- published: 07 Jan 2010
- views: 97803
-
remove the playlistReductio Ad Ridiculum
- remove the playlistReductio Ad Ridiculum
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Appeal_to_ridicule
Podcasts:
-
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES SHELDON IS WRONG, RELAX SMARTASS!
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it really fits the joke, and even though it is wrong and so erudite people don't laugh, the rest of the audience do laugh, because they don't know. It's all played around the word reductio and absurdum. Because most people would translate it with "reduce the argumentation to an absurdity"(while it's more like "proof by contradiction"). Nobody would think (or if they know it, they laugh anyway) that Sheldon is referring to the real meaning. Is this a good thing? I don't know, and don't care.
published: 07 Jan 2010 -
Argumentum Ad Ridiculum
published: 23 Jun 2014 -
Kids & Ad Ridiculum
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
published: 01 Mar 2016 -
Tardeo | 4 - Ad Absurdum
published: 19 Jan 2017 -
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Diversion
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-of-counterevidence-ad-hominem-and-of-diversion Each fallacy is given a definition and an example as well as a range of other names often ascribed to that fallacy based on common practice. Slides and Worksheets available here: http://www.slideshare.net/skolber Email me at :[email protected] Backdrop images from: https://pixabay.com/en/users/hadania-19110/
published: 29 Jun 2017 -
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy
Learn how to pronounce Mocking This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking. According to Wikipedia, this is one of the possible definitions of the word "Mocking": The ridiculous is that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh out of their minds or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision. It comes from the 1540s Latino "ridiculosus" meaning "laughable", from "ridiculus" meaning "that which excites laughter", and from "ridere" meaning "to laugh". "Ridiculous" is an adjective describing "the ridiculous". In common usage, "ridiculousness" is used as a synonym for absurdity or nonsense. From a historical and technical viewpoint, "absurdity" is associate...
published: 06 Apr 2015 -
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand the Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule -- a common mistake in reasoning and argument. In this video, I discuss what the fallacy is, map out its basic structure, point out what goes wrong with reasoning in the fallacy, examine three easy-to-understand examples, and give you advice about how to spot and avoid the fallacy. This is part of a whole series of videos discussing common fallacies. To see the whole series, you can click here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy91AvVMEx_9q5dUC_w2AFzaS-qBN3mEg Intro music is YouTube's public domain mp3, "Keep It Tight," by John Deley. Gregory B. Sadler is the president and co-founder of ReasonIO. The content of this video is provided here as part of ReasonIO'...
published: 16 Jul 2015 -
Theism Proven
List of Typical Responses 1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omission of reasoning). A. "Your argument is the Watchmaker argument already refuted." No, because the Watchmaker argument is partly based on ignorance: "We don't know how you can get great order mindlessly, and we'll jump to the conclusion that it had to be created by a mind." My argument explains how mindlessness CAN'T achieve great order, and so is totally based on knowledge. B. "Your argument is the Irreducible Complexity argument already refuted." No, because the IC argument is partly based on ignorance ("We don't know how great order can be attained mindlessly, and we jump to the conclusion that it was created by a mind." My argument is totally based on knowledge: ("We know why great order can't be...
published: 31 Dec 2014 -
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes - master list - philosophy
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee! https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt Content: 00:00 Introduction 00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation 00:38 Resort to Anger 00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community 01:18 Appeal to Novelty 01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning 01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question 02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation 02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction 03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductiv...
published: 16 Jul 2021 -
2.3 Atheism: Ingersoll & Mack
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3 I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll for the first time, observing the successful application of reductio ad absurdum to religion, perceiving the growth and maturing of my own mind, and encountering the concept of different Jesus movements from Mack. Note: In case it is not obvious, the voice in the pseudo-Ingersoll recordings is my own. Books and Concepts: Some Mistakes of Moses: http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-Ingersoll/dp/0879753617 Robert Ingersoll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll The Golden Age of Freethought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Freethought reductio ad absurdum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum DarkMatter2525 - Intelijunt Dezine http://www.youtube.com/...
published: 08 Sep 2010
developed with YouTube
1:14
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES SHELDON IS WRONG, RELAX SMARTASS!
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:14
- Uploaded Date: 07 Jan 2010
- views: 97803
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it really fits the joke, and even though it is wrong and so erudite peop...
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it really fits the joke, and even though it is wrong and so erudite people don't laugh, the rest of the audience do laugh, because they don't know. It's all played around the word reductio and absurdum. Because most people would translate it with "reduce the argumentation to an absurdity"(while it's more like "proof by contradiction"). Nobody would think (or if they know it, they laugh anyway) that Sheldon is referring to the real meaning.
Is this a good thing? I don't know, and don't care.
https://wn.com/The_Big_Bang_Theory_Reductio_Ad_Absurdum_Yes_Sheldon_Is_Wrong,_Relax_Smartass
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it really fits the joke, and even though it is wrong and so erudite people don't laugh, the rest of the audience do laugh, because they don't know. It's all played around the word reductio and absurdum. Because most people would translate it with "reduce the argumentation to an absurdity"(while it's more like "proof by contradiction"). Nobody would think (or if they know it, they laugh anyway) that Sheldon is referring to the real meaning.
Is this a good thing? I don't know, and don't care.
9:51
Argumentum Ad Ridiculum
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:51
- Uploaded Date: 23 Jun 2014
- views: 41
- published: 23 Jun 2014
- views: 41
7:25
Kids & Ad Ridiculum
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:25
- Uploaded Date: 01 Mar 2016
- views: 250
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
https://wn.com/Kids_Ad_Ridiculum
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
- published: 01 Mar 2016
- views: 250
28:14
Tardeo | 4 - Ad Absurdum
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 28:14
- Uploaded Date: 19 Jan 2017
- views: 458
- published: 19 Jan 2017
- views: 458
2:44
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Diversion
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:44
- Uploaded Date: 29 Jun 2017
- views: 160
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-of-counterevidence-ad-hominem-and-of-diversion
Each fallacy is given ...
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-of-counterevidence-ad-hominem-and-of-diversion
Each fallacy is given a definition and an example as well as a range of other names often ascribed to that fallacy based on common practice.
Slides and Worksheets available here: http://www.slideshare.net/skolber
Email me at :[email protected]
Backdrop images from: https://pixabay.com/en/users/hadania-19110/
https://wn.com/Fallacies_Of_Rebuttal_Fallacies_Of_Counter_Evidence,_Ad_Hominem,_And_Of_Diversion
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-of-counterevidence-ad-hominem-and-of-diversion
Each fallacy is given a definition and an example as well as a range of other names often ascribed to that fallacy based on common practice.
Slides and Worksheets available here: http://www.slideshare.net/skolber
Email me at :[email protected]
Backdrop images from: https://pixabay.com/en/users/hadania-19110/
- published: 29 Jun 2017
- views: 160
0:22
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:22
- Uploaded Date: 06 Apr 2015
- views: 2520
Learn how to pronounce Mocking
This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking.
According to Wikipedia, this is one of the possible definitions of the...
Learn how to pronounce Mocking
This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking.
According to Wikipedia, this is one of the possible definitions of the word "Mocking":
The ridiculous is that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh out of their minds or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision. It comes from the 1540s Latino "ridiculosus" meaning "laughable", from "ridiculus" meaning "that which excites laughter", and from "ridere" meaning "to laugh". "Ridiculous" is an adjective describing "the ridiculous".
In common usage, "ridiculousness" is used as a synonym for absurdity or nonsense. From a historical and technical viewpoint, "absurdity" is associated with invalid argumentation and reasoning, "nonsense" with semantics and meaning, while "ridiculous" is most associated with laughter, superiority, deformity, and incongruity. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, while reductio ad ridiculum is invalid. Argument by invective declaration of ridiculous is invalid, while arguments involving declarations of nonsense may summarize a cogent semantic problem with lack or meaning or ambiguity.
Historically, the ridiculous was central to initial theories of humor and laughter as first put forth by philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was used in psychosocial power struggles in the European court by reducing opponents to the ridiculous using ridicule. It is currently used in the theory of humor to create laughter, shock, parody, or satire. Reactions to the ridiculous have been studied in psychology for its effects on memory, attention, and attitude in social hierarchies. These studies have been applied to the theory of advertisement regarding attention, memory, and alleviation of preexisting negative attitudes toward products. The ridiculous is often contrasted with the sublime, one of extreme inferiority, the other of extreme superiority, and often one can suddenly move from one extreme state to the other.
PronunciationAcademy is the world's biggest and most accurate source for word pronunciations, SUBSCRIBE here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnImcI-VA0N1aGSx677QCYA/feed
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PronunciationA
Website: http://www.pronunciationacademy.com
https://wn.com/How_To_Pronounce_Mocking_Pronunciation_Academy
Learn how to pronounce Mocking
This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking.
According to Wikipedia, this is one of the possible definitions of the word "Mocking":
The ridiculous is that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh out of their minds or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision. It comes from the 1540s Latino "ridiculosus" meaning "laughable", from "ridiculus" meaning "that which excites laughter", and from "ridere" meaning "to laugh". "Ridiculous" is an adjective describing "the ridiculous".
In common usage, "ridiculousness" is used as a synonym for absurdity or nonsense. From a historical and technical viewpoint, "absurdity" is associated with invalid argumentation and reasoning, "nonsense" with semantics and meaning, while "ridiculous" is most associated with laughter, superiority, deformity, and incongruity. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, while reductio ad ridiculum is invalid. Argument by invective declaration of ridiculous is invalid, while arguments involving declarations of nonsense may summarize a cogent semantic problem with lack or meaning or ambiguity.
Historically, the ridiculous was central to initial theories of humor and laughter as first put forth by philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was used in psychosocial power struggles in the European court by reducing opponents to the ridiculous using ridicule. It is currently used in the theory of humor to create laughter, shock, parody, or satire. Reactions to the ridiculous have been studied in psychology for its effects on memory, attention, and attitude in social hierarchies. These studies have been applied to the theory of advertisement regarding attention, memory, and alleviation of preexisting negative attitudes toward products. The ridiculous is often contrasted with the sublime, one of extreme inferiority, the other of extreme superiority, and often one can suddenly move from one extreme state to the other.
PronunciationAcademy is the world's biggest and most accurate source for word pronunciations, SUBSCRIBE here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnImcI-VA0N1aGSx677QCYA/feed
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PronunciationA
Website: http://www.pronunciationacademy.com
- published: 06 Apr 2015
- views: 2520
18:36
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 18:36
- Uploaded Date: 16 Jul 2015
- views: 2660
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand the Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule -- a common mistake in reasoning and a...
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand the Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule -- a common mistake in reasoning and argument.
In this video, I discuss what the fallacy is, map out its basic structure, point out what goes wrong with reasoning in the fallacy, examine three easy-to-understand examples, and give you advice about how to spot and avoid the fallacy.
This is part of a whole series of videos discussing common fallacies. To see the whole series, you can click here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy91AvVMEx_9q5dUC_w2AFzaS-qBN3mEg
Intro music is YouTube's public domain mp3, "Keep It Tight," by John Deley.
Gregory B. Sadler is the president and co-founder of ReasonIO. The content of this video is provided here as part of ReasonIO's mission of putting philosophy into practice -- making complex philosophical texts and thinkers accessible for students and lifelong learners. If you'd like to make a contribution to help fund Dr. Sadler's ongoing educational projects, you can click here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=SKHK76Z5HFPA8
https://wn.com/Critical_Thinking_The_Fallacy_Of_Appeal_To_Ridicule
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand the Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule -- a common mistake in reasoning and argument.
In this video, I discuss what the fallacy is, map out its basic structure, point out what goes wrong with reasoning in the fallacy, examine three easy-to-understand examples, and give you advice about how to spot and avoid the fallacy.
This is part of a whole series of videos discussing common fallacies. To see the whole series, you can click here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy91AvVMEx_9q5dUC_w2AFzaS-qBN3mEg
Intro music is YouTube's public domain mp3, "Keep It Tight," by John Deley.
Gregory B. Sadler is the president and co-founder of ReasonIO. The content of this video is provided here as part of ReasonIO's mission of putting philosophy into practice -- making complex philosophical texts and thinkers accessible for students and lifelong learners. If you'd like to make a contribution to help fund Dr. Sadler's ongoing educational projects, you can click here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=SKHK76Z5HFPA8
- published: 16 Jul 2015
- views: 2660
14:07
Theism Proven
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 14:07
- Uploaded Date: 31 Dec 2014
- views: 70
List of Typical Responses
1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omission of reasoning).
A. "Your argument is the Watchmaker argument alrea...
List of Typical Responses
1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omission of reasoning).
A. "Your argument is the Watchmaker argument already refuted." No, because the Watchmaker argument is partly based on ignorance: "We don't know how you can get great order mindlessly, and we'll jump to the conclusion that it had to be created by a mind." My argument explains how mindlessness CAN'T achieve great order, and so is totally based on knowledge.
B. "Your argument is the Irreducible Complexity argument already refuted."
No, because the IC argument is partly based on ignorance ("We don't know how great order can be attained mindlessly, and we jump to the conclusion that it was created by a mind." My argument is totally based on knowledge: ("We know why great order can't be attained mindlessly from scratch, so we conclude the only possibility that works: Mind.").
2. Red herring fallacy: will change the subject. (If you want to argue against Christianity, I should do a video on it soon.)
3. Argument from incredulity fallacy: will dismiss as nonsense what has not been refuted. E.g. "I don't find this convincing." Your being convinced has no bearing on the validity of anything. It's subjective and irrelevant.
4. AD HOMINEM fallacy: will dismiss my argument because of who I am or what is wrongly perceived about me.
5. Bandwagon fallacy: will bring up the negative votes as if they have any bearing on the validity of anything. And most who look at videos against atheism are devout atheists, so what do you expect?
6. Appeal to authority fallacy: will cite authority as if their word is automatic truth. I once was told to cite. I responded: "I think for myself; I don't need citations. This isn't school where I'm forced to regurgitate what others think."
7. AD NOVITATEM fallacy: will say something like "bronze age mythology" as if old age has any bearing on the validity of an argument.
8. PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy aka begging the question aka circular reasoning aka claiming something without proving it.
9. AD RIDICULUM fallacy: will mock without a refutation E.g., "sky daddy" parroting. How original. Also, by the way, that is a distortion of my beliefs, since the heavens are spiritual where God sits; not physical as in the sky.
10. NON SEQUITUR: "Does not follow."
Many of these irrational arguments (which aren't an exhaustive list) overlap, so all I need to do is put one in, or I will explain if I think elaboration is needed. If I ignore you, it's probably because I'd rather let you think you won than try to expose you when you have already been exposed. Trying to achieve what I already attained would make me a fool.
And please let me know if you think I disobey this command:
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
https://wn.com/Theism_Proven
List of Typical Responses
1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omission of reasoning).
A. "Your argument is the Watchmaker argument already refuted." No, because the Watchmaker argument is partly based on ignorance: "We don't know how you can get great order mindlessly, and we'll jump to the conclusion that it had to be created by a mind." My argument explains how mindlessness CAN'T achieve great order, and so is totally based on knowledge.
B. "Your argument is the Irreducible Complexity argument already refuted."
No, because the IC argument is partly based on ignorance ("We don't know how great order can be attained mindlessly, and we jump to the conclusion that it was created by a mind." My argument is totally based on knowledge: ("We know why great order can't be attained mindlessly from scratch, so we conclude the only possibility that works: Mind.").
2. Red herring fallacy: will change the subject. (If you want to argue against Christianity, I should do a video on it soon.)
3. Argument from incredulity fallacy: will dismiss as nonsense what has not been refuted. E.g. "I don't find this convincing." Your being convinced has no bearing on the validity of anything. It's subjective and irrelevant.
4. AD HOMINEM fallacy: will dismiss my argument because of who I am or what is wrongly perceived about me.
5. Bandwagon fallacy: will bring up the negative votes as if they have any bearing on the validity of anything. And most who look at videos against atheism are devout atheists, so what do you expect?
6. Appeal to authority fallacy: will cite authority as if their word is automatic truth. I once was told to cite. I responded: "I think for myself; I don't need citations. This isn't school where I'm forced to regurgitate what others think."
7. AD NOVITATEM fallacy: will say something like "bronze age mythology" as if old age has any bearing on the validity of an argument.
8. PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy aka begging the question aka circular reasoning aka claiming something without proving it.
9. AD RIDICULUM fallacy: will mock without a refutation E.g., "sky daddy" parroting. How original. Also, by the way, that is a distortion of my beliefs, since the heavens are spiritual where God sits; not physical as in the sky.
10. NON SEQUITUR: "Does not follow."
Many of these irrational arguments (which aren't an exhaustive list) overlap, so all I need to do is put one in, or I will explain if I think elaboration is needed. If I ignore you, it's probably because I'd rather let you think you won than try to expose you when you have already been exposed. Trying to achieve what I already attained would make me a fool.
And please let me know if you think I disobey this command:
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
- published: 31 Dec 2014
- views: 70
23:39
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes - master list - philosophy
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 23:39
- Uploaded Date: 16 Jul 2021
- views: 9453
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee!
https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Content:
00:00 Introduction
00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Excep...
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee!
https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Content:
00:00 Introduction
00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation
00:38 Resort to Anger
00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community
01:18 Appeal to Novelty
01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning
01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question
02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation
02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction
03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductive Generalisation, Insufficient Sample, Insufficient Statistics, Lonely Fact, Leaping to Conclusion, Stereotype
03:34 Bifurcation, Black And White Thinking, Either/Or, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, Polarisation
04:04 Arguing from Succession Alone, Assumed Causation, False Cause, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause
04:35 False Effect, Non Causa Pro Causa
04:58 Illicit Major
05:18 Illicit Minor
05:39 Insignificant Cause, Insufficient Cause
06:00 Misleading Vividness, Anecdotal Fallacy
06:25 Slippery Slope, Absurd Extrapolation, Butterfly Effect
06:49 Undistributed Middle
07:08 Biased Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion, Unrepresentative Sample
07:29 Ecological Fallacy, Ecological Inference Fallacy, Population Fallacy
07:54 Wishful Thinking, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
08:14 Appeal To Probability, Appeal To Possibility
08:35 Affirming a Disjunct, Alternative Disjunct, False Exclusionary Disjunct
09:08 Affirming the Consequent, Converse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency
09:26 Denying the Antecedent, Inverse Fallacy, Inverse Error
09:49 Existential Fallacy, Existential Instantiation
10:10 Accent Fallacy, Emphasis Fallacy
11:04 Amphiboly, Amphibology
11:21 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
11:44 Proof by Assertion, Alleged Certainty
11:59 Appeal to Common Practice
12:15 Appeal to Emotion
12:31 Appeal to Fear, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
12:53 Appeal to Force, Appeal to Violence, Ad Baculum
13:15 Appeal to Flattery
13:27 Appeal to Ignorance, Argument from Ignorance, Ad Ignorantiam, Burden of Proof
13:55 Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy
14:13 Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, Horse Laugh Fallacy, Ad Ridiculum
14:39 Appeal to Spite, Argumentum ad Odium
14:57 Appeal to Tradition, Ad Antiquitatem
15:13 Appeal to Trust
15:32 Against the Person, Ad Hominem
15:51 Cancelling Hypothesis, Conspiracy Theory
16:10 Equivocation, Semantic Equivocation, Fallacy of Four Terms
16:36 False Analogy, False Metaphor, Weak Analogy
17:02 Argument from Middle Ground, Argument from Moderation, False Compromise, False Equivalence, Golden Mean Fallacy, Splitting the Difference
17:26 Gambler’s Fallacy, Monte Carlo, Maturity of Chances
17:48 Ad Nauseam, Argument by Repetition, Argument from Nagging
18:12 -- BLINK BLINK INTERMISSION --
18:18 Secundum Quid, Ignoring Qualifications, Misuse of a Principle, In a Certain Respect and Simply
18:50 Many Questions Fallacy
19:14 Ignorance of Refutation, Ignoratio Elenchi, Irrelevant Conclusion, Missing the Point
19:39 Inconsistency
19:50 Personal Inconsistency, Tu Quo Que, You Too Fallacy
20:13 Discrediting, Poisoning the Well
20:33 Red Herring
21:10 Negation Introduction, Reductio ad Absurdum, Reduction to Absurdity
21.31 Concretism, Hypostatisation, Misplaced Concreteness, Reification
22:00 Social Conformity
22:20 Straw Man
22:38 Style Over Substance
23:00 The Fallacy Fallacy, Bad Reasons Fallacy, Argument to Logic
Read more philosophy:
http://PhilosophyMT.com
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken our arguments.
Here is a more or less complete guide. Subscribe and share to support more content.
https://wn.com/A_(Fairly)_Complete_List_Of_Logical_Fallacies_In_20_Minutes_Master_List_Philosophy
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee!
https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Content:
00:00 Introduction
00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation
00:38 Resort to Anger
00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community
01:18 Appeal to Novelty
01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning
01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question
02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation
02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction
03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductive Generalisation, Insufficient Sample, Insufficient Statistics, Lonely Fact, Leaping to Conclusion, Stereotype
03:34 Bifurcation, Black And White Thinking, Either/Or, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, Polarisation
04:04 Arguing from Succession Alone, Assumed Causation, False Cause, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause
04:35 False Effect, Non Causa Pro Causa
04:58 Illicit Major
05:18 Illicit Minor
05:39 Insignificant Cause, Insufficient Cause
06:00 Misleading Vividness, Anecdotal Fallacy
06:25 Slippery Slope, Absurd Extrapolation, Butterfly Effect
06:49 Undistributed Middle
07:08 Biased Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion, Unrepresentative Sample
07:29 Ecological Fallacy, Ecological Inference Fallacy, Population Fallacy
07:54 Wishful Thinking, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
08:14 Appeal To Probability, Appeal To Possibility
08:35 Affirming a Disjunct, Alternative Disjunct, False Exclusionary Disjunct
09:08 Affirming the Consequent, Converse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency
09:26 Denying the Antecedent, Inverse Fallacy, Inverse Error
09:49 Existential Fallacy, Existential Instantiation
10:10 Accent Fallacy, Emphasis Fallacy
11:04 Amphiboly, Amphibology
11:21 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
11:44 Proof by Assertion, Alleged Certainty
11:59 Appeal to Common Practice
12:15 Appeal to Emotion
12:31 Appeal to Fear, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
12:53 Appeal to Force, Appeal to Violence, Ad Baculum
13:15 Appeal to Flattery
13:27 Appeal to Ignorance, Argument from Ignorance, Ad Ignorantiam, Burden of Proof
13:55 Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy
14:13 Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, Horse Laugh Fallacy, Ad Ridiculum
14:39 Appeal to Spite, Argumentum ad Odium
14:57 Appeal to Tradition, Ad Antiquitatem
15:13 Appeal to Trust
15:32 Against the Person, Ad Hominem
15:51 Cancelling Hypothesis, Conspiracy Theory
16:10 Equivocation, Semantic Equivocation, Fallacy of Four Terms
16:36 False Analogy, False Metaphor, Weak Analogy
17:02 Argument from Middle Ground, Argument from Moderation, False Compromise, False Equivalence, Golden Mean Fallacy, Splitting the Difference
17:26 Gambler’s Fallacy, Monte Carlo, Maturity of Chances
17:48 Ad Nauseam, Argument by Repetition, Argument from Nagging
18:12 -- BLINK BLINK INTERMISSION --
18:18 Secundum Quid, Ignoring Qualifications, Misuse of a Principle, In a Certain Respect and Simply
18:50 Many Questions Fallacy
19:14 Ignorance of Refutation, Ignoratio Elenchi, Irrelevant Conclusion, Missing the Point
19:39 Inconsistency
19:50 Personal Inconsistency, Tu Quo Que, You Too Fallacy
20:13 Discrediting, Poisoning the Well
20:33 Red Herring
21:10 Negation Introduction, Reductio ad Absurdum, Reduction to Absurdity
21.31 Concretism, Hypostatisation, Misplaced Concreteness, Reification
22:00 Social Conformity
22:20 Straw Man
22:38 Style Over Substance
23:00 The Fallacy Fallacy, Bad Reasons Fallacy, Argument to Logic
Read more philosophy:
http://PhilosophyMT.com
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken our arguments.
Here is a more or less complete guide. Subscribe and share to support more content.
- published: 16 Jul 2021
- views: 9453
10:00
2.3 Atheism: Ingersoll & Mack
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 10:00
- Uploaded Date: 08 Sep 2010
- views: 123272
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3
I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll for the first time, observing the successful application of reductio a...
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3
I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll for the first time, observing the successful application of reductio ad absurdum to religion, perceiving the growth and maturing of my own mind, and encountering the concept of different Jesus movements from Mack.
Note: In case it is not obvious, the voice in the pseudo-Ingersoll recordings is my own.
Books and Concepts:
Some Mistakes of Moses:
http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-Ingersoll/dp/0879753617
Robert Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
The Golden Age of Freethought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Freethought
reductio ad absurdum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
DarkMatter2525 - Intelijunt Dezine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6AdEDm2mLQ
NonStampCollector - Free Will - "God Style" PART 3; Finale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0wSjJAsrAk
Inspiration for Sistine God manipulations:
ProfMTH - Adam + Eve = Plan B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waV91LS0Atw
Proto-Orthodox Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity
--
All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC.
Thank you to Pioneer Press and Spencer Research Library for pictures of their copy of "Mistakes of Moses".
A note to the curators of Spencer Research Library: the book I took photos of in 2010 (published 1941) appears to be a different version than the one I read in 2004 (published ~1898).
3D Model Attributions:
Library Shelf:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=475a4509091b5f14bb4fd842f8631c2b&prevstart=0
Fireplace:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=b15402eb7b7843e2e3f7a74e12a274ef&prevstart=0
Bank:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=google+bank&styp=m&btnG=Search
Vault:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=6f2344284a6a2fc2dec11b4972c4b3e6&prevstart=0
Table:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ca000b9d32450bc4eb6d0fd624ec3fc&prevstart=0
Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
More Businessmen:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Business/8835-Business-World
Leaf:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Random-Objects/6049-Autumn-Cafe
Animals:
http://lukasiniho.deviantart.com/art/41-Animal-Vector-Silhouettes-135427107
http://www.vecteezy.com/Birds-Animals/498-16-Pet-Vector-Silhouettes
Children:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vectorchildren/
World Map:
http://www.vectorworldmap.com/
Image Attributions:
Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_G._Ingersoll_-_Brady-Handy.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RobertGIngersoll-audience.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ingersollstatue.jpg
Pillory:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pillory_(PSF).png
Rib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray122.png
Bucket:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bail_(PSF).png
Paint Brush:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brosse_peinture_epicerie.jpg
Clouds:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sun-Clouds.JPG
Blonde:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blonde_Woman_Portrait_-_by_Rodolfo_Nunez.jpg
Brunette:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunette_model.jpg
Straw Man:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scarecrow_(PSF).png
John Shelby Spong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bishop_John_Shelby_Spong_portrait_2006.png
--
Music:
"All Things" by The Cinematic Orchestra
.
https://wn.com/2.3_Atheism_Ingersoll_Mack
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3
I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll for the first time, observing the successful application of reductio ad absurdum to religion, perceiving the growth and maturing of my own mind, and encountering the concept of different Jesus movements from Mack.
Note: In case it is not obvious, the voice in the pseudo-Ingersoll recordings is my own.
Books and Concepts:
Some Mistakes of Moses:
http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-Ingersoll/dp/0879753617
Robert Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
The Golden Age of Freethought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Freethought
reductio ad absurdum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
DarkMatter2525 - Intelijunt Dezine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6AdEDm2mLQ
NonStampCollector - Free Will - "God Style" PART 3; Finale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0wSjJAsrAk
Inspiration for Sistine God manipulations:
ProfMTH - Adam + Eve = Plan B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waV91LS0Atw
Proto-Orthodox Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity
--
All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC.
Thank you to Pioneer Press and Spencer Research Library for pictures of their copy of "Mistakes of Moses".
A note to the curators of Spencer Research Library: the book I took photos of in 2010 (published 1941) appears to be a different version than the one I read in 2004 (published ~1898).
3D Model Attributions:
Library Shelf:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=475a4509091b5f14bb4fd842f8631c2b&prevstart=0
Fireplace:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=b15402eb7b7843e2e3f7a74e12a274ef&prevstart=0
Bank:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=google+bank&styp=m&btnG=Search
Vault:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=6f2344284a6a2fc2dec11b4972c4b3e6&prevstart=0
Table:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ca000b9d32450bc4eb6d0fd624ec3fc&prevstart=0
Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
More Businessmen:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Business/8835-Business-World
Leaf:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Random-Objects/6049-Autumn-Cafe
Animals:
http://lukasiniho.deviantart.com/art/41-Animal-Vector-Silhouettes-135427107
http://www.vecteezy.com/Birds-Animals/498-16-Pet-Vector-Silhouettes
Children:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vectorchildren/
World Map:
http://www.vectorworldmap.com/
Image Attributions:
Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_G._Ingersoll_-_Brady-Handy.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RobertGIngersoll-audience.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ingersollstatue.jpg
Pillory:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pillory_(PSF).png
Rib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray122.png
Bucket:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bail_(PSF).png
Paint Brush:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brosse_peinture_epicerie.jpg
Clouds:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sun-Clouds.JPG
Blonde:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blonde_Woman_Portrait_-_by_Rodolfo_Nunez.jpg
Brunette:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunette_model.jpg
Straw Man:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scarecrow_(PSF).png
John Shelby Spong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bishop_John_Shelby_Spong_portrait_2006.png
--
Music:
"All Things" by The Cinematic Orchestra
.
- published: 08 Sep 2010
- views: 123272
1:14
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES SHELDON IS WRONG, RELAX SMARTASS!
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it...
published: 07 Jan 2010
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES SHELDON IS WRONG, RELAX SMARTASS!
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES SHELDON IS WRONG, RELAX SMARTASS!
- Report rights infringement
- published: 07 Jan 2010
- views: 97803
For smart people: yes the big bang theory made a mistake. it is an intentional mistake. it really fits the joke, and even though it is wrong and so erudite people don't laugh, the rest of the audience do laugh, because they don't know. It's all played around the word reductio and absurdum. Because most people would translate it with "reduce the argumentation to an absurdity"(while it's more like "proof by contradiction"). Nobody would think (or if they know it, they laugh anyway) that Sheldon is referring to the real meaning.
Is this a good thing? I don't know, and don't care.
7:25
Kids & Ad Ridiculum
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
published: 01 Mar 2016
Kids & Ad Ridiculum
Kids & Ad Ridiculum
- Report rights infringement
- published: 01 Mar 2016
- views: 250
wooooot! DAvid ur next pal
2:44
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Diversion
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-...
published: 29 Jun 2017
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Diversion
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-evidence, Ad Hominem, and of Diversion
- Report rights infringement
- published: 29 Jun 2017
- views: 160
Slides available here: https://www.slideshare.net/skolber/fallacies-of-rebuttal-fallacies-of-counterevidence-ad-hominem-and-of-diversion
Each fallacy is given a definition and an example as well as a range of other names often ascribed to that fallacy based on common practice.
Slides and Worksheets available here: http://www.slideshare.net/skolber
Email me at :[email protected]
Backdrop images from: https://pixabay.com/en/users/hadania-19110/
0:22
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy
Learn how to pronounce Mocking
This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking.
...
published: 06 Apr 2015
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy
- Report rights infringement
- published: 06 Apr 2015
- views: 2520
Learn how to pronounce Mocking
This is the *English* pronunciation of the word Mocking.
According to Wikipedia, this is one of the possible definitions of the word "Mocking":
The ridiculous is that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh out of their minds or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision. It comes from the 1540s Latino "ridiculosus" meaning "laughable", from "ridiculus" meaning "that which excites laughter", and from "ridere" meaning "to laugh". "Ridiculous" is an adjective describing "the ridiculous".
In common usage, "ridiculousness" is used as a synonym for absurdity or nonsense. From a historical and technical viewpoint, "absurdity" is associated with invalid argumentation and reasoning, "nonsense" with semantics and meaning, while "ridiculous" is most associated with laughter, superiority, deformity, and incongruity. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, while reductio ad ridiculum is invalid. Argument by invective declaration of ridiculous is invalid, while arguments involving declarations of nonsense may summarize a cogent semantic problem with lack or meaning or ambiguity.
Historically, the ridiculous was central to initial theories of humor and laughter as first put forth by philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was used in psychosocial power struggles in the European court by reducing opponents to the ridiculous using ridicule. It is currently used in the theory of humor to create laughter, shock, parody, or satire. Reactions to the ridiculous have been studied in psychology for its effects on memory, attention, and attitude in social hierarchies. These studies have been applied to the theory of advertisement regarding attention, memory, and alleviation of preexisting negative attitudes toward products. The ridiculous is often contrasted with the sublime, one of extreme inferiority, the other of extreme superiority, and often one can suddenly move from one extreme state to the other.
PronunciationAcademy is the world's biggest and most accurate source for word pronunciations, SUBSCRIBE here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnImcI-VA0N1aGSx677QCYA/feed
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PronunciationA
Website: http://www.pronunciationacademy.com
18:36
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand th...
published: 16 Jul 2015
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule
- Report rights infringement
- published: 16 Jul 2015
- views: 2660
This video is designed to help students, lifelong learners and professionals understand the Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule -- a common mistake in reasoning and argument.
In this video, I discuss what the fallacy is, map out its basic structure, point out what goes wrong with reasoning in the fallacy, examine three easy-to-understand examples, and give you advice about how to spot and avoid the fallacy.
This is part of a whole series of videos discussing common fallacies. To see the whole series, you can click here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy91AvVMEx_9q5dUC_w2AFzaS-qBN3mEg
Intro music is YouTube's public domain mp3, "Keep It Tight," by John Deley.
Gregory B. Sadler is the president and co-founder of ReasonIO. The content of this video is provided here as part of ReasonIO's mission of putting philosophy into practice -- making complex philosophical texts and thinkers accessible for students and lifelong learners. If you'd like to make a contribution to help fund Dr. Sadler's ongoing educational projects, you can click here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=SKHK76Z5HFPA8
14:07
Theism Proven
List of Typical Responses
1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omiss...
published: 31 Dec 2014
Theism Proven
Theism Proven
- Report rights infringement
- published: 31 Dec 2014
- views: 70
List of Typical Responses
1. Strawman fallacy: will distort my argument (usually by omission of reasoning).
A. "Your argument is the Watchmaker argument already refuted." No, because the Watchmaker argument is partly based on ignorance: "We don't know how you can get great order mindlessly, and we'll jump to the conclusion that it had to be created by a mind." My argument explains how mindlessness CAN'T achieve great order, and so is totally based on knowledge.
B. "Your argument is the Irreducible Complexity argument already refuted."
No, because the IC argument is partly based on ignorance ("We don't know how great order can be attained mindlessly, and we jump to the conclusion that it was created by a mind." My argument is totally based on knowledge: ("We know why great order can't be attained mindlessly from scratch, so we conclude the only possibility that works: Mind.").
2. Red herring fallacy: will change the subject. (If you want to argue against Christianity, I should do a video on it soon.)
3. Argument from incredulity fallacy: will dismiss as nonsense what has not been refuted. E.g. "I don't find this convincing." Your being convinced has no bearing on the validity of anything. It's subjective and irrelevant.
4. AD HOMINEM fallacy: will dismiss my argument because of who I am or what is wrongly perceived about me.
5. Bandwagon fallacy: will bring up the negative votes as if they have any bearing on the validity of anything. And most who look at videos against atheism are devout atheists, so what do you expect?
6. Appeal to authority fallacy: will cite authority as if their word is automatic truth. I once was told to cite. I responded: "I think for myself; I don't need citations. This isn't school where I'm forced to regurgitate what others think."
7. AD NOVITATEM fallacy: will say something like "bronze age mythology" as if old age has any bearing on the validity of an argument.
8. PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy aka begging the question aka circular reasoning aka claiming something without proving it.
9. AD RIDICULUM fallacy: will mock without a refutation E.g., "sky daddy" parroting. How original. Also, by the way, that is a distortion of my beliefs, since the heavens are spiritual where God sits; not physical as in the sky.
10. NON SEQUITUR: "Does not follow."
Many of these irrational arguments (which aren't an exhaustive list) overlap, so all I need to do is put one in, or I will explain if I think elaboration is needed. If I ignore you, it's probably because I'd rather let you think you won than try to expose you when you have already been exposed. Trying to achieve what I already attained would make me a fool.
And please let me know if you think I disobey this command:
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
23:39
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes - master list - philosophy
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee!
https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Co...
published: 16 Jul 2021
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes - master list - philosophy
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 20 minutes - master list - philosophy
- Report rights infringement
- published: 16 Jul 2021
- views: 9453
Support more content: buy PhilosophyMT a coffee!
https://buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Content:
00:00 Introduction
00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation
00:38 Resort to Anger
00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community
01:18 Appeal to Novelty
01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning
01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question
02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation
02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction
03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductive Generalisation, Insufficient Sample, Insufficient Statistics, Lonely Fact, Leaping to Conclusion, Stereotype
03:34 Bifurcation, Black And White Thinking, Either/Or, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, Polarisation
04:04 Arguing from Succession Alone, Assumed Causation, False Cause, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause
04:35 False Effect, Non Causa Pro Causa
04:58 Illicit Major
05:18 Illicit Minor
05:39 Insignificant Cause, Insufficient Cause
06:00 Misleading Vividness, Anecdotal Fallacy
06:25 Slippery Slope, Absurd Extrapolation, Butterfly Effect
06:49 Undistributed Middle
07:08 Biased Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion, Unrepresentative Sample
07:29 Ecological Fallacy, Ecological Inference Fallacy, Population Fallacy
07:54 Wishful Thinking, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
08:14 Appeal To Probability, Appeal To Possibility
08:35 Affirming a Disjunct, Alternative Disjunct, False Exclusionary Disjunct
09:08 Affirming the Consequent, Converse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency
09:26 Denying the Antecedent, Inverse Fallacy, Inverse Error
09:49 Existential Fallacy, Existential Instantiation
10:10 Accent Fallacy, Emphasis Fallacy
11:04 Amphiboly, Amphibology
11:21 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
11:44 Proof by Assertion, Alleged Certainty
11:59 Appeal to Common Practice
12:15 Appeal to Emotion
12:31 Appeal to Fear, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
12:53 Appeal to Force, Appeal to Violence, Ad Baculum
13:15 Appeal to Flattery
13:27 Appeal to Ignorance, Argument from Ignorance, Ad Ignorantiam, Burden of Proof
13:55 Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy
14:13 Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, Horse Laugh Fallacy, Ad Ridiculum
14:39 Appeal to Spite, Argumentum ad Odium
14:57 Appeal to Tradition, Ad Antiquitatem
15:13 Appeal to Trust
15:32 Against the Person, Ad Hominem
15:51 Cancelling Hypothesis, Conspiracy Theory
16:10 Equivocation, Semantic Equivocation, Fallacy of Four Terms
16:36 False Analogy, False Metaphor, Weak Analogy
17:02 Argument from Middle Ground, Argument from Moderation, False Compromise, False Equivalence, Golden Mean Fallacy, Splitting the Difference
17:26 Gambler’s Fallacy, Monte Carlo, Maturity of Chances
17:48 Ad Nauseam, Argument by Repetition, Argument from Nagging
18:12 -- BLINK BLINK INTERMISSION --
18:18 Secundum Quid, Ignoring Qualifications, Misuse of a Principle, In a Certain Respect and Simply
18:50 Many Questions Fallacy
19:14 Ignorance of Refutation, Ignoratio Elenchi, Irrelevant Conclusion, Missing the Point
19:39 Inconsistency
19:50 Personal Inconsistency, Tu Quo Que, You Too Fallacy
20:13 Discrediting, Poisoning the Well
20:33 Red Herring
21:10 Negation Introduction, Reductio ad Absurdum, Reduction to Absurdity
21.31 Concretism, Hypostatisation, Misplaced Concreteness, Reification
22:00 Social Conformity
22:20 Straw Man
22:38 Style Over Substance
23:00 The Fallacy Fallacy, Bad Reasons Fallacy, Argument to Logic
Read more philosophy:
http://PhilosophyMT.com
Fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken our arguments.
Here is a more or less complete guide. Subscribe and share to support more content.
10:00
2.3 Atheism: Ingersoll & Mack
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3
I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll ...
published: 08 Sep 2010
2.3 Atheism: Ingersoll & Mack
2.3 Atheism: Ingersoll & Mack
- Report rights infringement
- published: 08 Sep 2010
- views: 123272
https://www.patreon.com/evid3nc3
I relate the inspiring experiences of reading Ingersoll for the first time, observing the successful application of reductio ad absurdum to religion, perceiving the growth and maturing of my own mind, and encountering the concept of different Jesus movements from Mack.
Note: In case it is not obvious, the voice in the pseudo-Ingersoll recordings is my own.
Books and Concepts:
Some Mistakes of Moses:
http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-Ingersoll/dp/0879753617
Robert Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
The Golden Age of Freethought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Freethought
reductio ad absurdum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
DarkMatter2525 - Intelijunt Dezine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6AdEDm2mLQ
NonStampCollector - Free Will - "God Style" PART 3; Finale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0wSjJAsrAk
Inspiration for Sistine God manipulations:
ProfMTH - Adam + Eve = Plan B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waV91LS0Atw
Proto-Orthodox Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity
--
All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC.
Thank you to Pioneer Press and Spencer Research Library for pictures of their copy of "Mistakes of Moses".
A note to the curators of Spencer Research Library: the book I took photos of in 2010 (published 1941) appears to be a different version than the one I read in 2004 (published ~1898).
3D Model Attributions:
Library Shelf:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=475a4509091b5f14bb4fd842f8631c2b&prevstart=0
Fireplace:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=b15402eb7b7843e2e3f7a74e12a274ef&prevstart=0
Bank:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=google+bank&styp=m&btnG=Search
Vault:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=6f2344284a6a2fc2dec11b4972c4b3e6&prevstart=0
Table:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ca000b9d32450bc4eb6d0fd624ec3fc&prevstart=0
Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
More Businessmen:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Business/8835-Business-World
Leaf:
http://www.vecteezy.com/Random-Objects/6049-Autumn-Cafe
Animals:
http://lukasiniho.deviantart.com/art/41-Animal-Vector-Silhouettes-135427107
http://www.vecteezy.com/Birds-Animals/498-16-Pet-Vector-Silhouettes
Children:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vectorchildren/
World Map:
http://www.vectorworldmap.com/
Image Attributions:
Ingersoll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_G._Ingersoll_-_Brady-Handy.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RobertGIngersoll-audience.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ingersollstatue.jpg
Pillory:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pillory_(PSF).png
Rib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray122.png
Bucket:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bail_(PSF).png
Paint Brush:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brosse_peinture_epicerie.jpg
Clouds:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sun-Clouds.JPG
Blonde:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blonde_Woman_Portrait_-_by_Rodolfo_Nunez.jpg
Brunette:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brunette_model.jpg
Straw Man:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scarecrow_(PSF).png
John Shelby Spong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bishop_John_Shelby_Spong_portrait_2006.png
--
Music:
"All Things" by The Cinematic Orchestra
.
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Appeal_to_ridicule
The Big Bang Theory - Reductio ad Absurdum - YES S...
Argumentum Ad Ridiculum...
Kids & Ad Ridiculum...
Tardeo | 4 - Ad Absurdum...
Fallacies of Rebuttal: Fallacies of counter-eviden...
How To Pronounce Mocking - Pronunciation Academy...
Critical Thinking: The Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicu...
Theism Proven...
A (fairly) complete list of logical fallacies in 2...