Simpsons Logical Fallacies: Circular Reasoning

preview_player
Показать описание

Open captions change to closed captions during second half of video. Use of copyrighted content is protected by fair use which says that copyrighted content can be used so long as commentary is given. Definitions of logical fallacies come from Practical Argument by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

This is actually *not circular reasoning, * but is rather an example of the false dilemma fallacy. In circular reasoning, you need the conclusion in order to verify the premise, necessarily creating a circular structure. However, in the false dilemma fallacy, it is presented that "There is option A and option B. C is not a valid option, therefore you must choose A or B"

This fallacy can also be used to say "There is option A but there is no option B, therefore, option A is the only valid option"

ParadymShiftVegan
Автор

The bit about the 2 party sistem really hits hard

KneeCapHill
Автор

I love the touch of Ross Perot being right there to be dismissed 4 years after getting nearly 1/3 of the votes.

WickedMitch
Автор

20+ years latter and we are still voting for slime monsters.

Cholin
Автор

For a fat, lazy man; Homer is pretty spry. He ran down that bulding in 3 seconds.

spadinnerxylaphone
Автор

"The politics of failure have failed! We need to make then work again!" That line always short circuited my young brain and everytime I tried to analyze its meaning, I'd blow my brain out again lol! Now as a adult I understand.

martialartssoldier
Автор

I’m no expert on American elections but wouldn’t kang and Kodos be disqualified due to not being born in America or surely there’s a rule against goldfish bowl squids being voted for?

andrewobrien
Автор

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

TimurTripp
Автор

I've had this argument many times before.

Third party can't win.
Why?
Because no one will vote for them.
Why will no one vote for them?
Because a third party can't win.
Why can't a third party win?
Because no one will vote for them.

Of course the other side of the argument is never so succinct in their answer, but it boils down to those answers when removing the fluff.

DonCDXX
Автор

Hello. I see a little debate about circular logic vs false dilemma.

The circular statement here occurs in the aliens head thus way : 'we will be elected because we will be elected'.

The short extract is not entirely invalid as a demonstration if we extrapolate only a healthy bit from the script and take a more psychological understanding of it.

It is true though, following the script, the dialog is false dilemma.

I hope my comment helps, for those literal logicians who don't understand psychopathy yet :)))

sinda
Автор

I'd hate that it's realistic but they're right, even if both parties candidates wanted to destroy the country the third party can never win

potatoheadpokemario
Автор

The show also ignore the fact they are not born us citizens so therefore cannot be president anyway

DeanShanra
Автор

Here's another one from The Simpsons: I don't remember the exact episode but I think it was Bart who made the point, "I don't want my organs touching some sick guy, " to all the people who are fine with being organ donors, then they don't want to be organ donors because of that. I mean, if you donated your organ(s) to a sick guy, he wouldn't be sick, anymore, would he?

ZekSanchez
Автор

Wouldn't this be a false dichotomy? They're asserting that their are only 2 choices and ways to go, but it can be easily refuted by the introduction of a 3rd party candidate right?

iambigmanbeats
Автор

Would you have counted the trialogue (well, "dialogue, " only between three characters) from _Zootopia_ (or is it _Zootropolis_ for you?) between a young Judy Hopps and her parents as an example of "circular reasoning"?

In it, Mr. and Mrs. Hopps explain to Judy (more so by the dad) that they became happy by giving up on their (unspecified) dream(s) and settled ("hard, " specifies the mom/mum), and they try to convince her to give up on hers to become a police officer because "there's never been a bunny cop" and "bunnies don't do that."

KBAFourthtime
Автор

Yeah it's not circular reasoning. A better example of how good circular reasoning can be is because it is.

kevinkerwin
Автор

THE NEXT THING THAT SIMPSONS MIGHT PREDICT...

vetusmith
Автор

This will becomes relevant and relatable in the near future.

xagatal
Автор

1:13 Ross Perot concedes the election, 1996 - colorised

mariolis
Автор

In addition to the False Dichotomy mentioned in other comments, this also represents an example of an Appeal To Tradition, a fallacy in which something must currently be true because it has been true in the past, or has 'always been' this way. As a fallacy, it ignores the possibility that the current underlying specifics may be different enough that their conclusion could be different from the previous events' conclusions, even if those previous events' conclusions were correct and valid.

In specific: It is indeed entirely reasonable to make the argument that, in a normally functioning first-past-the-post voting system, you will inevitably and quickly reach a stable two-party dynamic. As long as the underlying system remains normally functioning, the two-party dynamic will remain stable, and any attempt to deviate from it will either lead to self-correction back to the two-party dynamic. However, in a system that is *not* functioning normally, then there are many situations where parties other than the previously established two-party dynamic can become successful - likely to themselves become one of the two members of a new two-party dynamic when the system resumes normal functioning.

In essence, the fallacious conclusion 'this is a two party system, therefore a third party vote is a waste' presumes that the same premises and conditions that made that result true in the past are still true now; it would not be difficult to point out that, in the clip, those premises are *not* still true - the two candidates in this race have both been revealed to not be natural born citizens of the US (as they are space aliens), and thus neither political party currently has a legal candidate. Even if one or the other were to somehow win the vote, it would be their running mate that would take power, as the invalid candidate could not be sworn in. In this instance, the idea that the customary conclusion could still hold from such a bizarrely different situation is wholly fallacious.

As an added bonus, do note that there have been other political parties in the past just within the US, though indeed there were usually only two meaningful parties at any one time... except for times when there was great political upheaval sufficient to dissolve or multiply fracture and restructure one or both existing parties. Therefore even the Appeal to Tradition fails unless it is also coupled with an Appeal to Ignorance, taking advantage of the average citizen's lack of meaningful awareness that such historical events had happened multiple times before.

HeavyMetalMouse