Five Fallacies | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com

Arguing on the internet, everyone's favorite pastime! But unfortunately, some people don't do it very well - or at least they could do it better. You owe it to them (and yourself!) to help them out and make their claims and/or arguments less fallacious. In doing so, you'll increase the quality of discourse between the both of you, perhaps even helping you finally figure out DEEP QUESTIONS like "WHAT IS LOVE" and "WHY IS SRIRACHA SO DANG TASTY." Educate yourself and your fellow internet commenters in this week's Idea Channel episode.

STUDY GUIDE

----------------------------------

Watch the individual videos:

Straw man Fallacy:

Ad Hominem Fallacy:

Black and White Fallacy:

Authority Fallacy:

No True Scotsman Fallacy:

Watch the playlist:

----------------------------------------­­----------------

ASSETS

4:31

8:10

8:55

9:04

----------------------------------------­­----------------

I made a podcast!

----------------------------------------­­----------------

MUSIC:

"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master

"Dizor" by Outsider

"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider

"Something like this" by Outsider

----------------------------------------­­----------------

----------------------------------------­­----------------

Want some more Idea Channel?

Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?

How To Create Responsible Social Criticism

What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?

Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?

[Chimera-man-man]

I stopped arguing on the internet last year and since then I've become much fitter, happier, got a girlfriend, a job and I stopped losing my hair.

[yaragorm]

What about the "fallacy fallacy". When people point out that someone is using a fallacy and use that to discredit the argument entirely.

[puddimilk]

Me: Gives my mom a well thought-out argument with plenty of evidence to tell her why she is in the wrong in this instance and am very respectful throughout the delivery of my monologue
My mom: No
Me: why?
My mom: Because I said so

[existerequo]

MORE!!! (throws coffee mug on the floor)

[founoe]

As a supporter of gamer gate I do not approve of threats.
But I do not understand the idea that threats are unacceptable to the point where you have to invalidate the entire movements based on a few.

Because let's face it, the *vast* majority of what has been aimed towards people by the gamer gate movement has been legit criticism, which these people in an attempt to play victims have tried to call harassment.

Invalidating gamer gate because of a few alleged threats just seems like a ploy to avoid facing the very real criticism.

[InMaTeofDeath]

I don't really care about gamergate but I found it interesting that the reasons Mike's against it is due to the vocal minorities actions as opposed to the majority.  By that reasoning we should judge religions by the extremist committing acts of terror instead of what the majority feel its for.

[AshtarteD]

Good for you Mike for joining those of us standing against Gamergate because of their horrendous tactics. The level of hypocrisy in so many of it's supporters is downright baffling. It's the same reason I will not stand beside the legion of SJW in places like Tumblr even though some mean well. I may be a member of the LGBT community, but I'm more often embarassed by the community at large's actions than proud of them.

[londonsummers]

I would love to have more fallacies! I'm working on my masters thesis, and these are helping me identifying fallacies in my own work and the conversations I'm having with other MA students.

[tonilando]

I find that gamergate has split into two, we 1) gamergate vs journalists and ethics in journalism, the actual debate where it should be talked out. 2) Internet trolls vs feminists radicals on both sides have twisted the original arguments, as bad as each other one self entitled grandiosity that is using the controversy to become well known and the idiots who just want to cause a fight and have a problem with other people with no interest in the original arguments

[rebellucy]

The problem with fallacies is that they don't matter if there is no mediator judging the discussion.
If the person who committed the fallacy frankly, does not give a damn, and no one else does either then its almost as if the fallacy not only doesn't exist, but just made their argument even more airtight.

How often have you seen a comment that said "You're argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" (which I see quite a lot in comment sections) and the other guy going "O damn, you're right, man you sure got me, I messed up."

[NextGenVixen]

If you do decide to make a gamergate episode, can you please explain what it is EXACTLY? I'm still unsure as to what it is, what its for, who it targets, what its goal is and why I should even care. It doesn't help that there are people saying it represents or means multiple different things.

For example some people say its about corrupt games journalism, others say its about gamers being sexist and misogynistic towards women (no idea how that's possible when tonnes of women like myself ARE gamers but okay) and others say that its about what defines a gamer and anyone that doesn't follow that exact definition isn't a gamer.

Honestly, I'd just like some clarity on the whole thing in an unbiased and intelligent way.

[QuicheSpaghetti]

I loved this and I think you are doing the internet a great service by making available these concise, accessible descriptions on types of fallacies and argument etiquette. I don't comment very often but I'm going to exercise my potential power as a viewer to influence the channel in this case. Please make more!

[saberepee]

I'm sure there is a bigger discussion to be had here, but I need to be clear on one thing...

The Watergate scandal had Nothing to do with Water. At all. It's the name of a hotel.

We seriously need to stop using the -gate suffix for these kinds of things. It's obnoxious.

[danielspellan]

Didn't you use an ad hominem attack at the end of the video on gamergate supporters?  I mean I love the video and your channel in general but why focus on the idiotic actions of a few when there are serious concerns, as you clearly understand, in gaming journalism and development?  Or how about the ridiculous reactions on countless sites since all of this broke (ie shadowbans on reddit or the infamous GameJournoPros story)?

[GregPoblete]

I took a debate class a few semesters ago and this is basically what we learned. This was way more fun to learn watching this.

[MrJethroha]

The mark of a truly great debater is the ability to infuse many fallacies into his argument without getting caught.

[MrCAFargo]

Gamergate is a great example of many of these fallacies. The anti camp has been arguing about how gamergate are a bunch of misogynistic exclusionary jerks, while the gamergate camp is trying to argue about corruption in gaming blogs, a clear example of the straw man fallacy. There's been plenty of ad hominem attacks on both sides, I mean we've all seen the vitriole coming from both sides, attacking the characters of the side, as opposed to actually arguing about corruption in gaming blogs. There's some "no true scotsman" mixed in there, with both sides attempting to quell the worst of their worst. Really, the fallacy that killed gamergate was the black-and-white fallacy, wherein people on both sides started claiming that if you sided with the other, you must hate women or support corruption in gaming blogs, when really there are plenty of people who both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt.

I can't really think of any appeals to authority, although when your authority figures are gaming bloggers or reddit users, there's not really much that an appeal to authority can do, especially when both sides hate each other so much. There's got to be a certain level of respect between people for an appeal to authority to work.

Really though, at the end of the day, I think that Gamergate has taught us two things: maybe don't expect bloggers to not be corrupt when companies have a lot of money on the line, and maybe don't trust the internet to not be a butthole...basically ever, really.

[MangoTangoFox]

He clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of Gamergate. The only reason it is what it is today, is because of the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves. Those statements ignored the actual issue entirely, completely attempting to shift the focus from their own corruption to the "harassment" that was and always has taken place on the internet. Certain groups attached to that to forward their own cause, shifting the focus further, and a vocal minitoriy attacked them, sometimes taking it too far, thus continuing the circle. The GamerGate issue is ethics/transparency/honesty in Journalism, THAT'S IT. There are two extremist groups of people bashing each other over the head, completely distracting from the original statement. Women in the industry and harassment are two separate issues in their own right and should be discussed, but they are both completely unrelated to the original intent of gamergate. To these extremist groups you are either for corruption and feminism, or you are anti-corruption and for misogyny, and that just makes no fucking sense. Being Pro-Gamergate doesn't excuse harassment, but it also says absolutely nothing about women in the industry or anything that seems to have attached itself to the cause. Gamergate is about gamers vs game journalists/developers/judges/etc, NOTHING ELSE. Anyone that truly thinks otherwise is simply trying to distract from that discussion, or push their own cause by artificially attaching it to gamergate.

[Xidnaf]

Am I the only one only hearing about gamergate via all their favorite people on the internet condemning it?

[TogeNoBara]

PLEEEASE MAKE MORE OF THE FALLACY VIDEOS!

I love being able to look back on these and point out that people aren't actually focusing on the point of the discussion.