I've also studied philosophy and after learning about fallacies, I'm very concerned, because they appear too often. People often make claims, state things that are not necessarily true. While I see the problem in only stating the obvious, some things, should have researched these things. An example could be politicians using fallacies almost exclusively. Also people who haven't learned about fallacies and critical thinking often makes fallacious judgements about their current situation or other people. The world could indeed be a much better place if philosophy was mandatory world wide.
fallacy fallacy : just because something is a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it isn't true. which is the point of all rational arguments. e.g. "i know the sky is blue because everyone else says it is."
About the "the sky is blue because everyone says it is" thing. That is a true appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum). People don't understand that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
@@thedarkmaster4747 Is this supposed to be an argument against making critical thinking mandatory? Not a very good one. Just because people happen to get things right while being fallacious, doesn't mean it isn't still a fallacy and should be removed from argumentation.
@@cadkls Both the subconcious mind and the human digestive system posses complexed problem solving capacities. Your gut and your dreams can at times surpass your conscious intellect - profoundly... Often in this era "the educated"(there is a strong tangable and powerfull sarcasm in those air quotes.) of the first world, on average only process pre realtional information based on recorded facts, statistics and objective data. They don't entertain or consider emotions or thoughts beyond the pre narrated memetic zeitgeist of their orchestraighted societies. It's why hostage negotiators require so much training. You have to be able to sympathize and empathise with the person who is distressed to the point of mortality(most people within our society cannot do this, even in life or death sittuations.). It's not an argument against making education, or quite frankly litteral basic qualification... A boundary to agency. Engineering has these standards because they're nessersary - and fortunately that field cannily displays immediate consiquences when they are not met(unlike the delayed disasters and seemily autonomous systematic failures in other regions of "expertise".). It's an argument for more than mere crittical thought alone to become mandatory. If you've ever experienced someone with expertise in more than one discipline become conflicted as to the correct action to take, then you've got an idea of what i'm pointing at. A biologist cannot perscribe the best treatment for depression, a psychologist cannot surgically remove a brain tumour. Add feminam is a logical fallacy, i doubt many purely philosophy students can tell me why it really, really shouldn't be there. The placebo effect crosses the disciplinary fields of both pre aformentioned experts, in our modern society people tend to ignore effects such as that, even though placebo is medically recodnised(miraculously i might add). There is more than one way to cook an egg.
couldnt that last one just have been an ad hominem fallacy and not its own thing. you know because it is attacking the person. if that gets to be its own i want an ad mexicanism to be on the list or ad blackism.
Hi, All these are Ad Hominem fallacies (they all work the same way). Some of them have come to be known by specific names because they occur quite often--often enough that people have named it. There is nothing distinctive about them in terms of the structure. But you are absolutely correct to note that it works exactly like the other ones do.
Wireless Philosophy just to follow up on what A Nice Guy said: I'm not sure why this is a classification? The other classifications have slight variances, such as, abusive ad hominem being an attack of a characteristic of someone (ie: don't take health tips from overweight people, or, discrediting a pregnancy claim because it is coming from a man, or a quantum physics theory from a custodian) whereas circumstantial, though related, is just a slight offset because it is a bit more situational. It seems to me that ad feminam is a specific characteristic (gender) with a specific value (female) which comes back to the definition of the abusive ad hominem being an attack on a characteristic of a person. I guess what I am getting at is that I don't see how making a refined distinction (presented as its own classification) benefits the identity of ad hominem argument types
Thank you so much, you kind-hearted Yale graduate. 👏 Although it's so sad to see all these half- wits leaving negative or cynical comments, committing the exact same fallacy of Ad Hominem! ( Did I mention half-wit?😂) keep up your spirit and good work, out of those 5 % rotten apples, there are 95% that appreciate your positive energy tutorial in this positive millennium!! T4P 🙏
There is an entire category for discrediting an argument because someone is a women? I almost never see that happen, but maybe it happens a lot in places outside the US?
Have You Seen any videos by ImprovementPill I love the the style of Video I'm gonna call it A Educational "POVCAD" (Point of View Computer-Aided Drawing) Video and I kinda sounds like "PODCAST" Good Video😁
G) Given that all of Ronald Reagan's policies were the right thing to do (implicit premise) and the differences between his policies and the proposed policy are so small as to be negligible (charitable interpretation of 'similar') and context has not changed relevantly (implicit premise), it follows that this IS the right thing to do. This is an argument from credibility.
So sad to see all these negative comments by a kind- hearted Yale graduate. And you're studying Philosophy by "assuming"?!? How do you know she's a feminist? Just bc you saw that she's a woman? I saw the most vicisious attackers of Feminism that are themselves women. Maybe go back to your high school history book ( esp. the period before how women gained the right to vote) or at least watch a movie? Did she make up these 6 fallacies? Go study logic 101 first before you study Ad Hominem bc you're committing the same fallacies!!
Can anyone help me with the following: It is good to do X to Y. All Y's are Z Therefore, it is good to do X to Z. I would like to know if it's valid or invalid. Why or why not?
All Ys are Z but that doesn't mean all Zs are Y. "It's good to drive your car through a carwash. All cars are automobiles. Therefore it is good to drive an automobile through a carwash." Except if your automobile is a motorcycle, you'll get soaked. Or if it's a massive truck, you won't fit. "It's good to feed fish to dolphins. All dolphins are living creatures. Therefore it's good to feed fish to living creatures." You probably don't want a bunch of rotting fish stinking up your potted house plants.
The genetic fallacy explanation is completely wrong. "It could have changed" is not the issue. Genetic fallacy is when one attacked the credibility of an idea based on it's origin. For example, let's say I believe the sky is blue because a fortune teller told me in a trance. The genetic fallacy is to say "a fortune teller told you the sky was blue in a trance, with is stupid and ridiculous, therefore, you're wrong, the sky isn't blue". In reality, how I came to know that the sky was blue don't allow you to dismiss my claim solely for that reason. You'd have to show that the sky is in fact not blue by some other means.
"It could have changed" is simply one reason why the conclusion reached by such an argument isn't necessarily true, thus making it a fallacy, even if it isn't the only reason. But her explanation of the fallacy itself was fine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "fallacy". A fallacy is not problematic because it "could be untrue", it's problematic because it uses an invalid method of reasoning to arrive at a certain conclusion. Demonstrating that the conclusion of an argument "could be wrong" doesn't show that it's a fallacy. That's why her example doesn't work. A proper example of the genetic fallacy would have demonstrated how the source of a belief is independent from it's truth value. Such as holding the belief that the sky is blue because a you learned it from a fortune-teller in a trance. Clearly, information learned from fortune-tellers in a trance should be treated with great skepticism, but you can't immediately dismiss it simply because that's the source.
orbdustFilms I don't misunderstand the meaning of fallacy. I understand the meaning of deductive logic. For a logical syllogism to be valid, it must be _necessarily_ true. If you can think of a possible way for the premises to be true and yet the conclusion false, then you have discovered a fallacy. For more info, watch the wiphi video on validity. (You could also Google the definition of "fallacy", which defined it for me as "a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid"). I'm not arguing that your example doesn't fit, but I am arguing that hers does. But if you don't agree, then are you arguing that her example is of a different fallacy or that it isn't a fallacy?
I can't believe a good intended tutorial would generate so much negative, cynical comments, esp. on the sub- fallacies: Ad Feminam! To quote from Wiki: "...AD Hominem, in Latin, usually means: to the person ( Hominem) it doesn't make any referance to the sex of the person. Ad Feminam is found on the Corpus of Contemporary American, it seems to be a back-formation. It first appeared in the period between 1920 to 1929....." American women only obtained their voting rights in August 1920, so they were historically the vulnerable, weaker gender of the whole 2 human genders. So as a argument fallacy, it's logical that one shouldn't personally attack one bc they're weaker ( or sicker, or different race, or disabled ) on human gender facts. But nowadays, hundred years later , there're still male chauvinists, without checking the historical facts, again personally attack the posted vid owner ( a woman, incidentally) about this recorded logic fallacy since 1920, one century old!!! This really discourages you to post vid of such positive intentions to such ignorant viewers!! T4P🙏
That was a terrible example of the genetic fallacy. Reputations lost, must be earned back. Should a credit card company give a credit card with a 100,000 credit limit to someone who doesn't pay their bills on time and has defaulted on loans?
This from the site Introduction to Logic: ....other fallacies associated with...Ad Personam... Although there is no general accepted consensus, many logicians today distinguish several prevailing indistinct varities of fallacies related to the ...Argumentum Ad Hominem Fallacy. From what I got from the key words, you're too quick to judge by pointing out just the reverse. One is the forest, one is the tree!! No critical thinking?!?😉😜
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Essential Moral Self) [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b5kDRza-Xqs/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Essential Moral Self) [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBkj-AYYg7w/mqdefault.jpg)
![“อาร์ต พศุตม์” เกือบเอี่ยวทุกคดีดัง เอ๊ะไว้ก่อน ไม่มีอะไรได้มาง่ายๆ | แฉ 16 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0Gx-0-kUBv8/mqdefault.jpg)
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I've also studied philosophy and after learning about fallacies, I'm very concerned, because they appear too often. People often make claims, state things that are not necessarily true. While I see the problem in only stating the obvious, some things, should have researched these things. An example could be politicians using fallacies almost exclusively.
Also people who haven't learned about fallacies and critical thinking often makes fallacious judgements about their current situation or other people.
The world could indeed be a much better place if philosophy was mandatory world wide.
fallacy fallacy : just because something is a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it isn't true. which is the point of all rational arguments. e.g. "i know the sky is blue because everyone else says it is."
About the "the sky is blue because everyone says it is" thing. That is a true appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum). People don't understand that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
@@thedarkmaster4747 Is this supposed to be an argument against making critical thinking mandatory? Not a very good one.
Just because people happen to get things right while being fallacious, doesn't mean it isn't still a fallacy and should be removed from argumentation.
@@cadkls Both the subconcious mind and the human digestive system posses complexed problem solving capacities. Your gut and your dreams can at times surpass your conscious intellect - profoundly... Often in this era "the educated"(there is a strong tangable and powerfull sarcasm in those air quotes.) of the first world, on average only process pre realtional information based on recorded facts, statistics and objective data. They don't entertain or consider emotions or thoughts beyond the pre narrated memetic zeitgeist of their orchestraighted societies. It's why hostage negotiators require so much training. You have to be able to sympathize and empathise with the person who is distressed to the point of mortality(most people within our society cannot do this, even in life or death sittuations.). It's not an argument against making education, or quite frankly litteral basic qualification... A boundary to agency. Engineering has these standards because they're nessersary - and fortunately that field cannily displays immediate consiquences when they are not met(unlike the delayed disasters and seemily autonomous systematic failures in other regions of "expertise".). It's an argument for more than mere crittical thought alone to become mandatory. If you've ever experienced someone with expertise in more than one discipline become conflicted as to the correct action to take, then you've got an idea of what i'm pointing at. A biologist cannot perscribe the best treatment for depression, a psychologist cannot surgically remove a brain tumour. Add feminam is a logical fallacy, i doubt many purely philosophy students can tell me why it really, really shouldn't be there. The placebo effect crosses the disciplinary fields of both pre aformentioned experts, in our modern society people tend to ignore effects such as that, even though placebo is medically recodnised(miraculously i might add). There is more than one way to cook an egg.
@@thedarkmaster4747 nah,its just a fallacy that happened to be true. Nothing deeper
couldnt that last one just have been an ad hominem fallacy and not its own thing. you know because it is attacking the person. if that gets to be its own i want an ad mexicanism to be on the list or ad blackism.
Hi,
All these are Ad Hominem fallacies (they all work the same way). Some of them have come to be known by specific names because they occur quite often--often enough that people have named it. There is nothing distinctive about them in terms of the structure. But you are absolutely correct to note that it works exactly like the other ones do.
Wireless Philosophy just to follow up on what A Nice Guy said: I'm not sure why this is a classification? The other classifications have slight variances, such as, abusive ad hominem being an attack of a characteristic of someone (ie: don't take health tips from overweight people, or, discrediting a pregnancy claim because it is coming from a man, or a quantum physics theory from a custodian) whereas circumstantial, though related, is just a slight offset because it is a bit more situational. It seems to me that ad feminam is a specific characteristic (gender) with a specific value (female) which comes back to the definition of the abusive ad hominem being an attack on a characteristic of a person. I guess what I am getting at is that I don't see how making a refined distinction (presented as its own classification) benefits the identity of ad hominem argument types
Wireless Philosophy Thanks for replying and well dang it sucks that that one (ad feminine) gets used enough to be its own. Being prejudice sucks.
+Bahnny I wonder why they didn't respond...
+A Nice Guy :D 'problematic''
Thank you so much, you kind-hearted Yale graduate. 👏 Although it's so sad to see all these half- wits leaving negative or cynical comments, committing the exact same fallacy of Ad Hominem! ( Did I mention half-wit?😂) keep up your spirit and good work, out of those 5 % rotten apples, there are 95% that appreciate your positive energy tutorial in this positive millennium!! T4P 🙏
What a fantastic video! I thought the examples were great, and the animation is entertaining as usual.
What was the answer to the quiz at the end? Was it a genetic fallacy, guilt by association?
yup, it's genetic fallacy.
There is an entire category for discrediting an argument because someone is a women? I almost never see that happen, but maybe it happens a lot in places outside the US?
In islamic societies mostly, women's opinions are discredited due to cultural and religious ideas that she's lesser than a man in terms of intellect
When was the ad feminem fallacy introduced?
Thank you! I Love studying logical reasoning - so intriguing!
The ultimate ad hominem is calling people racist.
Ad Masculine: The attempt to discredit a claim on the grounds that a male person proposed it.
Have You Seen any videos by ImprovementPill I love the the style of Video I'm gonna call it
A Educational "POVCAD" (Point of View Computer-Aided Drawing) Video
and I kinda sounds like "PODCAST"
Good Video😁
G) Given that all of Ronald Reagan's policies were the right thing to do (implicit premise) and the differences between his policies and the proposed policy are so small as to be negligible (charitable interpretation of 'similar') and context has not changed relevantly (implicit premise), it follows that this IS the right thing to do. This is an argument from credibility.
bro why did i replay 4:32 so many time.The way she said Philosophy professor got me laughing.Any one else found that funny
These are some really common fallacy. Hear them all around and yeah is guilty of using them too..
I come to this channel to study for my philosophy tests. Pushing feminist politics here is not helping.
So sad to see all these negative comments by a kind- hearted Yale graduate. And you're studying Philosophy by "assuming"?!? How do you know she's a feminist? Just bc you saw that she's a woman? I saw the most vicisious attackers of Feminism that are themselves women. Maybe go back to your high school history book ( esp. the period before how women gained the right to vote) or at least watch a movie? Did she make up these 6 fallacies? Go study logic 101 first before you study Ad Hominem bc you're committing the same fallacies!!
is the example genetic or association???
While it is true that this is a fallacy, it may help guide how much time we're willing to spend evaluating a claim... there's a reason we all do it.
Would not be the argument of how much money I have regarding how much I have to give to charity a Circumstantial Ad Hominem ?
What is the answer to the last one?
Uuuugh... I think you could've placed the ad feminam example under the abusive ad hominem category.
Welcome to 2020, where woke people have decided that ad hominem attacks are the best way to get one's point across.
Ad masculine should be added why misandry
are male and white and black people also getting their own fallacy or do we rank too high on your "progressive stack" for special treatment?
Can anyone help me with the following:
It is good to do X to Y.
All Y's are Z
Therefore, it is good to do X to Z.
I would like to know if it's valid or invalid. Why or why not?
All Ys are Z but that doesn't mean all Zs are Y.
"It's good to drive your car through a carwash. All cars are automobiles. Therefore it is good to drive an automobile through a carwash." Except if your automobile is a motorcycle, you'll get soaked. Or if it's a massive truck, you won't fit.
"It's good to feed fish to dolphins. All dolphins are living creatures. Therefore it's good to feed fish to living creatures." You probably don't want a bunch of rotting fish stinking up your potted house plants.
David Cameron says hi!
The genetic fallacy explanation is completely wrong. "It could have changed" is not the issue.
Genetic fallacy is when one attacked the credibility of an idea based on it's origin. For example, let's say I believe the sky is blue because a fortune teller told me in a trance. The genetic fallacy is to say "a fortune teller told you the sky was blue in a trance, with is stupid and ridiculous, therefore, you're wrong, the sky isn't blue". In reality, how I came to know that the sky was blue don't allow you to dismiss my claim solely for that reason. You'd have to show that the sky is in fact not blue by some other means.
"It could have changed" is simply one reason why the conclusion reached by such an argument isn't necessarily true, thus making it a fallacy, even if it isn't the only reason. But her explanation of the fallacy itself was fine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "fallacy". A fallacy is not problematic because it "could be untrue", it's problematic because it uses an invalid method of reasoning to arrive at a certain conclusion. Demonstrating that the conclusion of an argument "could be wrong" doesn't show that it's a fallacy. That's why her example doesn't work.
A proper example of the genetic fallacy would have demonstrated how the source of a belief is independent from it's truth value. Such as holding the belief that the sky is blue because a you learned it from a fortune-teller in a trance. Clearly, information learned from fortune-tellers in a trance should be treated with great skepticism, but you can't immediately dismiss it simply because that's the source.
orbdustFilms
I don't misunderstand the meaning of fallacy. I understand the meaning of deductive logic. For a logical syllogism to be valid, it must be _necessarily_ true. If you can think of a possible way for the premises to be true and yet the conclusion false, then you have discovered a fallacy. For more info, watch the wiphi video on validity. (You could also Google the definition of "fallacy", which defined it for me as "a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid").
I'm not arguing that your example doesn't fit, but I am arguing that hers does. But if you don't agree, then are you arguing that her example is of a different fallacy or that it isn't a fallacy?
Nah am good using ratio to those whose opinion i disagree with
I don't consider that Genetic Fallacy example a good one, at all.
I can't believe a good intended tutorial would generate so much negative, cynical comments, esp. on the sub- fallacies: Ad Feminam! To quote from Wiki: "...AD Hominem, in Latin, usually means: to the person ( Hominem) it doesn't make any referance to the sex of the person. Ad Feminam is found on the Corpus of Contemporary American, it seems to be a back-formation. It first appeared in the period between 1920 to 1929....." American women only obtained their voting rights in August 1920, so they were historically the vulnerable, weaker gender of the whole 2 human genders. So as a argument fallacy, it's logical that one shouldn't personally attack one bc they're weaker ( or sicker, or different race, or disabled ) on human gender facts. But nowadays, hundred years later , there're still male chauvinists, without checking the historical facts, again personally attack the posted vid owner ( a woman, incidentally) about this recorded logic fallacy since 1920, one century old!!! This really discourages you to post vid of such positive intentions to such ignorant viewers!! T4P🙏
Wonderful Words!
You rock!!
That was a terrible example of the genetic fallacy. Reputations lost, must be earned back. Should a credit card company give a credit card with a 100,000 credit limit to someone who doesn't pay their bills on time and has defaulted on loans?
she said that the genetic fallacy can also be used in benefit.
Do you realize that calling "Tu Quoque" a fallacy actually provides the perfect defense of Ayn Rand's character?
CD'sWorkshop did you say croquets?
This is hilarious in the worst ways xD
Youre describing Ad Personam, NOT Ad Hominem
This from the site Introduction to Logic: ....other fallacies associated with...Ad Personam... Although there is no general accepted consensus, many logicians today distinguish several prevailing indistinct varities of fallacies related to the ...Argumentum Ad Hominem Fallacy. From what I got from the key words, you're too quick to judge by pointing out just the reverse. One is the forest, one is the tree!! No critical thinking?!?😉😜
Manipulative gibberish, if your honest this is irrelevant for the most part except in seeing lower levels of unconscious
oh no feminism. There will be 10000000000000000 comments on this video now. ;)
my thoughts exactly.
Don't start nothing and there won't be nothing.
Herv3 so you mean there will be? (double negative)
Laharl Krichevskoy no
thats not a correct.
the lack of nothingness would be subtractive, not multiplicitive. 0-0=0 bro
thumbs down
not you illustrating the ad feminam fallacy lol
only wiphi video i downvoted