CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies

preview_player
Показать описание
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Paul Henne (Duke University) describes the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. This distinction is useful for understanding the fallacies in Wi-Phi's Critical Thinking section.

Subscribe!

More on Paul Henne:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

i have learned more in the past 7 minutes and 4 seconds of this video than i have in class for the past 5 weeks. thank you

dmtrhtz
Автор

This is great, I just wish that Henne didn't suggest that all philosophers publish articles in philosophy.

baruchspinoza
Автор

Formal comes from form. I feel enlighted...and also kind of embarrassed that I didn't realize this before.

braedondavies
Автор

Coming from a philosophy graduate student, you did a great job! Very clear and articulate.

REDRAGON
Автор

These videos have been gold in this election cycle

folumb
Автор

This is like the fallacy 202 class. I love how you got into relatable examples and then went from there!

DigitalAndInnovation
Автор

Great videos!
At 2:42 you say "A formal fallacy is exactly what it sounds like, a defect in the form of an argument"
I always thought it had something to do with etiquette (formal as opposed to casual), so not really "exactly what it sounds like".
Maybe a term like "structural fallacy" would be clearer (though clearly non-standard).

sizzlingsausage
Автор

I don't speak Spanish but I think it is amazing that you included subtitles in Spanish! Also, great video. I appreciated the content!

McGee
Автор

Before watching the video I will try to find the fallacies present in the arguments in the beginning.
Argument 1: Black and White fallacy (there is more than one reason why people don’t eat peanut butter)
Argument 2: Equivocation fallacy

petresilegov
Автор

last time I was this early, I was eating breakfast. therefore, last time I was eating breakfast, I was early

GovernerOfBurningHam
Автор

This gentleman here made this so easy to understand vs my teacher

tranhtrieu
Автор

It seems like affirming the consequent is done by using inductive logic. If so, are there any examples of inductive arguments that do not affirm the consequent?

daffmaul
Автор

I am surprised that no one points out that “a feather is light” doesn’t imply “all feather is light”. Yes, I am not a native speaker so I was thinking about a light colored feather. So “a feather is light” but “another feather can be dark”. Therefore, I spotted a different fallacy - “faulty generalization”

cheungchau
Автор

Ah, screw it, I'll just fail my assignment, it's fine.

mohaumakhoba
Автор

On the peanut butter one, would changing the argument to "if someone is allergic to peanuts, then she shouldn't eat peanut butter" not be considered fallacious?

EriconatorV
Автор

I'm sorry but 1:48 is not a valid argument.

Your premise is off by asserting that if one is a Philosopher that they automatically publish. This isn't necessarily true. So this premise is off which threw off the relevance of the second assertion, even though it was true.

tobediscontinued
Автор

very clear and interesting video! great stuff, keep it up

legg_
Автор

P1) If I affirm the consequent, then I produce a fallacy
P2) I affirm the consequent
C) Therefore I produce a fallacy
This seems paradoxical to me. Any suggestions ?

robertotandoi
Автор

Hi! So it's sort of referred to in some comments but not explicitely: Is anyone clear on why Cum Hoc and Post Hoc are considered Informal fallacies rather than formal? Deductive fallacies have me stumped because they are neither about the truth or instrinsic relevance of either premise (informal), nor the structure of the argument in itself (formal), but about a degree of over-assumed relevance… Anyone?

julietted
Автор

01:46 This statement is incorrect. First, you said "then she" instead of "then they", but the worst mistake made is that all philosophers publish articles in philosophy. By that logic, Socrates was not a philosopher.

ExMachina