How to Spot Logical Fallacies - LECTURE

Does your argument make sense? We'll map out common errors like “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

"Truth isn't truth!" Rudy Giuliani recently asserted in defense of his client Donald Trump. In an era when so many people are insisting the anything they believe or say is just as valid as anything anyone else might say, society sometimes seems to have lost track of basic rules of logic. Our presentation tonight will offer a refresher course, mapping out common logical errors from the law of non-contradiction (which Giuliani lost track of) to old favorites like “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

[axehound]

This is great!!!

Restoring the teaching of the trivium is truly the only hope for this nation!

Thank you!!

[drumguy]

The logical fallacies that most people are familiar with are "informal" or "rhetorical" fallacies. Formal logical fallacies are very much less fun because they only apply to formal logic, which most people don't use in their daily lives. Appeal to Authority, False Dillema, No True Scotsman, Post Hoc (aka, Correlation/Causation), and Slippery Slope are all informal/rhetorical fallacies.

It is important to note that just because an argument may seem to fall into one of the categories of an informal/rhetorical fallacy does not necessarily mean that the assertion is false. It only means that it requires additional supporting evidence. So, don't be so quick to call someone out for one of these unless you know that other supporting evidence doesn't exist. (or do, but instead of shutting them down, ask for more evidence) That said, in a debate environment, it is usually the case that the first one to use a logical fallacy can be assumed to have lost the argument.

[nobunaga]

It would be much better if questions etc were saved to the end, so we could follow the development of John’s arguments without interruption

[furusaogoge]

I love how he keeps laughing! I'm sure he loves dad jokes!!! Thank you for posting this!

[dmsdad]

I find myself curious, ...how many tradesmen concern themselves with these concepts?
Trucker, bricklayer, electrician, plumber, lumberjack, baker, ...
This would all seem like verbal judo to many

[lucybrown]

Overall, a pretty good lecture. It works better as a review than as an introduction to Aristotelien logic. Sometimes, the pacing is a bit slow, but this ensured that nobody fell off the bus. Nice work.

[diegobrun]

Thank you! It’s a shame this guy kept interrupting to appear smart. There’s always one

[MultiSciGeek]

28:35 Again same guy making a mistake. The first premise gives information about criteria for being on the magazine. The second one gives information about this month's cover - information that was not in the first premise. He's wrong again. If he was correct, it would mean we could arrive at the conclusion without the second premise, but that's clearly not the case. He's again focusing on some minor linguistic details and missing the bigger picture.

[rachaelescober]

Thank you so much for this lecture!

I have just picked up a book for logical fallacies, and there are no diagrams.

It was making it hard for me to retain the information or process it.

I feel like this was the lecture I needed to find in order to let the information melt and absorb properly.

I think, it was also the distinction of logically valid from fallacies that really did it for me. Thank you thank you thank you.

[edwardsmith]

Oh, how objective realities have changed, in the last 5 years. 😅

[MultiSciGeek]

Around 20:20. These people are forgetting the third law of western thought that was shown at the beginning. I totally get what they mean though.
You can either be a philosopher or not a philosopher. So if a certain population, even one Canadian, are/is a philosophers logically (according to the aforementioned laws) the rest of them ARE not philosophers. The Turkish guy making the point is right in saying that by stating one thing you're implying another, however it's not an implication based on assumption/guessing, as he seems to be implying (I could be wrong in assuming he's implying something*) - they both don't get that the second implication is true and justified by logic. Also "linguistically" - language is also based on logic. However we often use it informally... meaning we assume things which are never directly said when a proper clarification should be given if we want to be sure. Those are called Grice's Maxims. He's asking this question because "linguistically" we use those maxims. But logically speaking they don't necessarily validate everything. However in this case with the Canadian philosophers, enough information was given to make a 100% true implication (by following the laws given at the beginning). "It means at least one Canadian is not a philosopher too) - no, it means ALL the rest of them are not philosophers. If it were one it would mean there are only two Canadians in the "universe" - one a philosopher and one not.
Why didn't the lecturer address and answer this?
Second question about two premises is also wrong, as justified above.
*Notice I've used one of those conversation "tools" Grice's Maxims try to describe.

[MultiSciGeek]

On the chart, in the universal affirmative diagram and the universal negative diagram the two circles should not be intersecting. It would make more sense, visually.

[axehound]

Great stuff!

Teaching the trivium again is the only hope for this nation!

Thank you

[ColbyBlack]

20:38 if you say some cars have have wheels. It doesn’t mean that some don’t. It is true that some cars have wheels and all cars have wheels.

[EnavSounds]

The awkward eco chamber lecture with a side a constant chuckles

[jeroenlouwerse]

"Facts are not facts" simply means that it is unclear what the actual facts are and that different people have different beliefs about what the facts are. Not a logical fallacy.

[kingoffire]

Why is it almost impossible to find an educational video that is not talking about politics. Literally 1 minute in.
I just want to find logic videos which use plain examples similar to how it had been taught before Trump got elected.

[denaisaacthiswasgreat.thum]

Is this symbolic logic? I think that's what they called it in college in the early 80's.

[reformationmission]

Comprehension and context are prerequisites to logical analysis of an argument, and the lecturer has failed in this regard in the first few minutes of the video.

[carlatteniese]

Why is the speaker pointing off camera behind the sign? Who in hell can see what he is pointing to?