New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I think it's wrong that people get pissed off by it.

If someone were to point out a fallacy I've committed, I'd listen and be interested.

I hate being falsely accused of them, but if they're spot on then I like to concede the point and move on. And it would have a lasting positive effect on me that.

[robvalue]

Yes, I'm aware some people don't like "logical fallacies" being pointed out. I have found this to be extremely rare though, and the technique of pointing them out very useful in general. I can't predict exactly what any one person is going to like or dislike.

Mostly when people object, they are just saying my objection is wrong rather than objecting to me naming a fallacy. Anyone can object, it doesn't mean their objection is necessarily correct. It's all part of discussion. If their logic is faulty, their objection is likely to be wrong.

I agree that if it's used simply as a way of appearing superior and not furthering the discussion, it is pointless.

The reason for naming the fallacies and explaining them is that they demonstrate entirely broken ways of thinking that are extremely common. Just argueing the particular point my further a debate, but if you can get the other person to understand why their very thinking is fundamentally wrong, you help them for every other debate they may have and to think things through properly. Especially as the same person may make the same fundamental error over and over again, thinking they are making valid points. It's like the difference between helping them over a particular bridge, and teaching them how bridges work. If they don't want to learn how bridges work, well, that's up to them to say so. I would never hound someone with named fallacies after they told me they don't like it.

I tend to highlight the fallacy by name, and then explain what the actual problem is with what is being said. If someone doesn't like that, well, they can always tell me and I'll not do so in conversation with them.

Imagine a referee who, instead of signalling for "offside", had to explain in full detail every aspect of the rule each time the situation occured. Between people vaguely familiar with logic it is a shorthand; for those unfamiliar it is an introduction to a new way of analysing thinking. "That's the argument from ignorance again, like I explained before."

[Exian]

Haha Cool video Rob. What did the P.S. say? I couldn't make out the last word. I laughed my ass off though. I went back to pause it to give it a read.

[robvalue]

Thanks very much! This positive feedback makes me a happy chappy.

The PS says, "No more fucking jigsaws"

A stupid reference to the fact that my wife got me loads of jigsaws and a jigsaw holder for Christmas! I adore them of course, it's just a silly joke.

[robvalue]

Well I think it's wrong that people get pissed off by it.

If someone were to point out a fallacy I've committed, I'd listen and be interested.

I hate being falsely accused of them, but if they're spot on then I like to concede the point and move on. And it would have a lasting positive effect on me that.

Right! If I'm talking bollocks, I'd want to know about it. I would hope that other people would also want to know. It's much more polite and constructive to highlight the exact problem than to say, "That's bollocks. Go away."

Oh and you're right, my wife's voice did appear in one of my videos. It's right at the start of this one from the Never Ending Story:

http://youtu.be/kGon5u_ZV5g

[robvalue]

Is there any particular logical fallacy or theistic argument you guys would like me to tackle next in a video? I have a menu of some of the most common fallacies on my website here. Let me know if you feel any of them could do with more explanation or exposure.

Or even something slightly different? I'm open to suggestions. I'd like to make videos that help people.

I've been thinking of doing a Pascal's Wager one, as I consider it to be not just a terrible argument but in fact a gun pointed the wrong way.

[robvalue]

[Edwardo Piet]

Nice.

[Edwardo Piet]

Is there any particular logical fallacy or theistic argument you guys would like me to tackle next in a video?

The equivocation fallacy is my favorite fallacy of all to spot.

People saying shit like "To atheists, emotions are not from God. Therefore, to atheists, emotions are merely "all in your head", "all in your head" means they are imaginary, "imaginary" means they are not real, "not real" means they don't exist. So if you're an atheist you are saying you can't have emotions. But you do have emotions, so your emotions must be real, they must come from God and not simply be brain chemistry".

Equivocating fuckwits. I actually had this argument made to me by a highly intelligent theist who used to be on these forums called Arcanus/Ryft, I'm paraphrasing him.

He was a very good debater and got major kudos despite his fallacious reasoning. He was very logical (although clearly not in all cases!!!) and in many ways I'd say he was much more intelligent than myself... or at least more well read. I couldn't say he was necessarily smarter than Evie The Turtle. I just don't read as much as I should. I'd say my father has trouble grasping some concepts that I can grasp and yet he has two first class honors degrees and an IQ of 154... I'm just lazy and uneducated and I have no fucking excuse.

Most things just simply bore me unfortunately. Very under-stimulating.

And I'm pretty sure my mom's IQ is at least 160.

* Edwardo Piet has finished humble bragging.

But seriously I have no proof that I'm actually that intelligent.

But anyway, boy was that fallacious. I think many couldn't spot the fallacy despite not agreeing with him, and that's the trouble:

I wanted to not just doubt the error in reasoning, but point out exactly what the error was. Thankfully I think I would do it much more eloquently now, although I still spot it back then.

What Bertrand Russell said about the ontological argument, applies to an awful lot of logical fallacies before we get to spot them properly:

[...]it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.

I feel like I've become an expert in spotting exactly where the fallacy lies when it comes to the equivocation fallacy.

Reading from a big all in one dictionary+thesaurus combo every day for 8 months certainly helped, reading all the different senses and meanings of the same words. Really ramming it home--oo err lol--the fact that any word can be used to mean several things, so constructing an argument where the same word is used in different senses needs to seriously be spotted and discarded.

So anyway,"real" as in "not imaginary" is very different to real as in "not there/present/not existent". The imagination exists in the sense it is present in our brain and our brain is very real, as is our mind. I would say the imagination exists but is only real in one sense. There is "real" in the sense of "existent" and "real" in the sense of "not imaginary". Different.

I would fucking love it if you did the equivocation fallacy, I used to hate it when people used it so I became an expert at spotting it.

It's also used for people to pretend mental illness isn't anything serious. When they say "it's all in your head". I would always say, "Yes, it is in my head. Literally. My brain chemistry is very real." - all the while whilst feeling like telling them to go fuck themselves for making out that mental illness didn't exist simply because they were equivocating bastards.

I'd really love it if you did the equivocation fallacy and why it's a fallacy, Rob.

[robvalue]

OK awesome, thanks Evie

I agree, it's one of the most common, irritating and downright dishonest tactics that can be employed. I'll have a think about how I can do a video about it to best get the point across.

It's often about semantics and alternative definitions, like with the "all in your head" example. Of course it's in my fucking head. Where else would it be?

Modern apologetics is more and more about hiding the logical fallacies under layers and layers of irrelevant, confusing bullshit. I see it as a death wail. You're right, it can often be obvious the argument is bogus but spotting the exact error isn't always immediately obvious; which is why people can be easily impressed by clever sounding stuff if they don't look closely (or understand logic).