00:00:00
here's a few ideas about how to argue
00:00:02
better on the internet and also off the
00:00:06
[Music]
00:00:11
internet there is a lot of arguing on
00:00:14
the internet there's a lot of arguing
00:00:16
everywhere but sometimes it feels like
00:00:17
the internet is a place that people go
00:00:18
specifically to argue and that's great
00:00:21
heated debate is how we move issues
00:00:23
forward generate knowledge and reach
00:00:26
understanding because that's the point
00:00:27
of arguing right to reach and
00:00:30
understanding
00:00:31
right
00:00:33
right why are you looking at me like
00:00:35
that anyway for obvious reasons we here
00:00:37
at idea Channel want everybody arguing
00:00:39
at their full capacity all the time so
00:00:42
what follows is a kind of oton field
00:00:44
guide for bad arguments a list of some
00:00:46
of the most common fallacies flaws in
00:00:48
logic that can appear airtight even
00:00:51
though they're not sometimes they're
00:00:52
used intentionally to distract derail
00:00:55
deflate but lots of times even the ones
00:00:57
called intentional fallacies are
00:00:59
deployed because by their very nature
00:01:00
they seem appropriate when an
00:01:02
interlocutor feels as though they are
00:01:04
out of logical Road they sometimes Veer
00:01:06
onto the less than solid fallacy
00:01:08
shoulder the following are not nearly
00:01:10
all or the most interesting fallacies
00:01:12
but rather the ones that I see the most
00:01:14
often the goal of this video is to
00:01:16
assist you in assisting your fellow
00:01:19
conversationalists and identifying their
00:01:23
unintentionally faulty logic this is one
00:01:26
long video but in the dooblydoo and in a
00:01:28
playlist on idea Channel's Channel page
00:01:31
you will find one video for each fallacy
00:01:34
this way when you do locate a fallacy
00:01:35
out in the wild you can direct the
00:01:37
person who's deployed it to a source
00:01:38
letting them know the faultiness of
00:01:39
their ways and encouraging them to do
00:01:42
better because we know that they are
00:01:44
capable we believe in them so with that
00:01:46
being said on with the fallacies the
00:01:50
straw man fallacy contrary to what many
00:01:52
people would have us believe a straw man
00:01:54
is not simply an argument that you
00:01:55
dislike or find inconvenient rather it
00:01:58
is a version of an argument that is
00:02:00
misrepresented simplified so that it is
00:02:02
easier to knock over just as an actual
00:02:04
manmade of straw is a less solid version
00:02:07
of a man made of Flesh a straw man
00:02:09
argument is a less solid version of a
00:02:11
fully fleshed out argument a straw man
00:02:14
replaces or represents whatever actual
00:02:16
argument is being made straw menning can
00:02:18
come in many different forms it's not
00:02:20
even always intentional you might
00:02:22
accidentally construct a straw man if
00:02:24
you don't fully understand the depth of
00:02:26
an argument and that is fine it happens
00:02:29
to the best of us however to
00:02:31
intentionally misread or misrepresent an
00:02:33
argument to simplify the process of
00:02:35
discrediting it that's a little bit less
00:02:37
forgivable to take nuanced points out of
00:02:39
context to ignore crucial information to
00:02:42
even exaggerate claims to the point of
00:02:44
absurdity which is then easier to refute
00:02:46
these are all straw man tactics for
00:02:48
example Mike and straw Mike are having a
00:02:50
conversation about how to responsibly
00:02:52
depict awful stuff in media I don't
00:02:54
think it's too much to ask that when a
00:02:56
media Creator wants to show heinous or
00:02:57
awful stuff they do so in a context TT
00:03:00
that shows that that stuff is heinous
00:03:02
and awful oh so now we're not allowed to
00:03:04
show violent or terrible things unless
00:03:06
we include some long-winded sermon about
00:03:08
how bad things are bad I think creators
00:03:10
should be able to show or do whatever
00:03:12
they want the original argument States a
00:03:14
preference for what Mike thinks
00:03:15
constitutes the responsible use of media
00:03:18
the strawman argument recasts this as
00:03:20
something much simpler and easier to
00:03:22
agree with freedom is good censorship is
00:03:24
bad but now Mike and straw Mike are no
00:03:26
longer arguing about the same point and
00:03:28
so the conversation will quickly become
00:03:30
unfocused and aggressive which is never
00:03:33
fun if you're going to win an argument
00:03:35
you want to win against what the other
00:03:36
side actually thinks don't you a straw
00:03:39
man argument keeps that from happening I
00:03:41
hope this description of the straw man
00:03:42
fallacy has been helpful happy
00:03:44
conversing the ad homonym attack ad
00:03:47
homonym criticism is where instead of
00:03:49
criticizing the argument or ideas of the
00:03:51
person with whom you are conversing you
00:03:53
criticize the person themselves and in
00:03:55
so doing claim you have also criticized
00:03:58
their argument and boy is this one
00:04:01
popular ad homonym criticisms are not
00:04:03
always but are very frequently
00:04:06
fallacious unless the character or
00:04:08
actions of the person making an argument
00:04:10
are directly related to the matter at
00:04:12
hand criticizing them and not their
00:04:15
ideas is a fallacy ad homonym attacks
00:04:17
are the bread and butter of political
00:04:20
advertising criticizing a candidate and
00:04:22
saying that because their character is
00:04:24
bad their ideas and policies are also
00:04:26
Bad John Smith literally hates little
00:04:29
children
00:04:30
and so his ideas about salmon fishery
00:04:33
safety regulations are wrong dead wrong
00:04:37
a related fallacy is two ququ where it
00:04:40
is argued that a person making an
00:04:41
argument has behaved in a way
00:04:43
inconsistent with that argument their
00:04:46
behavior might be inconsistent but it
00:04:48
doesn't necessarily make their argument
00:04:50
wrong for example it's really important
00:04:52
for fast food restaurants to be clear
00:04:54
about the salt fat and sugar content of
00:04:56
their food doubly so because of how
00:04:58
cheap it is obesity is a real problem in
00:05:00
America what business do you have asking
00:05:03
companies to disclose this stuff I saw
00:05:04
you eat two Big Macs and drink 34 oun of
00:05:07
high SE orange lava burst yesterday this
00:05:11
is an ad homonym tuqui attack Mike
00:05:14
argues for the presence of certain
00:05:16
dietary information and STW Mike says
00:05:18
that based on his behavior he lacks the
00:05:20
authority to do so STW Mike's response
00:05:23
doesn't at all approach the point Mike
00:05:25
is making though Mike is arguing that if
00:05:27
certain dietary information were widely
00:05:29
available it's possible that an effect
00:05:31
on Obesity would occur ad homonym
00:05:33
attacks make it so the person being
00:05:35
attacked suddenly has to defend their
00:05:37
character and not their ideas when in
00:05:39
fact their character has no bearing on
00:05:42
the conversation whatsoever and also
00:05:44
it's mean you seem like a nice person no
00:05:46
need for insults I hope this description
00:05:48
of the ad homonym attack has been
00:05:50
helpful happy conversing the black and
00:05:53
white fallacy a black and white fallacy
00:05:55
is where you present limited choices as
00:05:57
the only choices when in fact additional
00:05:59
options do exist it's time to choose
00:06:02
sometimes called the false dichotomy or
00:06:04
false dilemma the black and white
00:06:06
fallacy is a really easy way of
00:06:07
eradicating complexity and Nuance the
00:06:10
most common black and white fallacy is
00:06:12
the old saying either you're for us or
00:06:14
against us when in fact it's highly
00:06:16
likely one might find arguments on
00:06:18
either side of a position appealing and
00:06:20
therefore occupy some previously
00:06:22
unannounced space on a Continuum between
00:06:25
the two positions much of governmental
00:06:27
and gender politics for example operate
00:06:29
on a very widely spread adoption of a
00:06:31
black and white fallacy sometimes the
00:06:33
black and white fallacy presents a
00:06:35
dichotomy between two things that are
00:06:36
not actually opposites or mutually
00:06:39
exclusive no Continuum exists between
00:06:41
those two things because they are not
00:06:43
related to each other in the way that
00:06:45
the black and white fallacy presents
00:06:47
them to be for example it would be nice
00:06:49
to have more well-written playable
00:06:51
female characters in video games if you
00:06:53
want more playable female characters
00:06:55
that means you must want fewer male
00:06:57
characters and those are the ones that I
00:06:59
like the most are you trying to ruin
00:07:01
games in this situation St Mike's black
00:07:03
and white fallacy is that in games
00:07:05
either specifically or generally there
00:07:07
can only be male or female characters
00:07:11
having more of one automatically means
00:07:13
that there is less of the other that is
00:07:15
not the case more of something is not
00:07:17
always automatically less of its
00:07:19
opposite and so this dichotomy is false
00:07:21
the black and white fallacy presents
00:07:23
nuanced arguments as being well black
00:07:25
and white and presents only extremes as
00:07:29
being a available for further discussion
00:07:31
even when that's not the case what are
00:07:33
you doing are you backing down from a
00:07:34
challenge that's not like you I hope
00:07:36
this description of the black and white
00:07:37
fallacy has been helpful happy
00:07:39
conversing The Authority fallacy The
00:07:42
Authority fallacy holds that because
00:07:43
someone in a position of assumed
00:07:44
Authority has said something that thing
00:07:46
must be true however the authority
00:07:48
fallacy is just as important for what it
00:07:51
isn't it isn't meant to defeat
00:07:53
statements made by experts or by
00:07:55
scientific consensus saying that global
00:07:58
warming is true and man-made because the
00:08:00
vast majority of scientists that study
00:08:02
it produce evidence that support this
00:08:03
claim is not an example of the authority
00:08:06
fallacy neither is stating for instance
00:08:08
that all medical technology is blind to
00:08:10
race based on Lundy Bron's exhaustive
00:08:12
research of the spirometer the
00:08:14
scientific community and experts in
00:08:16
their field of study are authorities The
00:08:18
Authority fallacy applies this level of
00:08:21
respect for authority to people who
00:08:22
don't actually possess it the firsthand
00:08:24
accounts of our friends family members
00:08:26
and co-workers do not constitute
00:08:28
Authority and therefore truth unless of
00:08:31
course they also happen to be experts
00:08:33
for example Mike and straw Mike are
00:08:34
talking about automobile manufacturing
00:08:36
whoa Korean cars in America are so cheap
00:08:39
I wonder how they do that well my uncle
00:08:41
is a mechanical engineer and he says
00:08:43
that it's because they use terrible
00:08:45
cheap parts you literally trading money
00:08:47
for
00:08:48
safety St Mike's Uncle might be an
00:08:50
engineer and that's awesome but it
00:08:52
doesn't necessarily give him the
00:08:54
authority to talk about the construction
00:08:56
of certain parts in vehicles this is an
00:08:58
authority fallacy unless unless it turns
00:08:59
out St Mike's uncle is an independent
00:09:02
researcher conducting a peer-reviewed
00:09:03
study on the international automobile
00:09:06
industry and its effects on safety The
00:09:08
Authority fallacy trades actual points
00:09:10
for external non-expert anecdotes the
00:09:13
plural of which you might have heard is
00:09:15
not data your uncle seems like a really
00:09:18
cool guy but I bet you can win this
00:09:19
argument without him I hope this
00:09:21
description of the authority fallacy has
00:09:23
been helpful happy conversing the no
00:09:26
true Scotsman fallacy the no true
00:09:28
Scotsman fallacy calls into question the
00:09:30
Purity or actess of something as a way
00:09:32
to refute an argument usually it works
00:09:34
like this you claim some set of things
00:09:36
has a universal characteristic someone
00:09:38
then provides an exception to the rule
00:09:39
making your claim Universal no longer
00:09:41
and then you respond by saying well only
00:09:43
true things in that set possess that
00:09:46
characteristic the no true scotsman's
00:09:48
user defends their claim based on a
00:09:49
reactionary subjective notion of what
00:09:52
category something belongs in or to what
00:09:55
degree that thing truly belongs in that
00:09:57
category classically no true Scotsman is
00:10:00
used to exclude Bad actors from a group
00:10:02
Anthony flu who coined this fallacy
00:10:04
described a Scotsman who upon learning
00:10:06
that one of his countryman committed a
00:10:08
violent act said no true Scotsman would
00:10:11
do such a thing however there are a
00:10:13
couple what you might call versions of
00:10:15
no true scotsmen one of them has to do
00:10:17
with in-group maintenance claiming that
00:10:19
no true gamer comic book reader
00:10:21
Republican or feminist would say or
00:10:23
believe a certain thing this tactic
00:10:25
avoids confronting a counterargument by
00:10:27
saying the person who exhibits it is not
00:10:29
truly the thing they claim and so the
00:10:32
exception they provide is null and void
00:10:34
no true Scotsman also works to exclude
00:10:36
ideas and objects not just people for
00:10:38
example Mike and straw Mike are talking
00:10:40
about video games all video games must
00:10:43
have clearly stated goals and a win lose
00:10:46
condition gone home doesn't have either
00:10:48
of those things and it's a video game
00:10:50
right but gone home is not a true video
00:10:52
game the more productive conversation
00:10:54
would be what happens to the category of
00:10:56
video game when we consider gone home
00:10:58
part of it or to discuss what about the
00:11:00
category of video game for straw mik at
00:11:03
least absolutely requires that it have
00:11:05
clearly stated goals and we lose
00:11:07
conditions instead the conversation is
00:11:09
stopped dead in its tracks because the
00:11:11
entire Point hinges upon one side's
00:11:14
subjective sense of what is and is not
00:11:16
truly whatever and now we're just
00:11:19
arguing opinion which will only ever end
00:11:21
in Godwin's law you Scot sure are a
00:11:23
contentious people just made an enemy
00:11:25
for life I hope this description of the
00:11:27
no true Scotsman fallacy has been
00:11:29
helpful happy conversing and with that
00:11:31
we come to the end of our set of
00:11:33
fallacies though as it turns out not the
00:11:35
end of all fallacies there are a lot of
00:11:38
fallacies out there and if you like this
00:11:40
kind of thing if you want to see us make
00:11:41
more videos in this style where we
00:11:44
describe fallacies and put them in tiny
00:11:46
videos for you to send to other people
00:11:48
let us know um and maybe we'll do more
00:11:50
there are plenty we're going to be doing
00:11:53
full comment responses for the game
00:11:55
mechanics episode at the end of next
00:11:56
week's video but there is one thing I
00:11:58
wanted to talk talk about for a second
00:12:00
just as a closing thought for this video
00:12:02
there were some people who wrote
00:12:03
comments on last week's video which was
00:12:05
a collab with extra credits saying that
00:12:07
they weren't going to watch the episode
00:12:09
because Dan from extra credits uh has
00:12:11
come out as being vocally anti-
00:12:14
gamergate and I just want to be super
00:12:16
clear I know we haven't made a video
00:12:17
about this and I'm struggling with
00:12:18
whether or not we will um but if a
00:12:21
necessary precondition for your
00:12:23
continued viewership of idea channel is
00:12:25
that we are in any way Pro gamergate I
00:12:28
have some bad news for you I understand
00:12:30
that the party line is gamergate has
00:12:32
ethical concerns at its Forefront and
00:12:34
that it is about games journalism but
00:12:36
for me gamergate is very much defined by
00:12:40
uh the harassment of women and its just
00:12:43
terrible exclusionary tactics um to keep
00:12:46
people out of gaming to keep people
00:12:48
talking about gaming you can tell me all
00:12:50
day long that social justice Warriors
00:12:51
engage in the same tactics or that gamer
00:12:53
Gator set up a campaign to donate to an
00:12:55
anti-bullying charity it kind of doesn't
00:12:57
matter because gamergate has become so
00:13:00
connected to so defined by harassment
00:13:03
and vitrio there are ethical concerns in
00:13:06
gaming and games journalism we've made
00:13:08
videos about them Lee Alexander wrote a
00:13:11
very helpful list of them but none of
00:13:13
them are worth the terrible things that
00:13:15
are happening in the name of Ethics in
00:13:17
games journalism and so for that reason
00:13:20
and many others I am not pro gamergate
00:13:23
not even a little and if that's a
00:13:25
problem for
00:13:26
you so be it
00:13:30
[Music]
