38 thoughts on “CRITICAL THINKING – Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies”

  1. The argument about the peanut butter is an Affirming the Antecedent fallacy. The argument seeks to affirm the antecedent, that she is allergic to peanut butter.

  2. 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. 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

  4. I've been led to believe that something called informal logic/informal reasoning has been around for something close to 70 years.  I don't understand why it hasn't been cast out as a fraudulent movement.  Any thoughts on that?  My thought is that if it promotes deception (and I think it does) then it ought to be eradicated as a subject worthy of honest peoples inquiry.

  5. Somebody help me find the name of this fallacy.

    Common argument occurs in the house. The dishes need to be done, you walk into the kitchen finding the dishwasher partially filled with dishes. You check a bowl for signs the dishes are clean. You find dried oat meal in the bowl. You concluded the dishes in the dishwasher are dirty after finding three+ dirty dishes.

    You start cleaning the dishes, scrapping off the food, placing the dishes in the washer. Girlfriend comes into the kitchen telling you the dishes in the dish washer are clean. She states she washed them this morning. You show her the dirty bowel and a few more dirty dishes that were in the washer. She gets offended by your assumption she did the dishes incorrectly. She replies, "Somebody probably put the dirty dishes into the dish washer by accident after I washed the dishes. i'm not stupid, I know how to wash the dishes." (You know what she is saying isn't true because NOBODY in this house puts dishes into the washer. They stick them in the sink and they sit there until someone cleans them. The last person who did dishes is the only one putting dishes into the washer.)

    That's the fallacy. One finds a situation that could be true, you must assume it is true, or you being purposely unreasonable. If we can't tell definitely what happen, one can state something convenient in relationship to the subject, you must find this "agreeable" or appear unreasonable.

    I've experienced this many times. A convenient explanation isn't equivalent to the truth. Just because it could be true, (it's plausible), we can pass it as truth? The closest name I've found for this fallacy is "wishful thinking" and "reverse kafka trapping". Anything else?

    FYI: I just said "ok:" and did the dishes after her response. Better then make her mad, lol

  6. 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).

  7. So then just call it a fucking content fallacy or contextual fallacy and a formal fallacy. Why make it harder to remember the difference?

  8. Mixed emotions. I love Trumps honesty, but that honesty is also some sexism, racism, blind nationalism, and belittling of handicapped, etc. If he could be more compassionate, scholarly, he would be a much better leader. Hopefully, as President he doesn't just surround himself with bankers, war mongers, racists, etc, and instead reaches outside his comfort zone for people that have different cultures, political affiliations, from different socio-economic groups and religions. Let's see. One thing he is, a great entertainer.

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

  10. 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?

  11. 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?

  12. Many things that you wrote as true are false, like "If someone is allergic to peanuts, then she doesn't eat peanut butter"

    Lots of allergic people consume products they are allergic to, actually.

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

  14. I get your point with the second example. But when it is stated the arguement is not necessarily invaild. It can be understood in more than one way, two or which are correct.

    Case #1
    P1: A feather is light (color).
    P2: What is light(color) cannot be dark.
    C: Therfore a feather is light(color).

    Case #2
    P1: A feather is light (weight).
    P2: What is light(weight) cannot be dark.
    C: Therfore a feather is light(weight).

    Problems arise in the cases where the meaning is switched. You make the assumtion that people choose to understand the contents in the same way as you. Though it is a great example of the dangers of not clarifying ambiguity when putting forth an arguement.

  15. thank you so much, ive always wondered what the difference was! I'm new to self-educating about philosophy and this has been a big misunderstanding until now. Love your work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *