31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes

I learned about fallacies recently, and it's nice to have a way to put a name to ways in which we don't think or argue logically.

Music: Adventures by A Himitsu

Find me:

IN THIS VIDEO:

0:19 Fallacy of Composition
0:29 Fallacy of Division
0:39 The Gambler's Fallacy
0:47 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?)
1:06 Strawman
1:19 Ad hominem
1:35 Genetic Fallacy
Correction: 1:43 Important clarification: fallacious appeal to authority is when you assume someone’s claims about [bacon] are valid in spite of the fact that they are in fact a [cheese] expert.
However, it is also a fallacy to assume that just because someone is an expert on [bacon] that they will always be factually accurate when talking about [bacon], especially if they do not provide evidence.
1:43 Fallacious Appeal To Authority
2:02 Red Herring
2:21 Appeal to Emotion
2:35 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)
2:39 Appeal to Tradition
2:43 Appeal to Nature
2:51 Appeal to Ignorance
3:03 Begging the Question
3:19 Equivocation
3:37 False Dichotomy (Black or White)
3:47 Middle Ground Fallacy
3:56 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox)
4:16 Slippery Slope Fallacy
4:33 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes)
4:52 Faulty Analogy
5:01 Burden of Proof
5:30 Affirming the Consequent
5:57 Denying the Antecedent
6:09 Moving the Goalposts
6:22 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter)
6:41 Loaded Question
6:48 No True Scotsman
6:57 Personal Incredulity
7:05 The Fallacy Fallacy

[JillBearup]

I trimmed the start of unnecessary fluff, and therefore: new timestamps!
0:19 Fallacy of Composition
0:29 Fallacy of Division
0:39 The Gambler's Fallacy
0:47 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?)
1:06 Strawman
1:19 Ad hominem
1:35 Genetic Fallacy
Correction: 1:43 Important clarification: fallacious appeal to authority is when you assume someone’s claims about [bacon] are valid in spite of the fact that they are in fact a [cheese] expert.
However, it is also a fallacy to assume that just because someone is an expert on [bacon] that they will always be factually accurate when talking about [bacon], especially if they do not provide evidence.
1:43 Fallacious Appeal To Authority
2:02 Red Herring
2:21 Appeal to Emotion
2:35 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)
2:39 Appeal to Tradition
2:43 Appeal to Nature
2:51 Appeal to Ignorance
3:03 Begging the Question
3:19 Equivocation
3:37 False Dichotomy (Black or White)
3:47 Middle Ground Fallacy
3:56 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox)
4:16 Slippery Slope Fallacy
4:33 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes)
4:52 Faulty Analogy
5:01 Burden of Proof
5:30 Affirming the Consequent
5:57 Denying the Antecedent
6:09 Moving the Goalposts
6:22 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter)
6:41 Loaded Question
6:48 No True Scotsman
6:57 Personal Incredulity
7:05 The Fallacy Fallacy

[RedAgent]

I remember learning about these sorts of fallacies in my rhetoric class, and then the next unit was "now that we know the different types of fallacies, here's where we learn how to use them to sound persuasive"

[funwithcoding]

The big takeaway from this for me is that pirates can be used to fight global warming

[jacobopstad]

I have a personal one I call the "hindsight fallacy." When people make mistakes, others will sometimes attack them for not knowing something that is obvious only in the present. "Why did you go bungee-jumping if the cord was frayed?"

[antalwahlers]

I heard there was once an interview with Frank Zappa. The interviewer was this vietnam vet who lost a leg in the war and was notorious for giving guests a hard time.
First thing he said was "I guess your long hair makes you a girl." . Zappa instantly replied: "I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."

[boboloko]

Winning a debate is not the same thing as being correct. It only means that you are more persuasive.

[TheYuvimon]

The fallacy fallacy is so important and so often forgotten. Just because you discover a fallacy in someones reasoning, it doesn't necessarily invalidates their point, it only means that the reasoning they used to arrive at their conclusion is flawed.

[TryMyMartini]

This actually a list of 31 reasons why it's pointless to engage in an argument on reddit.

[AlejandroPerez-mgfc]

This is why I stopped debating with people in general. People will tell you that "they are great debaters" and that "they always leave their opponent speechless" and then will mindlessly start spamming fallacies with zero regurosity. Suddenly, when I ask for rigutosity, they don't wanna debate anymore.

[josephstone]

When you said “I know that a horse is a mammal and a frog is an amphibian, even though frogs lay eggs and so do some…” I thought you were going to say “and so do some horses” and I panicked

[MyRegularNameWasTaken]

My favorite (least favorite?) fallacy is absolutely Relative Privation. "You can't be sad about that, other people have it worse."

[zsantschi]

"Whataboutism" has become very popular lately. Example: Prosecutor says, "This man murdered 2 people." ... The defense says, "What about this other man who murdered 2 more people?"

[Dancinlady]

Literally the 7 year old boy I nanny for every day using almost all of these on a regular basis. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with him that doesn't devolve into nonsense within minutes 😭

[scooobydoo]

Let's not forget the "last word" fallacy -- if I get the last word, it means that I was right (at least in my own mind).

I'm not sure the internet could survive without this one.

[RetroRobotRadio]

What I found interesting was that I took an advertising class and the logic back to back.

Ends up all the fallacies in the logic class are nearly the same as advertising techniques in the advertising class.

For instance: The logic class will point out the falsehood of bandwagoning, where the advertising class teaches you to tell people to join the bandwagon!

[mantis]

When I was younger, I use to argue with people in hoping to find truth. It didn't matter to me if I ended up being wrong. But as I got older I started to realize a lot of people don't argue to find truth. They just argue to be right

[jvondd]

I don't know if there's a name for it, but I call it the Scrooge fallacy. (I guess it could also be called the Grinch fallacy.) It's when an assumption is made about or judgement is passed on someone or something based on past events without regard for any changes that have taken place.

Example: Person A says, "I can't trust Person B because he's an alcoholic, " despite the fact that Person B has been sober for over a decade.

I'm actually a little surprised by how often I encounter people making this fallacy.

[mitzarella.]

0:33 Fallacy of Composition
0:42 Fallacy of Division
0:52 The Gambler's Fallacy
1:00 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?)
1:19 Strawman
1:32 Ad hominem
1:49 Genetic Fallacy
1:56 Fallacious Appeal To Authority
2:15 Red Herring
2:34 Appeal to Emotion
2:48 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)
2:52 Appeal to Tradition
2:56 Appeal to Nature
3:04 Appeal to Ignorance
3:16 Begging the Question
3:32 Equivocation
3:50 False Dichotomy (Black or White)
4:00 Middle Ground Fallacy
4:09 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox)
4:29 Slippery Slope Fallacy
4:46 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes)
5:05 Faulty Analogy
5:14 Burden of Proof
5:43 Affirming the Consequent
6:10 Denying the Antecedent
6:22 Moving the Goalposts
6:35 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter)
6:54 Loaded Question
7:01 No True Scotsman
7:10 Personal Incredulity
7:18 The Fallacy Fallacy

[catiedoesit]

Critical thinking should be incorporated into public education. The amount of people who don't understand this stuff is astonishing.

[dahawk]

1:56 - Appeal To Authority
There is a GAPING HOLE in the explanation given here. The fallacy also applies to experts who are presenting an argument that is well within their field of expertise. This version of this fallacy can be encapsulated as:

"I am an expert on this topic, therefore there is absolutely no way that my view can be in error."

It is logically unsound, because quite obviously there are many ways that experts can be absolutely mistaken about some aspect of their view of something within their field. And the most blatant example would be when two experts are debating a topic within their field, and they disagree with each other.