I think the best opinion I hold is that Logic should be taught in grade school. Logic is the best defense a young person can have against the sloppy thinking, lies, & downright brainwashing that infect our society. The speaker in the video taught the subject well & when taught well, Logic is accessible to anyone who can think-& even fun. Much thanks.
I’m taking interpersonal communication and I have midterms tomorrow, this video has helped me. Appreciate the examples and your breakdown of the different fallacies.
Ergo hoc post propter hoc fallacy, I heard this one often back when I attended AA meetings, example would be, if you stop attending meetings every day then you will be sure to relapse and start drinking again ..
Interesting example. That sounds related to the false cause fallacy in the video: After this, therefore because of this. Although, I will say that for the record, I know a lot of alcoholics who benefited greatly from AA. I realize that's not the point of your example, but I wanted to mention it all the same.
agreed, and I too believe that AA provides much more help than hurt (and overall am a big fan of it because of this), but just for the sake of argument, other classic fallacies in AA include: It worked for me, therefore it will work for you. And to even take it a step further (and double down), if it doesn't work for you, then that means YOU are not doing it right because it has to work... "I've never seen someone stop going to AA and come back to AA and tell us that they got better and are fine now and no longer have a drinking problem." While I understand the sentiment, if someone did stop going to AA and (by chance) found that they no longer had a drinking problem and became a normal drinker with no problems...why would they go back to AA to share this?
That _slippery slope_ scare tactic IS a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc, like you said. Y (relapse) happened after X (no meetings), therefore, X caused Y? YiXe. Lol This is what happens when people presume the opposite inference is automatically true. "IF you go to meetings, THEN you {have a much better chance} of NOT relapsing" doesn't necessarily imply that stopping _will_ cause a relapse, it simply increases the chance, _if you would have relapsed._ Hope that made sense.
@@wyzer9 I attended meetings for regularly for over twenty years and stopped going completely in 2011 and have never relapsed or become a “ dry drunk “ and have known others who claim that they quit drinking without ever attending any AA meetings . I truly believe that I would have stayed sober all those years with or without meetings based on the fact that I wanted to be sober more than I wanted to drink .
@@paulypooper2 Correct. It has _nothing_ to do with attendance and _everything_ to do with mindset. Same goes for NA (or even the "weaning" programs). I've seen dope addicts get off the skag to "get clean", then they get hooked on m-done or boxes for years and years.
A+! After writing on this thread that Logic should be taught in grade school, I just saw your similar view. Logic is underrated as armor against the dirty tricks of the world-& even our schools.
It's a fallacy if the predicted outcomes are framed as unavoidable and a bit outrageous. However, if there really is a likelihood that a specific outcome will result, then that's not considered a slippery slope. For example, many people made arguments about the numerous bad outcomes that would happen in Oregon if the legalized most drug use and then that is exactly what happened. And now they are taking steps to reverse those laws. But those negative outcomes they forecasted were not outlandish at all. So, that was never a slippery slope argument.
I actually thought about that example, but I steer WAY clear of hot-topic political issues. Plus, since so many people are onboard with that agenda, I didn't want to make the comments section all about defending what I say in the video. In the end, I'm here to teach communication and leadership. That topic would have been a distraction from the lesson of the video and for what most of my viewers come here for.
- See the free resources on Alex's site: www.alexanderlyon.com/free-resources
- Take a look at Alex's Communication Academy: www.alexanderlyon.com/cca
I think the best opinion I hold is that Logic should be taught in grade school. Logic is the best defense a young person can have against the sloppy thinking, lies, & downright brainwashing that infect our society. The speaker in the video taught the subject well & when taught well, Logic is accessible to anyone who can think-& even fun. Much thanks.
Grade school is too late. The logical fallacies start at birth, usually with the God claim and faith to create gullible humanity.
I have to say this may one of my favorite quick videos about communication. A++
Thank you!
I’m taking interpersonal communication and I have midterms tomorrow, this video has helped me. Appreciate the examples and your breakdown of the different fallacies.
I am learning about human psychology and this video popped up at the right time, waiting for another video like this
Ergo hoc post propter hoc fallacy, I heard this one often back when I attended AA meetings, example would be, if you stop attending meetings every day then you will be sure to relapse and start drinking again ..
Interesting example. That sounds related to the false cause fallacy in the video: After this, therefore because of this. Although, I will say that for the record, I know a lot of alcoholics who benefited greatly from AA. I realize that's not the point of your example, but I wanted to mention it all the same.
agreed, and I too believe that AA provides much more help than hurt (and overall am a big fan of it because of this), but just for the sake of argument, other classic fallacies in AA include:
It worked for me, therefore it will work for you. And to even take it a step further (and double down), if it doesn't work for you, then that means YOU are not doing it right because it has to work...
"I've never seen someone stop going to AA and come back to AA and tell us that they got better and are fine now and no longer have a drinking problem." While I understand the sentiment, if someone did stop going to AA and (by chance) found that they no longer had a drinking problem and became a normal drinker with no problems...why would they go back to AA to share this?
That _slippery slope_ scare tactic IS a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc, like you said. Y (relapse) happened after X (no meetings), therefore, X caused Y? YiXe. Lol This is what happens when people presume the opposite inference is automatically true. "IF you go to meetings, THEN you {have a much better chance} of NOT relapsing" doesn't necessarily imply that stopping _will_ cause a relapse, it simply increases the chance, _if you would have relapsed._ Hope that made sense.
@@wyzer9 I attended meetings for regularly for over twenty years and stopped going completely in 2011 and have never relapsed or become a “ dry drunk “ and have known others who claim that they quit drinking without ever attending any AA meetings . I truly believe that I would have stayed sober all those years with or without meetings based on the fact that I wanted to be sober more than I wanted to drink .
@@paulypooper2 Correct. It has _nothing_ to do with attendance and _everything_ to do with mindset. Same goes for NA (or even the "weaning" programs). I've seen dope addicts get off the skag to "get clean", then they get hooked on m-done or boxes for years and years.
Super helpful information! Get to take notes, thank you so much, Alexander!
Can you explain more about what sort of follow-up question I should be asking if I detect a logical fallacy?
Thank you ❤
All students from middle school and up should watch this video!
I'd add the straw man fallacy to the list
Good one!
A+! After writing on this thread that Logic should be taught in grade school, I just saw your similar view. Logic is underrated as armor against the dirty tricks of the world-& even our schools.
Great list but I think it should be 8, adding the straw man argument- when you attack an idea that wasn’t actually the original idea being discussed.
I just put out a video on the straw man argument yesterday! I explain why it was not in this video as well.
moving goalposts too
The straw man fallacy is a common one also.
Yes, another commenter mentioned that one. I had some that I cut, but maybe I'll make a Part 2 if this video does well.
@@alexanderlyon I'll look forward to that 🙂
Excellent stuff! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I subscribed your channel through Lisa accurate English.
Welcome aboard! Lisa is fantastic. I really enjoy collaborating with her.
I feel like the Middle Road fallacy should have been on this list but this was still really handy
What about Appeal to pity 😊
Politicians for sure !!
Oh, yeah. They use all of the dirty tricks! Ha.
well yeah cause all politicians are...... well , if they're like you than all politicians are the common clay of the new west. peace out
Is there a video on how to respond to a fallacy.
I don't plan to make a video on that, but usually, the best approach is to ask some clarifying questions so the flaw in their logic becomes obvious.
I love your content a lot. Thank you so much for your brilliant work💕✨
I question if slippery slope is automatically a fallacy.🤔
It's a fallacy if the predicted outcomes are framed as unavoidable and a bit outrageous. However, if there really is a likelihood that a specific outcome will result, then that's not considered a slippery slope. For example, many people made arguments about the numerous bad outcomes that would happen in Oregon if the legalized most drug use and then that is exactly what happened. And now they are taking steps to reverse those laws. But those negative outcomes they forecasted were not outlandish at all. So, that was never a slippery slope argument.
Ad baculum ( appeal to force):This happens when one is persuaded through force.
Good addition. I haven't seen that one on many lists but I've for sure heard people use it.
Appeal to authority is a common one in my world.
Mr Example (supervisor) says the only way to do this action correctly is how he does it.
L
Good one! Yes, that's used a lot.
For bandwagon fallacy, you should have used a better and more recent example--global warming--rather than the string theory example you gave.
I actually thought about that example, but I steer WAY clear of hot-topic political issues. Plus, since so many people are onboard with that agenda, I didn't want to make the comments section all about defending what I say in the video. In the end, I'm here to teach communication and leadership. That topic would have been a distraction from the lesson of the video and for what most of my viewers come here for.
@@alexanderlyon I loved the string theory example. In fact, it could be used to examine the theory of global warming (rather than vice versa).
That preacher's tone. So noble. So righteous... 🤢🤢🤢 I can't stand it any longer. Bye!
Straw man fallacy
Strawman fallacy
Now days I see straw man being used a lot, it’s so annoying!🤦🏾♂️
Yes, that's a common one.
CONSTANTLY... especially online
Promo-SM