In this text, the author discusses the concept of anti-social behavior, such as the negative effects of abusive parenting and violent TV and video games on children. The author also discusses the four major drawbacks of physical punishment and the counterargument to nonviolent parenting.
Physical punishment may increase aggression by modeling aggression as a way to cope with problems, while nonviolent parenting can help children avoid risky behaviors. The author uses flashcards to study various concepts, such as learning, habituation, associative learning, and Gandhi’s response to the charge that he went to Birmingham as an “outside agitator”.
The counterargument to nonviolent parenting is that it may be more aggressive due to preexisting problems. The author also discusses the importance of vicarious reinforcement, trial and error, imitation availability, and the role of mirror neurons in social learning.
Parental neglect can lead to passive children becoming more aggressive with their peers, while nonviolent parenting can encourage children to read, become helpful, and nonviolent. The author concludes by suggesting that parents should make their children’s bed for them, as this can help them develop nonviolent behavior.
In conclusion, the text emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing the potential drawbacks of both violent and nonviolent parenting in order to promote positive social behavior in children.
📹 The Non-Violent Parenting Philosophy – Kathy Gordon
Watch more expert parenting advice videos – http://goo.gl/iIzPui Parent Educator Kathy Gordon explains what the philosophy of …
What states that rewarded behavior tends to be repeated and is the base for Skinner’s work?
Skinner, the father of Operant Conditioning, based his work on Thorndike’s Law of Effect, which states that behavior followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, while behavior followed by unpleasant consequences is less likely to be repeated. Skinner introduced the term “reinforcement” into the Law of Effect, which suggests that reinforced behavior is likely to be repeated, while unreinforced behavior is weakened. Skinner conducted experiments using animals in a “Skinner Box” similar to Thorndike’s puzzle box.
What is the controversy between nature and nurture?
The nature vs. nurture debate revolves around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are primarily caused by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed that genetic traits passed from parents influenced traits, while others believed the mind begins as a blank slate. Today, experts recognize the complex interaction between genetics and the environment, and both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.
Examples of nature include eye color and skin pigmentation, while nurture includes developmental delays due to toxins, such as lead exposure or drugs in utero, which can negatively impact learning and intelligence.
What did Skinner say about reward and punishment?
Operant conditioning, also known as instrumental conditioning, is a learning method that involves rewards and punishments for behavior. It helps individuals associate a behavior with a consequence, whether positive or negative. For example, when lab rats press a lever when a green light is on, they receive a food pellet as a reward, and when they press the lever when a red light is on, they receive a mild electric shock. This association leads them to learn to press the lever when the green light is on and avoid the red light. This learning process can have a powerful effect on our everyday behavior.
What is the argument for nurture over nature?
Nurture refers to the environmental factors that influence an individual, such as parenting style, birth order, peers, family size, culture, language, and education. The main argument for nurture is that the environment shapes our identity. Empiricists believe humans are born as blank slates and acquire information through their five senses. Behaviorism, established by John Watson, posits that all behavior is a result of environmental stimulation or conditioning.
A 2019 study on Bonobos, a chimpanzee species, found that they can learn from observing others, similar to humans. Both theories support the idea that nurture plays a significant role in shaping an individual’s behavior.
What is a previously neutral stimulus that eventually elicits a learned response?
Psychologists use specific terms to describe stimuli and responses in classical conditioning. Unconditioned stimulus (US) triggers a naturally occurring response, while unconditioned response (UR) follows the unconditioned stimulus. The conditioned stimulus (CS) is a neutral stimulus that evokes a similar response after repeated presentation. In Pavlov’s experiment, the tone served as the conditioned stimulus, producing the conditioned response (CR), the acquired response to the formerly neutral stimulus.
Conditioning is evolutionarily beneficial as it allows organisms to develop expectations that help them prepare for both good and bad events. For example, if an animal learns to associate the smell (CS) with the food (US), it will quickly learn that the food creates a negative outcome and will not eat it the next time.
Pavel’s study of the persistence and extinction of conditioning involved presenting the sound repeatedly without presenting the food afterward. The results showed that after the initial acquisition phase, the behavior rapidly decreased when the CS was presented alone, leading to a decrease in salivation. Extinction refers to the reduction in responding that occurs when the conditioned stimulus is presented repeatedly without the unconditioned stimulus.
What is more likely to reoccur according to Skinner’s operant theory behavior?
Operant conditioning, also known as instrumental or Skinnerian conditioning, is a learning method that uses rewards and punishments to modify behavior. It suggests that behavior that is rewarded is likely to be repeated, while behavior that is punished is less likely to occur. For example, a person may continue performing at a higher level after receiving a performance bonus, hoping to receive another bonus in the future. This behavior is likely to be repeated if the reward is pleasant, and if the punishment is unpleasant. This theory was first described by psychologist B. F. Skinner.
What is the learned response to a stimulus that was previously neutral?
Classical conditioning is a learning process where a conditioned stimulus (CS) is associated with an unrelated unconditioned stimulus (US) to produce a conditioned response (CR). The conditioned response is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus, typically a biologically significant stimulus like food or pain. Pavlov’s most famous experiment involved studying the salivation of dogs.
He initially studied the saliva of dogs as related to digestion, but noticed that the dogs would salivate every time he entered the room, even if there was no food. This led him to design experiments using sound objects, such as a buzzer, to condition the salivation response in dogs.
Pavlov started by sounding a buzzer each time food was given to the dogs, and found that the dogs would salivate immediately after hearing the buzzer. After a period of time, he began sounding the buzzer without food, and the dogs continued to salivate at the sound of the buzzer even without food, as they had learned to associate the buzzer with being fed.
Does a neutral stimulus causes no response?
Classical conditioning is a theory that explains how humans learn and respond to stimuli. Neutral stimuli, such as the ringing of a bell, initially elicit no response. In Pavlov’s experiment, food was the unconditioned stimulus, leading to an automatic response. The unconditioned response was the dogs salivating for food, while the conditioned stimulus was the ringing of a bell, triggering salivation.
Pavel observed several phenomena associated with classical conditioning, including the rate of acquisition, the vulnerability of the conditioned response to extinction, and the possibility of spontaneous recovery. The conditioned response would weaken if continuously supplied without the unconditioned stimulus, resulting in the dogs stopping salivating. However, spontaneous recovery was also observed.
Pavel also discovered that stimulus generalization and stimulus discrimination can occur. Stimulus generalization occurs when the dog can respond to stimuli similar to the conditioned stimulus, such as salivating at the sound of another ringing sound. Stimulus discrimination, on the other hand, involves being able to differentiate between similar stimuli and respond only to the correct stimuli.
In summary, classical conditioning is a theory that explains how humans learn and respond to stimuli. It involves the use of neutral and unconditioned stimuli to learn and respond to different stimuli.
What are the differences between Pavlov and Watson?
Watson’s ideas were influenced by Pavlov’s work, which suggested that human behavior is primarily the result of conditioned responses. Watson believed that the same principles could be applied to the conditioning of human emotions, and began his work with his graduate student Rosalie Rayner and a baby named Little Albert in 1920.
Watson and Rayner conducted experiments on Little Albert, exposing him to and conditioning him to fear certain things. They presented him with neutral stimuli, such as a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks, cotton wool, and a white rat. Then, with the help of Rayner, they conditioned Little Albert to associate these stimuli with fear, leading to stimulus generalization. Little Albert became afraid of other furry things, including a rabbit, a furry coat, and even a Santa Claus mask.
Watson’s intention was to produce a phobia through conditioning alone, countering Freud’s view that phobias are caused by deep, hidden conflicts in the mind. However, there is no evidence that Little Albert experienced phobias in later years. Little Albert’s mother moved away, ending the experiment, and Little Albert died a few years later of unrelated causes.
While Watson’s research provided new insight into conditioning, it would be considered unethical by today’s standards.
What was the major flaw with John B Watson’s Little Albert experiment?
The Little Albert experiment, conducted by John B. Watson, involved conditioning a young child, Little Albert, to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise. This experiment was deemed unethical due to the harmful effects of inducing fear in a child.
What did Watson and Pavlov agree on?
Watson and Pavlov underscored the significance of empirically investigating pivotal psychological phenomena, asserting that the principles of learning are universally applicable to all animals.
📹 19 Common Fallacies, Explained.
A quick guide to logical fallacies. Fallacies include ad hominem, appeals to authority, the fallacy fallacy, circular arguments, etc.
If you listen closely, you’ll hear me claim that Richard Nixon walked on the moon. Perhaps it was a mistake, or perhaps it was a way of subtly reminding you that you shouldn’t believe everything you hear on the internet. I also wish I had made a distinction between formal and informal fallacies. Maybe this deserves a much longer article.
0:50 – Ad Hominem 1:22 – Strawman 1:47 – Appeal to Authority 1:12 – False Dilemma 2:39 – Equivocation 3:12 – Circular Argument 3:54 – Hasty Generalization 4:03 – Comparative Fallacy 4:29 – Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 4:58 – Appeal to Ignorance 5:10 – Appeal to Nature 5:34 – Appeal to Popularity 5:51 – Guilt by Association 6:06 – No True Scotsman 6:27 – Fallacy of Composition 6:33 – Fallacy of Division 6:38 – Appeal to Hypocrisy 6:59 – Burden of Proof Fallacy 7:18 – The Fallacy Fallacy
I’m always looking to improve my reasoning and argumentation – even if it’s with myself as a little introspection bash. This article is excellent for breaking each item down succinctly. I also chuckled at the example for the circular argument, as the most common instance I’ve come across this issue is exactly that.
This was really great. Thanks for making it. I struggle with communicating effectively. I have ideas I think are extremely valuable to share and hear some statements that I feel warrant some challenging… but my communication skills are lacking and I’ve damaged my reputation in some respects by asserting some claims and being unable to back it up so it just makes me look like a nutjob umming and aahing through a rushed justification of why I think the way I do, discrediting myself in the process. Instead I should be fortifying my arguments objectively so that the argument exists external to my emotions which get in the way. When you’re unable to box your ideas into an airtight delivery it feels like you’re exposing your incompetency. I’ve heard that the written word is basically capturing your best ideas. You put the idea down and can then refine it and critique it, challenge its parts to find your weak spots. I get this for writing, but for verbal communications I’ve found it immensely more challenging and have opted too often to just stay in my lane and taking a “whatever”/”it is what it is” approach. Your worldview shapes your intuition about a whole variety of topics, but like you said with the appeal to popularity, it can be easy for widespread incorrect/unsubstantiated beliefs to persist. When you’re challenging the weight of incredibly popular beliefs it’s especially difficult – like trying to put out a housefire with a water pistol.
Once you read about all of the popular logical fallacies, you see them everywhere and you can’t unsee them. All students ought to pass rigorous testing on this stuff to graduate from high school. Our “education” system doesn’t seem interesting in teaching how to think; just “what” to think. Thanks for the article!
This was great. Direct and to the point. My MIL made some ridiculous accusations to me about something I was doing (it was a while ago and too idiotic to remember the details) . When she finished, she looked at me expecting me to start defending myself but instead I said nothing. She worked up another full head of steam over that and asked “Why aren’t you saying anything?” to which I responded “You’re the one making the accusation so you’re the one who has to back it up.” She was stunned and wanted to know where I learned that like it was some new heresy. I told her it was a basic rule of life. Score! A logical argument inside a disagreement type argument. Ahahaha. 😅 edits for spelling
Thanks for this resource! Clear and concise. I appreciate your content and collected thoughts. I’d love a separate article too, if you feel so inspired, about how you address fallacies in day-to-day life… I recognize that’s a lot of work, but at least I personally do find it highly interesting and engaging. Common patterns that will lead you astray~logical fallacies. How do you view these as related to cognitive biases? I personally find them very similar but are not necessarily linked as they exist in different contexts. But the interplay between theory and practice is engaging for me.
A particularly common form of equivocation that could probably get its own fallacy is with the word “normal”. It means both “common” and “acceptable”, which is the basis of arguments of two forms. Both in the form of “lots of people do X, X is normal, so X is good”, and “very few people do X, X is not normal, so X is bad.”
My mother always said to me “You’d argue with a sign and take the wrong road anyway.” Which only led to a further argument. I made an outline with notes as I listened (pausing to let it sink in). Having these fallacies labeled and defined is very helpful. Saved the vid and downloaded the book. This presentation was well presented and if the President walked on the moon, he did nothing wrong because he’s the President. 😉
Good list, thanks. I’ve read and heard others. Though i believe to have good arguments they should take place in a controlled environment. Such as a book or a scholarly paper. A formal debate. A court room. A town meeting or other public forum with moderators. A classroom of advanced students. Interviews. Provoking arguments with friends, family members, strangers, and other unprepared participants is a recipe for trouble to say the least. And yes i took note of your Nixon flub.
One of my favorite classes as a college freshman was Introduction to Logic. A philosophy class. It was course number 110. When I transferred to another college to major in engineering, the 2nd school assessed my transcript, giving me generally the expected credit for classes taken at the 1st college. But they assessed course 110 as 101, Introduction to Philosophy. The Logic class is legitimately a Social Science class while the Philosophy class is a Humanities class. Thus, the logic class resulted in me only taking 1 humanities class in my entire college career.
Some of these are misinterpreted or are highly debated depending on the context. Argument from Authority is a great example of this as it’s perfectly fine to accept credentials as a means to establish credibility. A medical doctor is not an expert in physics but a physics professor is especially if you are discussing an established paradigm. If it’s a highly debated topic within the field then it can become problematic to rely upon the opinion of one individual in the field but in most cases it’s perfectly acceptable to do so. Unfortunately all too many people have only read the headlines and not a more complex analysis of these rules.
Some of the most subtle logical fallacy forms are inadvertent. I recall attending a water quality conference where the organizers had wanted to bring the public and researchers together. Toward the end of the conference, someone in the audience pointed out that members of the public consistently used “quality” in water quality to subjectively describe how healthy water was for people or the environment. Researchers, however, used “quality” to describe objective, measurable characteristics. Equivocation was rampant when both definitions were used in the same arguments. In the closing remarks, the conference organizers repeated this point, and I wonder if it wasn’t the most important outcome from bringing the two groups together.
Nice little intro to people who are not familiar with fallacies. Just a little nitpick: these could be classified as argumentative fallacies, or at least informal logical fallacies. The difference to formal logical fallacies is, I think, useful to understand. Both types of fallacies involve flawed reasoning, but logical fallacies are a subset of argumentative fallacies. All logical fallacies are argumentative fallacies, but not all argumentative fallacies are logical fallacies. Logical fallacies focus strictly on the structural logic, whereas argumentative fallacies can encompass a broader range of errors, including those involving relevance, adequacy of evidence, and manipulative rhetorical techniques. Still, I’m all for spreading awareness of reason!
Good article. I notice these fallacies in debates between Theists and Athiest, heavier on the Athiest side. They carry a great amount of self-superiority and rarely do they admit they are mistaken or even that they could be wrong about a topic. Its like being humble is nowhere in their vocabulary. Very few Athiest i have come across are humble.
“Make sure you are picking the right experts.” Id say this is where the argument is lost. It is always those that struggle with objective thought that are quoting experts. And if you quote an expert someone smarter than you will recognize your issue. People quote experts when they need a short cut because they can’t clearly think through the logic themselves.
The validity of an argument is independent of the credentials of the person making the argument. This is the fundamental idea behind the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy; it works both ways. As an example, during the “pandemic,” the Media and Government discounted the valid observations of many medical professionals because said observations were made by “mere” doctors, not actual epidemiologists.
As an old philosophy/logic student, it was heartening to hear you mention “begging the question” as another name of the circular argument because I am tired of hearing people say “begs the question” when they mean “raises the question.” But I am sad to hear you say we’ve lost that linguistic fight. I wish I knew who was the ignoramus who first said this and opened the foodgates of ignorance on the world because I would like to tell him/her a few words!
They should really teach cognitive biases and logical fallacy in highschool it should be a required class, even though knowing about these things doesn’t always prevent us from falling prey to them (believing it does itself is a kind of fallacy) I think it’s a good start and it seems essential to know in a democracy.
I don’t agree with the line of argument where you accuse someone of being in violation of a logical fallacy. Just because someone decided something is a logical fallacy does not actually prove the argument is illogical. In fact, it’s very ironic that people cite a logical fallacy as evidence that there opponent is wrong, because doing so violates one of the most popular logical fallacies, the “Argument from Authority.” Moreover, if what you’re debate opponent is saying is truly illogical, you should be able to demonstrate it is, without naming it as a this or that fallacy.
Something not very discussed about the logical fallacies is that they are used to contridict each other, hence the fallacies fallacy… But in the past have been used in themselves as an argument of authority to disprove and invalidate the opposition. Its cyclical, these are guidelines and not to be used as barriers. Hypocrisy and blame then comes from both the ignorance and the education of these rules…. Debate/Diplomacy is about understanding and a compromise of the difference in ideologies… We have lost this in our current climate and focus rather on proving or disproving through manipulative tactics, this causes more misunderstanding and more divide. When debate can not come to a compromise, the next step is violence/war to force the opposition to accept… and this is not always physical, but can be mental, emotional, spiritual and or financial.
This helps ( if I can remember them) I can usually “know it when I see it” kinda thing but I because I can’t quickly articulate it I tend to be told that I have lost the argument – I’m sure this must be a fallacy as well. The ” You weren’t quick enough to show my argument fallacy so you lose, fallacy”
I do get annoyed when people say others are using logical fallacies (even when they’re right). Knowing about them is good, but when you see them just explain to the other person what is wrong with their argument. Naming the fallacy by going “you’re using a (insert name here)” is a sure-fire way to get most people to stop listening to you. 1:00 Ad hominem specifically refers to arguing that a fault in a person’s character means their argument is wrong. Insulting someone is not on its own an ad hominem. It needs to be used as an argument in order to qualify as a logical fallacy.
It is a very nice summary but as you said it is very hard to project these concepts to real life. You went through so quickly that it makes it almost impossible to grab the essence of them if you have not a super strong logics background. Not sure about YouTube algorithm, but this article to be understood by people that are not familiar with the topic (vulgarisation) should be at least double as long. Anyway you give Inspiring content, so I’m gonna google most of the definitions and try to get a better understanding of them. Thanks a lot
Wow! Good work! Some are so good, they are almost exhausted, some are good work, could say more, but good work, well, well done. Interesting, youtube showed me your article precisely after i wrote something, and i believe it wanted to insinuate i practice logic phallacy, precisely Hasty Generalization. Well, that would be wrong, as am qualified to affirm that which it seems annoys some. Things i thought of more than anyone would. When i discuss something, it is in the limits of my speciality. Even more, i made a generalization to point to the necessity of abolishing the consequences of that generalization, and in such case, understandably, whoever wanted to hint to me that i practice logical phallacies, themselves, cannot think on those subjects, they are just annoyed. Annoyed people that have tools to hint to the more qualified than them, that they are not more qualified. You can guess, your article was shown to me in a gesture that qualifies for another logical phallacy in your list. May i add a 20th logical phallacy to your list? Here it is! The idea of a logical non-phallacy is a logical phallacy. Justification: trying to build a logic that is not phallacy, you devoid the logic of the necessary sense, and when logic lacks sense, lacks drive, it is you taken in another’s phallus, you being left with just the satisfaction that you negated the necessity of sense, of drive. haha! after posted, realized, mine is the 1271th post. am born in 11 27. Just another proof about how annoyed parties try to push down that which annoys them.
Well done, and I wish these distinctions were closer to the top of my mind when in debate. It would often be handy to make such observations in regards to the opponents claims. I really pulled up short at your, ‘We should aspire to be as non-violent as possible” remark though. I think this is correct, but I can also see it as being a fun position to take on. And it’s of little use when the Mongols come to town.
An interesting and a very important article. This must have more exposure. I must say, the burden of proof should not be a fallacy. Every party in a debate should be ready to bear said “burden”. Unless the party claims ignorance, then they have nothing to prove. Which means they are no longer taking a side in the debate. For example if person 1 says that x exists and person 2 disagrees, they both are taking sides and therefore both bear the burden of proof if they are indeed invested in the debate. But if being served the opportunity to support the claim with proof feels like a burden the opposite party is supposed to bear, it is very likely you have no valid proof. Conclusion: Are unicorns real? I don’t know.
A good list, but one important point not made is that fallacies are often meta-fallacies: – such as projection and deflection. Projection and deflection are often unconscious, or spontaneous. * Projection: one projects when one “reasons” by imagining what other person thinks, recounting a precis of it to them, then condemning the ideas in the precis. So projection can include many fallacies (ad hominem, strawman, whataboutism(s), …, because we find it almost impossible to precis what another person actually thinks (as opposed to what we imagine they think) * Deflection: talk about something else, it avoids facing the actual topic under debate. Can often be done by recounting an example, or story, or evidence which is either tangentially relevant or irrelevant. – and multiple-fallacies – which may even be overdetermined. In such a case one identifies the prime fallacy, but, one may even fall for a hidden fallacy entwined with it! Also – bad evidence. Common examples of bad evidence are: * bad statistics. For example weak statistics which may have been compiled using one or many of: cherry-picked data, bad sampling, too few data points, weak randomization, weak correlation, obscure of errror-prone maths such as fourier analysis, principle component analysis, or machine learning applied to ‘dirty’, or ‘noisy’ data. * bad modelling. Bad models can have unrealistic assumptions, simplistic, irrelevant, logic (such as game theory algorithms), unrealistic causal chains, inappropriate science, hidden maths: embedded within – such that the argument being presented, or supported, actually obscures itself AND is wrong!
Very good presentation. I have made my living with digital logic for over half a century, and I suspect it has bled over into other aspects of my life. Just an observation, not an argument. Here are a few other observations concerning logic: – You cannot learn from logic anything that you do not already fundamentally know. Logic is a manner of organizing and testing thought, it is not thought itself. Do not be afraid to think illogically. – A logical sequence carried to its fullest conclusion is always absurd. Imagine if everyone in the world stuck a gob of used gum to the bottom of a theater seat. – All arguments are circular. Logic serves to expand the circle to give the advantageous perspective of pseudo linearity only to the two-dimensional circumference portion of the circle. But that is not the whole or even the deciding majority of the argument. There is no end, only a declared conclusion acceptable according to circumstances. (Fullest conclusions are absurd… Always…. Remember?) – Logic yields information relevant to everything you consider and yields no information relative to that which you do not consider. Failure to consider will make an alligator of logical thinking every time! It will bite you in the butt.. From behind, of course. That is logical, right? Just observations. No argument at all in any of the above. Feel free to tear it apart.
Imagine a child who is nurtured by these tools, instead of indoctrination and prejudicial lived experience. Such a child would be wonderful, but would struggle with most other people. Such a child would also have to be limited from media exposure, and thus would be somewhat isolated from contemporaries. The ability to see truths can be debilitating, in a world which fights with fallacies. When you start to deconstruct political propaganda and religious indoctrination, you find yourself enlightened but much more alone. You find yourself silent in many conversations, because to speak truthfully is to make yourself unwelcome and subject to personalised rejection.
An excellent concise list with explanation of false illogical argument – which should be compulsorily taught in public & private schools, journalism & to politicians and all media – conventional, mainstream, social especially digital. Finally, false argument is a form of or result of cognitive decline. By the way, I am 5 feet 7 inches tall / short.
Appeal to popularity is a dangerous logical fallicy, and I have made an enemy of it all my life. Guilt by association is my main weapon against it because it is a much less dangerous logical fallicy. For example: I know that just because everyone loves a certain tv show or movie, that doesn’t mean that it is bad, but I’ll still avoid it BECAUSE everyone loves it
Thanks for this article, really enjoyed it. The only part I disagree on is under “circular reasoning,” because in your example, Christians believe the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth and what is true, and all appeals to *ultimate authority will always be circular, because there is no higher authority behind/above the thing to appeal to.
I’d suggest a article about the grieving process when choosing to let go of the career you thought you wanted. Just finished my PhD last year and chose to get a none academic job that I actually like, pays well and Ithink has more impact than a uni job would have had, but am feeling lots of mixed feelings about it.
Hello sir, may I ask you a favor, I’m having trouble identifying the type of fallacy in the following exercise. Could you please help me. – Decide (a)which fallacy each statement contains, (b) what is wrong with it, and (c) correct it. 1. I am sorry my opponent (arriving late for a debate) did not think enough of you to show up for this debate. I am sure he had more important things to do. 2. Summer vacation should be abolished. Any student who argues otherwise should not be listened to because he or she stands to benefit from its continuation. 3. 75% of voters chose Jameson for President of the United States. Jameson will make a good President. 4. You’re definitely my favourite professor! I’ve been learning a lot in your class. You can see how much I’ve learned by the papers I’ve written. So, how about that “A”?
There is an extremely common logic fallacy that I have recently heard referred to as “Schindlering”; after Oskar Schindler. The fallacy is the claim that being able to find some exceptions invalidates a generalization. In this case of course; the fact that Schindler was a man who saved the lives of many in no way invalidates the statement “WWII Germany engaged in horrible evil”.
Circular arguement: there is a story that goes that a man wanted to know the correct time. Asking around he is led to a clock maker at in the town. He wants into the clock maker and the clock maker says he has the most accurate clock and everyone relies on him because he has a giant clock in the town that rings at preciously 12 noon every day. And the man asks “but how do you set that master clock?” The clock maker whispers: “well to tell you the truth, there is a boat in the harbor that always blows the horn at 5 pm, I use him as a reference. So the man goes to the harbor, and finds the man on the boat. Yes, the man says he blows his horn at 5 pm every day. He asks, but how do you know that you have the correct time? The boat man says, “Well, to tell you the truth, there is a guy in town that has a big bell that rings every day at noon……” 🙂
I agree that disagreement shows that we are the ones who know that ones means more than one, it’s redundant and it also goes without saying that I don’t feel like complaining but live to anyway as we both understand there is no mutual ground to what we both think about before being after, not stuck in between endless brief lifetimes. I didn’t even comment!!! You wrote this by reading it!!!
I’d like to know more about why the nature fallacy is a fallacy. What survives evolution has more viability, than contrived cultural expressions – such as the evolutionary suicidal idea of “non violence”. We hold practical experience in higher esteem than theoretical projections, which is similar to evolutionary survival.
0:25 My “dialectical opponent” ? Crikey, I hope that I never have one of those. Once upon a time, my supervisor came over to exercise his oratory and debating skills. Once he was done (that took a while), I replied that I was confident that his conclusion was incorrect, but that I couldn’t be bothered to examine the intricate arguments to determine where he went wrong. In other words, “You’re wrong. Not sure where, and not interested. But wrong.”
I’ve learned some of these by their Latin phrases. Circular resoning is sometimes called circulus in probando. And begging the question is called petitio principii. From my experience, law and philosophy discussions always seem to use Latin, other disciplines seem to prefer the English phrases. I don’t know why.
I was sitting at the round table in a tug boater’s bar, me being the only railroad guy in the place. The local chairman of the tug boater’s union and I were arguing socialism vs “capitalism.” Having finally bludgeoned him into a corner he countered with, “You’re the kind of guy who would let your grandmother starve in the street.” I countered with, “No. But I would let YOUR grandmother starve in the street.” Of course the rejoinder got a howl of approval, but nothing was decided that day. By the way, how’s YOUR grandmother?
i remember a few years ago seeing some articles on the 12 step method for rational discourse as taught in European universities like Rhodes and Oxford in the 1200’s or so. they were written in latin. I’ve done searches and have not come up with the 12 steps and/or rules after many word combinations. can you give me a link or posting on it?
One question; how do you know what “good” is? Let me ask it in a different way so that my question is clearly understood. If you are presenting an argument (such as the one you make in this article) and claim that somethings are bad while others are good, what is the basis of determining what “good” is (or “bad” for that matter.)
Anyone spot two fallacies within the article itself? 5:28 – Based on incomplete knowledge of nature, We should aspire to be non violent as possible, if violence was not good we would all be speaking German right now, sometimes violence is necessary for the good of others. Not including idealistic reasoning simply because idealism is not a realistic argument. Nature is perfect, arrogance of mankind thinking we know better than nature is the problem, proof of this can be observed everywhere in nature. 5:34 – Appealing to popular opinion is exactly what Mr Henderson is doing in the point about violence, including a good dose of idealism, which is great in your head but doesn’t translate to the real world.
What are a good examples of common fallacies used with… Parental alienation? Munchausen Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome? False accusers? Gaslighting? Narcissism? Scapegoats & blaming? Virtue signaling? Self pity? Entitled people who elicit for empathy from enablers because of their privilege/protected groups? People who exploit laws that favor them for leverage against others?
Great synopsis. However, something you should consider is one’s ultimate source of authority must always be a circular argument. If you said your ultimate source of authority is logic you must prove that with logic anything else you seek to prove it with would become your ultimate source of authority.
So here’s the thing with ad hominem-there is more nuance than many are willing to accept Quintilian referenced Cato saying: “The orator then, whom I am concerned to form, shall be the orator as defined by Marcus Cato, “a good man, skilled in speaking.”1 But above all he must possess the quality which Cato places first and which is in the very nature of things the greatest and most important, that is, he must be a good man.” Of course one must criticize the argument before the person. However a morally bankrupt person will use argument, especially correct ones, illicitly or falsely and in that case it is justifiable to discredit the orator in so doing. That we have been instructed to avoid criticism of the speaker is why so much error has entered public discourse.
Good article, I have a question, actually 2. I am happy to donate a little to a site you have for your time. What is the fallacy when one raises one issue about a person to cancel the person entirely? Winston Churchill had a bad policy in India and was therefore polluted entirely. Nothing else he could do could salvage his India failures. Same for Thomas Jefferson, etc. The second question is a fallacy in an argument about something completely unrelated. One complains about a particular politician, but the response is something like, “You complain about Senator X about funding this or that, while the number one cause of death with children is gun violence.” Completely unrelated. Let me know your site to donate a little for your time. Thanks for a great website. This should be taught in school.
One dangerous fallacy is that learning to swim could well save you from drowning. It’s half true at best. Folks who can’t swim stay out of the water. (Incidentally, it is, I understand, not necessary to swim to avoid drowning. Instead place both arms down your sides and float sloping backwards with chin just above water. ) A half right argument might be worse than a three-quarters correct argument😉
I think the most common. appeal to authority, argument made is, “you don’t have a degree in that so what say has no merit”. To which I respond, what I say is either true or untrue. Either I can cite other sources that support me or I can’t. That I don’t have a degree is of no significant consequence.
5:03 – If you claim a position is true because it has yet to be proven false, you are committing the Burden of Proof fallacy. It is not the duty of others to prove you wrong; it is your duty to support your own position with sound logic and objectively verifiable evidence…regardless of anyone else’s position. Argument from Ignorance is what happens when neither argument can be proved to the interlocutor’s satisfaction, allowing one to (erroneously) cite uncertainty as evidence of equal probability, even when their own position is far less probable. As for the Fallacy fallacy, while another person’s fallacy does not necessarily disprove the position, it is still logically questionable to accept that position until it has been adequately supported.
As a reformed Christian I acknowledge most believers are ignorant about the reliability of Gods Word and are prone to making these circular arguments, even if they ring true. God has made Himself known through nature, history, and personal experience, in addition to Scripture. Our confidence in the Bible’s inerrancy does not solely rest on its own claims but also on the consistent, trustworthy character of God revealed in the world around us. We trust in Gods Word because He has given us faith to Trust in Him and given us the sight and the hearing to recognize the truth He recorded for us in Scripture
Another: because it is possible and it is, according to whatever expert or group referenced has declared it is secret therefore it is true. This is happening more and more and I am not hearing requests for any form of physical proof even when proof is possible…through tech records, verifiable court records, legitimate article…..the “it’s possible but because “they” are so powerful “they” keep it secret……but it is true needs a user friendly name. It is a parallel to circular or self-referencing but a shade different. Maybe invisible puppetmeister?
0:55 ad hominem 1:25 strawman 1:50 appeal to authority 12:15 false dilemma 2:40 equivocation 3:56 hasty generalisation 4:05 comparative fallacy 4:30 post hoc ergo propter hoc 5:03 appeal to ignorance 5:37 appeal to popularity 5:53 guilt by association 6:07 no true Scotsman 6:29 fallacy of composition 6:34 fallacy of division 6:40 appeal to hypocrisy 7:01 burden of proof 7:20 fallacy fallacy
I have a question: Aren’t the “No True Scotsman” and “Guilt By Association” fallacies literally the opposite sides of a coin? Isn’t saying “no true Scotsman” a reason that “guilt by association” wrong? Just because one group that is bad shares some views with the group in question, that doesn’t mean the group in question is bad, right? How can these both be logical fallacies when they the reason the other is wrong?
My comeback for “X, who is an authority, says Y”, and I say “because…..”. If they look confused I ask them to explain it to me. If they say “its too complicated”, I bring out Feyman’s quote that if you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it. I always want the correct answer, even if I am proven wrong, because I will only be wrong once. Dogma is wrong forever.
A lot of arguments that I’ve been in resort to the ad hominem fallacy. Specifically with friends and people online. “Yeah but your aims trash bro, you pull no bitches”. If you respond with “though shalt not commit logical fallacies” or just establish that what they said isn’t relevant to the argument. You’d be flamed again. People just don’t care
Thank you Sir for you’ve been served serendipity style to my phone, I need your help. Thank you, I’m am egomaniac, just kidding, just egocentric, doh!!! I’m soon engaging town and local forces opposing oppressive mandated housing regulations. I have everything in my holster but a quick draw and delivery. I’m absorbing your program and subscribed. Thank you
When someone is constantly looking for numbers, like adding them together, and they add up to something they believe – “it all adds up to 666” or “see there’s a 3 which represents x”, what fallacies might they be committing? Another one is see a lot is – say an event happens – then people show tons of cartoons, shows etc where they supposedly reference this event that hasn’t happened yet and was not foreseeable. Yet they use this “older” material and the “signs” in them to surmise that the event must have been planned or known about.
I love logical fallacies amd they make for great analysis of the claims that others make, but I am also interested in some other more practical related things. For one, I am interested in how to deal with people using logical fallacies in various scenarios. If we are having a good faith argument amd they don’t realize thatt they are using fallacious reasoning, if we are having a debate and my goal is to convince a third party, how do you dismantle these fallacies? Finally, I am a lawyer, or an advocate if you will, amd my client is on trial for a crime, which I know him to be guilty of. Maybe the best defense depending on the jury, would be to skillfully employ the use of logical fallacies, and if so, how do I do this?
You had inserted your own fallacious assumptions of the goodness of the acts of nature when explaining the appeal to nature fallacy! A forest fire burning down someone’s home also provides soil enrichment for further eco development and plant and animal growth. The goodness/non-goodness is relative to all acts of nature!
Beg to differ on ‘Begging the Question’. Officer safety is a BtQ fallacy. If we didn’t need public safety, then why would we need police officers? ‘I could win the lottery jackpot tomorrow’, and someone might, but to argue that it’s a real possibility for a specific individual is not practical. Quoting the Bible is a form of Appeal to Authority. In my ignorance, what’s the difference between formal and informal fallacies?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is my favorite fallacy. My freshman econ professor in 1979 spent a whole class surveying common logical fallacies, giving this example for post hoc ergo propter hoc: Last night Darrel Dawkins scored 5 points and fouled out in the 3rd quarter and the Sixers lost. Therefore, the Sixers lost BECAUSE Darrel Dawkins scored 5 points and fouled out in the 3rd quarter. It feels true, but there has to be more to the explanation.
I like that you mentioned the political arena and the Lesser of Two Evils argument we hear so often. I see the Lesser of Two Evils as a false dilemma based on an appeal to popularity with a dabble of special pleading. How do we know there’s only two options? We look at how people will likely vote, or we look at popularity. That gets us the false dilemma. The special pleading is just looking at the top two vote getters. Why not the top 7 vote getters? Or the top 1 vote getter? Am I sounding reasonable here? Have I made an error? Would love to be corrected if so.
Ad hominum is a perfectly good tactic against a person who truly believes what they are saying, because it comes from their attachment to their idea from their emotional self and a deep, intractable ideology/belief system. Such people are outside of reasoning and need to be told/convinced that the problem is *THEM*, not the idea they are espousing. My approach is that if good reasoning has firstly failed, move to ad hominum, and failing that, walk away from them forever. 😅 Whereas ad hominum is a time-honoured rule of formal debating amongst equals, modern political correctness, social niceties and irrationality have now outlawed ANY personal attacks such that it is impossible to challenge some people’s ideas in any way because THEY TAKE EVERYTHING SO PERSONALLY … and rightly so! So I flip that over and attack them directly, overtly when their own psychology is the cause of their ignorance and falsities. All religious people rate highest in this category.
There was a fallacy that occurred where I was telling my dad I went for bike ride to a certain road, called Wellington avenue a 5 minute ride from my house. Then he was somehow convinced to believe it was a far place . I’m like dad it’s literally 5 minutes away. He kept on believing it was far. I’m like cmon ur better than this it’s literally a 5 minute bike ride from where we live. He’s like Noooo. I gave up
I encounter the fallacy of hypocrisy often in online arguments. For example, persons making pro-choice arguments often claim that their opponent has to adopt someone, before they can make a pro-life argument. But of course, that is an obvious fallacy. It would be like saying someone can’t make a pro-choice argument unless they adopt someone.
5:30 You give an example about chimps. Much of the hierarchy, and survival of the strongest examples of the species is why they still exist at all. Moralistically to a Christian, this seems ‘bad’ short term. But I would prefer chimps used this evolutionary method to continue existing as opposed to going extinct as a species.
I realize we’re in a short-attention span culture but spending so little time on each or even covering all 19 fallacies in such a rushed manner isn’t effective (imo). This is such a great topic perhaps spending 8 minutes on four fallacies to provide more examples would’ve guaranteed me to look for part 2 (or three or four…) of a series. Now, I have to go back and stop this article 19 times to review.
Avoiding all those fallacies seem to be almost impossible to implement in a discussion. The problem in most discussions is that there are so many fallacies in everyones argumentation that trying to call the fallacies out, would take all your speaking time and attention span of listeners, that your opponent by default “wins” the argument in the way that 1. everything was on their premises 2. you didn’t get to say your arguments 3. Not all the fallacy debunks will be seen as fallacies by everyone (maybe you even accidently used a fallacy yourself, which “prove” your oppenent correct by the fallacy fallacy). It is almost as if the more fallacies you can include in your argumentation, that your opponent has to call out, the easier it is to “win” an argument, especially a public and limited one. Are we people even smart enough to not use fallacies ? Certainly not me, someone might even find one in what I just wrote above.
Religious people should watch this; they use pretty much nothing other than logical fallacies to ‘prove’ that their god exists, usually circular reasoning, the god of the gaps, argument from incredulity, argumentum ad populum, and argument from ignorance. Then when you point out that fallacies cannot by their nature possibly be proven true, they tell you that you just need to have faith.
Be careful. An ad hominem fallacy is not simply an insult. “Your shoes are ugly”, is NOT necessarily an ad hominem. “Your argument is wrong because I think your shoes are ugly”, MIGHT be an ad hominem. It is not an ad hominem if the insulting words are pertinent. If Sally is arguing that she has excellent taste in shoes because no one ever thinks her shoes are ugly, pointing out that YOU think her shoes are ugly is NOT an ad hominem. The fact that you think her shoes are ugly is pertinent; it disproves her premise. If you are arguing the reality of climate change and you say Sally is wrong because her shoes are ugly, THAT is an ad hominem.
I think it is productive to point out how those fallacies, like appeal to authority, are bad (at least unnecessary) when people have sufficiently large amount of resources to argument. However, with limited resources, they can be good approximtion… people can use them as long as they acknowledge they are using an approximation that is not necessarily correct. With limited resources, those approximations like appeal to authority can even work better than first-principle reasoning which can lead to stuff like anti-vax. With limited resources, we should trust expert on vaccine while recognize it is an approximation that can be wrong. Same with AD Hominem. It is an approximation to not buy stuff from a known con man even if he might happen to be selling good product. Appeal to popularity is similar to appeal to authority. It is an approximation. It is the same with appeal to ignorance. It is literally an approximation (non-rigorous version) of proof by contradiction. Although appeal to ignorance is probably the least accurate approximation compared the ones mention above. We shouldn’t pretend those approximation has no utility. They are useful when we have limited resources to reason. We should use them while recognize those are approximation that can be wrong. Evolution likely gave us trust in such fallacies because they give good result with limited resources…. I know I know… this is kind of an appeal to nature fallacy. I acknowledge this is not necessarily correct, but it is decently likely given my limited knowledge and capability of understanding a complex system better.
This is what people who think they are smart always say: “That is a logical fallacy”. So? Most people who use fallacious arguments do not care about the logic even if they understand it is faulty. Politicians do this all the time and they are not trying to be logical. If you want to argue your point of view and come out ahead, use ad hominem, argument from authority, etc. It makes perfect sense if your aim is to get your way. If you are doing an exam on logic, that is different but life is not an exam on logic, is it?
“Hasty generalisation” is – I’d argue – a form, or a variant, of “pars pro toto” fallacy (lit. “one (part) for all”, i.e. “one/ partial example/ representative is being assumed as the characteristics of a whole lot/ population”). EDIT – you classified it under “Fallacy of Composition” entry. I was tad, erm… “hasty”, shall I say? 😉
None of these are logical fallacies, they’re all substantive (informal) fallacies. An example of a logical (formal) fallacy is ‘Denying the antecedent of a conditional’, ‘Confirming the consequent of a conditional’, or ‘Deriving ought from is’. At least that’s what I was taught in logic classes as a philosophy undergraduate anyway… that’s not intended as an ‘appeal to authority’ substantive fallacy btw 🙂
Ad Hominem ~ very popular amongst questionable scientists Equivocation of love is rampant in our society. True love is to put a person’s needs before your own. Popular love is lust, serve my need. You example of circular argument is actually a professed lack of education. Socrates said “Teaching a person to think is real teaching”. Generalization may be that the evidence is not in your knowledge
It’s interesting that you made the statement, “In fact, we should strive to be as non-violent as possible,” right before introducing the Appeal to Popularity. Disassociate your personal beliefs from that statement, and then ask yourself if that statement is an Appeal to Popularity. I’m not saying that most people are non-violent, or even that violence is unpopular. But, is it possible that saying, “We should strive to be as non-violent as possible,” is a popular opinion without giving it due consideration from a logical argument perspective?
How to debunk circular reasoning. The problem with claiming a statement as false because of the circular reasoning pattern is because of the following. Let us begin with a common truth. We eat. The statement we eat because we eat. Is considered a logical fallacy. Well congrats!!! Did you just prove noone eats? Nope. So lets stop asking the question “What did they not prove?” When it is also “What did they not unprove?” Mathmatically circular reasoning only has 50% accuracy towards recognizing truthness and falseness.
stating that the person who is arguing is not qualified to say what he’s saying because he hasn’t studied the issue enough to reach the conclusions that he’s putting forward – does this qualify as ad hominem? It’s not yet an appeal to authority because you haven’t stated who is more qualified to speak on the given issue, you’ve merely said that the person that you’re debating against is not qualified. I often catch myself saying this to the other person during debates when my position is “i’m not sure, the issue is too complex, or insufficiently explored for us to issue any conclusions”
For example, circularity is very common in philosophical reasoning, and criticizing the very personal position of intelectuals is just a intelectual choice; there is nothing wrong on thet. It seems that academics and intelectuals want to say and do whatever shit they imagine, and do not face concrete consequences of their reasoning, such as, for exemple, accept personal criticism. For exemple, political and moral hypocrisy has been an important critique intelectuals and philosophers face.