they believe. They don't really care that it's not true.
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
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.
this was very insightful on how unfair arguing tactics can be
In all fairness, when you're arguing about anything, and you can't use personal experience (anecdotal fallacy), or evidence from more intelligent people (appeal-to-authority fallacy), then how exactly are you supposed to debate in the first place
Appeal to Authority will point out that we shouldn't drink and drive because our parents said not to. It doesn't address *why* but instead relies on your belief that our parents are right.
The correct way to argue the point is through citations and explanations. Look at this law that could take your license if you drink and drive. Look at these studies where scientists show that 35/100 drunk people crashed this simulation while 1/100 sober people did. Look at these statistics published by the Department of Transportation showing the correlation between drunk drivers and collisions in practice.
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.
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.
Thanks for the video Mr. Beat I'm using this for an English assignment and it's helping me sooooo' much
Better title: "How To Find Something Wrong With Everything".
Moreso how to watch out for propaganda and misinformation because they go hand in hand with fallacies
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
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!
You were surprised that Ben Shapiro committed logical fallacies? he’s made a career on them. Watch the videos by Rationality Rules on Ben.
its important to me to recognise when theyre talking about jeff bezos that he is NOT left-leaning. he likes to act like he is, but he pushes for incredibly conservative ideas in seattle. just recently, he *personally* threatened to take funding away from sound transit if they didn't build a station the way amazon wanted it, that being in a way that would take longer for the sake of preserving vehicular traffic
"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.
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
I would love to see an example of a long form debate with no fallacy. It would be nice to hear what that would be like.
doesn't fucking exist, half of what he calls "fallacies" are so pedantic, not even philosophers would care about them
@@toonyandfriends1915well he’s literally just pointing them out and searching for examples, so he’s going to find them. He’s not like a “fallacy guy” always talking about fallacies, I can’t remember any other time he specifically brought them up. That’s just more to the point that fallacy logic is annoying in general, no reason to be pissed at Mr. Beat. I agree he probably should’ve just skipped over a bunch though because the connection was tenuous
@@monhi64 yes but the overall point was to mock a person because he kept using "logical fallacies" even though in this dialectal context, it was not legetimate
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.
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.
@@flyingturret208thecannon5 I mean it does make the justification behind their argument invalid. Maybe not their argument but the justification so long as they use it to justify
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
This is such a great channel - every high school and college should use this video to teach the fallacies being used by pundits and political personalities across social media. Very impressed!!!
The Fallacy Fallacy - Just because a claim has a logical fallacy does not mean that the claim is wrong
Nothing that’s debated over is ever “right or wrong” . General Claims made over things with grey areas are usually only half true. That is why the debate exist to iron out the specifics & eliminate the part of the claim that is false.
It still doesnt give said fallacy being used as evidence of true (not recognizing its a fallacy), as being evidence of what is true, as what Ben Shapiro Constantly tries to do.
@@lyricofwise6894 true! This comment was not intended to levy any accusations, rather to point out a cool thing I heard about awhile back
The Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy - just because an argument isn’t necessarily wrong if it contains a logical fallacy doesn’t make it right
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!
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)
Thanks for educating us! It always felt off but i couldn't quiet put my finger on it.
That's Ben responding in a nice way about not giving a crap and moving on.
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
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
Wow, I did not expect to enjoy this as much as i did 😅
I love your videos. Thank you for speaking out on social justice in an honest and logical way. You've hooked me and my family rather quickly.
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
I noticed that these fallacies are not about learning new ideas or finding truth, they are just about finding fault in the speech of people you disagree with.
If you use this in your social interactions, you will be irritating to people and consequently, misrable.
Its not about being used in everyday social interaction, but about identifying faulty reasoning. And they may not be about "finding truth or learning new ideas", but about removing falsehood.
@jpk1700 I find the first fallacy (appeal to authority) most fitting to what you said, any authority can be invalidated by saying hey it’s a fallacy…. I think it should be ways to win an argument by poking holes and nothing more
The funny thing is that many people in this comment section have committed a logical fallacy: the “fallacy fallacy”. This occurs when a person dismisses an argument due to a logical fallacy in the argument. But just because the reasoning was invalid, that doesn’t make the argument invalid.
That wasnt the point of the video if you were even paying a LITTLE bit attention. The point is, what shapiro uses as proof, isnt proof at all. Hence the discussion about fallacies itself, not entirely about the topic itself.
"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
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!
One of my favorite channels i recently discovered.
This is one of them rare occasions where a recommended video was a great one
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?
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
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.
Logical fallacies are usually split into 2 categories: formal and informal.
Formal ones are those which break rules of logic, ei. the statement isn't logically sound. For example of such fallacy is: A always leads to B, so B has to always be caused by A. This is not true: if I fall down the stairs, it hurts, so whenever I hurt, I must have fallen down the stairs. That's untru since B can be caused by other things than A. One again: formal fallacies are those which break the rules of logic.
Then we have informal fallacies, which are those that do not break any rules of logic and can still be logically sound, but they do not make a convincing/good argument. One such fallacy is the strawman, in which u take ur opponents argument, rephrase it into a weaker "strawman" version that u argue against. In other words, Opponents says A. And we respond with "but B isn't true cuz C" and logically it can make sense and C can actually disprove B, the problem is that Opponent said A and not B so we are not engaging with their argument. For example: "I don't think we should limit economic growth for the sake of fighting climate change" and the respons would be "but climate change is a proven phenomenon by a number of studies" notice how the 1st statement doesn't say climate change doesn't exist, but the 2nd statement tries to disprove that. Instead the 2nd person maybe should have said smth like "but if we don't fight climate change the economy is gonna suffer way more than if we limit it now" and actually engage with the 1st argument.
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.
"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
Hello, I loved this video. Instant subscribe.
Can you do these as a video series/do you already do that?
This literally helping one of my classes. I really need this simplified idk why I couldn't learn it 😭😭
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
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.
... I guess I'm way behind in this field. Learning a TON, thanks Matt!!!
So basically unless we’re debating someone and have knowledge on what arguments we’re making, we’re all using logical fallacies in some shape or form 😂
yes unless you’re absolute about your argument you’ll use them at some point especially the person you’re talking to
I don't think that was really the point. He only lightly touches on information that is factually incorrect, and doesn't give a specific fallacy to it. The idea is that, with the knowledge they have, they are not properly using reasoning, and reaching a conclusion that is false (even given their limited knowledge).
@@ibc_dude3652 no he's saying the justification for the beliefs are poor. At any rate this video is terrible and he is literally built like a stereotypical redditor.
"oh but bro you are using ad hominem!" nno shut the hell up i'm just insulting your sorry ass.
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.
Ben “I know tons of cops” Shapiro and Joe “A good buddy of mine” Rogan
It’s debatable that many of these instances are fallacies because of personal interpretation of the factual basis and of what exactly the argument is. It takes communication in good faith debate to uncover if an argument is wrong due to a real fallacy or not, for which the original podcast and this video are not.
This is one of my favorite of all of your videos. People like Rogan, Shapiro, Maher, and other who are educated and know better constantly use them to bulster their arguments. They also use the fact that they have multitudes of minions (followers) in order to appear to qualify their opinions are facts. This is why critical thinking is so importants. Thanks Mr. Beat
This is also the reason that they accumulate a cult following. These fallacy’s are exactly what these people need to mask their ignorance, racism, insecurity and create excuses for they’re own inadequacies.
@@jrb2280So how do you know they're all of the things you just listed?
@@jrb2280Explain how Ben Shapiro is racist
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.
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?
Never before have I seen a Ben Shapiro video that is so educational. 😅
Haha.
Who is listening to the buffoon and paid propagandist? My god, how can anyone listen to his whiny, monotone voice, and nonsense?
Isn’t there also a Fallacy fallacy? Where they could be using a logical fallacy but it doesn’t necessarily mean what they are saying is wrong… right? Genuinely asking.
Yes. The argument can be wrong but the answer can still be right. We know 2 + 2 = 4, but if your argument to prove it is 1 + 3 = 4 so everything must equals 4 (a clearly fallacious argument), that doesn't mean that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.