24 thoughts on “The Critical Thinker 006 | Introduction to Fallacies”

  1. I believe to look at it as this:
    You know the guilt a medical member feels when they spare some effort in saving peoples' lives (and I mean saving lives, not just curing non serious illnesses like dentistry or flu, the non serious cases). Technically, they are not guilty, but they still feel bad as they feel they should have done more, or something else. I'm just a 'good' YT citizen, so if that doesn't count, I apologize. If I were to name things then I think it is "intentional". Though negligence is sometimes morally forgivable considering the consequences, "murder" can be labeled to many things. He who prisons a person and not let him drink water is called a murderer, and people who pass by the homeless and not give him money or food also contribute to him dying. Can the community accept himself to be murderous community, I wonder?

  2. What this syllogism suggests appears more to be an implication, or rather that of the nature of a hypothesis, rather than a rocketed fallacy, however I agree, the proposed argument does have a fault, as the logic is short lived, that with conflating brains to be created computers, (at least it feels like there is something wrong with the logic of the statement here). The question here is are brains designed computers?

    Needless to say, arguments all depend on how the language is being used, as in this case seeks to describe the biological brain with man made things, and then to erroneously conclude that one thing must mean the other….and could be called the fallacy of associations here. After all the brain may or may not just be a computer. it could be a mixture of biological compound matrix, and otherwise intertwined and randomized "chemical" things going on, it would be short coming to say that "bio" is comparable to man made things or to conflate such to mean that God has made bio things because man created computers, or that even if it is true that our brains are like computers, does that mean that brains are so designed by a designer? it could be so….but using the computer metaphor perhaps is the wrong way to argue the point.

    I believe that the main way to refute the willful syllogism (but not directed against the argument about biological design) is not necessary to spot what the fallacy is, and hence seek to tomahawk it with the tonal voice about the wrongness about such matters…but rather much more simpler would be to ask does the argument work? and no, it does not work, because metaphors make for a bad arguments anyway, esp for the sake of invoking a conclusion from it. In which case, all that is really needed in my opinion, is to show contradiction. iows "brains are created computers" might be the problem with conflating the meaning of design to mean intelligent design directly from the allegory of man made things. iows, though the concept of design might be interpreted, in the biological sense, the two might not be the same together, to bring about such a conclusion, and needs much more information or perhaps more philosophical essay to extend and entail into.

    Perhaps better said here is that if the mind exist, therefore it was created. (if just for the sake of justifying the ancient argument of existence) though this seems more assertive with respect to the idea of the human intuition, it is not really an argument, but a conditional statement found in a predicate, which could be entailed, decently, especially within phenomenology construction circles, to add, is a style of thinking, though such adventures would make the philosophy rather difficult to explain, if not impossible. That with using such investigative techniques to say what the mind actually is, is without certainty, or clarification. Nor could the mind be compared to human inventions or devices to describe what the human mind actually is, but rather we can only conclude, by what carries over into deeper thought processes, is what is called a conscience, such that no computer can currently match, (at least not yet anyway). but is worthy of our investigation nevertheless.

    That being said, the term "mind" vs the mechanism of the brain, would seem more necessary here, if just to bridge the meaning of bio complexity to mean design, but only to infer, by reason, that to also mean a designer is involve into its making, if just to seek to connect the meaning of "braininess" to a more a synthetic form, or that of a more intuitive nature, that being conscientiousness, is how best to define the self, that is to suggest that conscience is to mean computer things in some way, of which lengthy philosophy could be at fault, with seeking for to make an end… and is perhaps even dangerous to conclude merely from a single laid metaphor, but if say ~ philosophically possible, to essay all this out ….it would obviously require more deeper thought, more explanation for how the mind and brain exists simultaneously, that with how the brain acts with such orchestration and control, within that much information and retrieval systems, that by being directed from the agent of the self, that is for the mind to exist at its level — would indeed be hard met by philosophers.

    Such arguments though may deem themselves necessary in the long run, about the brain/mind issue, about whether or not our brains are created by a designer or not, is not necessary made absolute by personal definition or beliefs, nor is to be considered religious.. iows although the statement about brains being computers are that of a designer might be misleading, called leading by the conclusion, as the process of thinking here seems rather short lived, and even contrive. However it may be said, the concept of mind and brains does allow for room for the computer allegory and goes without saying about AI concepts. Nevertheless, at any level in philosophy, the question of how the mind conscientiousness exists, that with how to describe the mind's activity by the brain, is in part, still an open question, and has been debated by many philosophers over the centuries. And apparently, it just might be that the mind conscientiousness/material issue is rather in consequential to be about man made things vs biologically made things anyway. I suppose it all boils down to is what does one mean by the concept of biological design and how does one interpret such informational complexity in the long run.

  3. Mr. Kevin deLaplante thank you for your excellent instruction. I'm curious to know, speaking of only This video: IF First, one instilled the audio/visual outlining of the GOOD Argument and its support tools/structures, THEN might the resulting definitions/applications of the FALLACIES have a richer opportunities and better chances to be comprehended, retained and implemented by the end user…might one consider the results worth the effort IF it Were true? One seemingly would have a Good Argument Graphic Exemplar for Comparison to each Bad Argument Graphic.

  4. Abortion, contrary to what pro-abortion advocates would argue, is an intentional choice to terminate a pregnancy; without equivocating, terminating a pregnancy involves ending the life of a developing human. Pregnancy may be terminated due to natural or biological causes outside the control of the pregnant mother; such examples are not abortion.

    A developing human results from fusing of 2 gametes; once 2 gametes have fused, a human has come into existence and during the earliest stages of development may split into identical twins.

    Humans include such stages of classification as zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, pre-pubescent, adolescent (developmental stages), and adult (post-developmental); at any given stage mentioned, part of the definition for that stage includes the term human (when applied to human-life).

    Murder is the intentional termination of another human without just cause; some positions discuss the requirement that the terminated life must have been its own "moral agent" and just cause tends toward understanding the terminated life must have been an intentional clear and present danger to another human life that was not itself an intentional clear and present danger to any other human life.

    Zygotes, Embryos, and Fetuses are never intentional clear and present dangers.

    Terminating a human life that is not an intentional clear and present danger during any stage of that human life is murder of that human life by another human life without just cause.

    Therefore, abortion is murder.

  5. could it be this ? :

    1.) killing of an innocent human being is involved in abortion, which can be debatable

    2) since murder the word expresses the crime, the killing an innocent human being itself is an act of crime which is morally or ethically wrong.

    and since the premises present different meaning of the same term, is that why it is the fallacy of equivocation ?

    please let me know..i have a hugh test on next monday

    ps-Kevin, I've enjoyed our video, is there any videos helpful for identifying arguments with analysis (like how to include unstated premises and conclusions …etx)

  6. a 1 day old child wouldnt have any morals
    but we would still consider that murder
    thats not why we dont consider fly killing, murder

  7. @PhilosophyFreak This seems to adequately address assertions of creation based on Kalom's Cosmological argument; is that right?

  8. I wonder if this is the right way to approach this:
    When one says "human beings" in the abortion premise, it is referring to biological definition as a living organism. However, the "human" referred by the murder premise is someone with moral and social values, not just a living organism. Ex., if one kills a fly, no one would accuse the person of murder. So why don't we accuse the person of murder? It's because the fly would not have moral values. The fetus is similar to a fly in this argument.

  9. FYI, for anyone interested in this abortion argument and whether it's really guilty of a fallacy or not, there's an extended discussion going on over at my website, which you can get to by clicking the link in the information box above. It's the post titled "Equivocation and the Status of the Human Fetus".

  10. @apologeticjedi It is thought that there could be species that are much like our own in the universe. There is no proof for this, however it is not as "bizarre" as you say. Also there WERE species that were much like homo-sapiens and are now extinct. Again, whether or not there could be another species much like our own is another debate. You must not believe this is possible, but there is alot to take into account. We would also have to go into what is "human" and I keep running out of space.

  11. @apologeticjedi About the "an 8 year old can be murdered but does not necessarily possess all "human rights"" argument. I don't think someones worth as a human is measured in how many "human rights" a person has and I don't think that Kevin deLaplante had that in mind.

  12. @apologeticjedi I agree with Kevin deLaplante, there are many ways to look at the term "human". Let's say there was another species that was much like our own, that could communicate and had similar fundamental qualities that make us "human", then what would DNA matter? If you do not believe that there could be another species like homo-sapiens that's another debate that I would be glad to continue.

  13. @apologeticjedi When you talk of "the argument you give for human rights" are you referring to my extended blog post or just the comments here? If you'd like to pursue this we can chat over on my website, there's more room 🙂

  14. @apologeticjedi Think of the usage when we talk about "human rights"; we're using the term "human" to imply a certain kind of moral status. That's quite different from the purely biological sense of the term. I've got a lengthy blog post on if you'd like to check it out, just click on the link in the description box above.

  15. Anyone who tries to compare the brain with a computer, as we can presently make computers, under-estimates the brain, even that of an ant.
    A silicon chip can not be compared with an organic brain.

  16. Good video. I'm a theist, so I agree with you that bad arguments make our cause look bad. Very beneficial video.

  17. I really Enjoy these videos. Even though they sometimes shoot over my head. I can always come back and re-watch to gain a greater insight into things.

Leave a Reply

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