this is great! but... at 1:09, though the conclusion does not follow, and the logic is "broken," this fallacy does not result in a necessary falsehood. The argument is invalid, but you can still come up with a true conclusion.
@chinopisces I went to a Christian fundimentalist high school and we studied this in freshman year. We spent a semester understanding formal logic and fallacies. In the end, everyone needs to understand logic: Christians, Athiest; Conservative, Liberals; the young and old; etc.
@chinopisces no, nor do I really desire to discuss it. I just letting you know that religion and faith are not nessarily illogical. Both Atheists and Theists tend to make logical fallacies and I am not that well versed in logic to argue this topic without mistakenly using fallacies. And honestly I bet the same applies to you. Anyway youtube comment sections are not the best place to debate logic and theology.
@threecards333: Religion and faith are illogical. Believing in things without evidence (faith) is illogical by default. This concept does not require debate, and is considered a truism.
Religion (all of them) makes numerous claims. The supernatural claims are the ones atheists reject due to lack of evidence. Believing any claim, religious or otherwise, without evidence is — once again, illogical.
Not willing to discuss this or refusal to concede indicates your theism is not based on logic.
@chinopisces no, it is that I have debated this way too many times and am unwill to do so again. Secondly logic is a subset of reason, while you are using it as it if is empirical. Logic connects the dots (premises), rather than providing them.
Yes, fine my faith is "illogical" as I personally do not have the logic or understanding to back it up logically. But to be honest I believe because I rely on trusted authorities, as what you do when you drive. I do not know how a car works, but drive.
@threecards333: I understand. But you realize that many theists claim to be logical, but use personal reason, which is not useful in determining the accuracy of a claim.
Assuming you're a Christian, what actual authority does the church really have? They are basing their logic from a book that has been reinterpreted and re-translated numerous times, without actual evidence to back up its claims. Just because you or an 'authority' believes in something doesn't make it true or trustworthy.
@chinopisces any way every one does a simular process when one learns in college, I do not test every chemical rxn that my chemistry professors use on the board. Admittedly I take it by faith that the chemists did the experiments correctly, when I am a certified chemist then I can test the rxns to determine the truth. Likewise I simply do not have the knowledge to debate this subject, odds are niether do you, unless you are a professional logician
@threecards333: You are not using faith to determine whether you should test a particular chemical or not. You are trusting an authority, which is different. Luckily scientific 'authority' is more trustworthy than religious ones, since the results are consistent. That is not faith.
It is not required for me to be a professional logician to debate any subject. Likewise it is not required for me to be a biologist to understand evolution. Do you need to be a professional driver to drive?
@threecards333: Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree with your sentiment that all cultures, regardless of beliefs, should understand logic. But more importantly, one should understand what logic is not. I also like the stance of finding equilibrium and offering mutual respect to all factions in society.
I studied religion extensively, and from it I find many philosophical concepts that are quite meaningful. But I view it as a form of art, not a belief system.
@chinopisces I agree overall but the claim that believing in things without evidence is illogical isn't, strictly speaking, true - It's a question of what type of logic you subscribe to: fx. classical or intuitionistic logic.
If I say that in Pi there is a sequence where the number nine is repeated 100 times, classical logic would agree with it (because pi is infinite and thus it would follow that this does happen), but intuitionistic logic would demand that you could point it out.
@Solario392: If you want to subscribe to a particular brand of logic, be my guest. I prefer to acknowledge Bertrand Russell's notion that one should not believe anything without evidence in all practical applications. The example you posed is demonstrable, and therefore fits practical logic in the truest sense of the term.
@Solario392: I reject the premise of religious faith being the standard to base my reasoning. All religious arguments that pose supernatural claims require this in order for their arguments to be valid. Even with this, the claims are not demonstrable. Faith is illogical by default.
my favourites of this series are 'Broken Logic' and 'A precautionary tale' In a world of 'short sound bites' and 'dumbing down' of topics there is so much oversimplification and broken logic going on that it make my blood boil at times (figuratively).
this is great! but... at 1:09, though the conclusion does not follow, and the logic is "broken," this fallacy does not result in a necessary falsehood. The argument is invalid, but you can still come up with a true conclusion.
MrNormal5150 1 day ago
Helpful.
Grendel938 1 week ago
what a great video
TheLoopycream 1 week ago
Great job!
cycodevilboy 3 weeks ago
Religious fundamentalists should watch this video.
chinopisces 3 weeks ago 34
@chinopisces I went to a Christian fundimentalist high school and we studied this in freshman year. We spent a semester understanding formal logic and fallacies. In the end, everyone needs to understand logic: Christians, Athiest; Conservative, Liberals; the young and old; etc.
threecards333 3 weeks ago
@threecards333: Then can you concede that the concept of a god is illogical?
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces no, nor do I really desire to discuss it. I just letting you know that religion and faith are not nessarily illogical. Both Atheists and Theists tend to make logical fallacies and I am not that well versed in logic to argue this topic without mistakenly using fallacies. And honestly I bet the same applies to you. Anyway youtube comment sections are not the best place to debate logic and theology.
threecards333 2 weeks ago
@threecards333: Religion and faith are illogical. Believing in things without evidence (faith) is illogical by default. This concept does not require debate, and is considered a truism.
Religion (all of them) makes numerous claims. The supernatural claims are the ones atheists reject due to lack of evidence. Believing any claim, religious or otherwise, without evidence is — once again, illogical.
Not willing to discuss this or refusal to concede indicates your theism is not based on logic.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces no, it is that I have debated this way too many times and am unwill to do so again. Secondly logic is a subset of reason, while you are using it as it if is empirical. Logic connects the dots (premises), rather than providing them.
Yes, fine my faith is "illogical" as I personally do not have the logic or understanding to back it up logically. But to be honest I believe because I rely on trusted authorities, as what you do when you drive. I do not know how a car works, but drive.
threecards333 2 weeks ago
@threecards333: I understand. But you realize that many theists claim to be logical, but use personal reason, which is not useful in determining the accuracy of a claim.
Assuming you're a Christian, what actual authority does the church really have? They are basing their logic from a book that has been reinterpreted and re-translated numerous times, without actual evidence to back up its claims. Just because you or an 'authority' believes in something doesn't make it true or trustworthy.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces any way every one does a simular process when one learns in college, I do not test every chemical rxn that my chemistry professors use on the board. Admittedly I take it by faith that the chemists did the experiments correctly, when I am a certified chemist then I can test the rxns to determine the truth. Likewise I simply do not have the knowledge to debate this subject, odds are niether do you, unless you are a professional logician
threecards333 2 weeks ago
@threecards333: You are not using faith to determine whether you should test a particular chemical or not. You are trusting an authority, which is different. Luckily scientific 'authority' is more trustworthy than religious ones, since the results are consistent. That is not faith.
It is not required for me to be a professional logician to debate any subject. Likewise it is not required for me to be a biologist to understand evolution. Do you need to be a professional driver to drive?
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces valid point
threecards333 2 weeks ago
@threecards333: Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree with your sentiment that all cultures, regardless of beliefs, should understand logic. But more importantly, one should understand what logic is not. I also like the stance of finding equilibrium and offering mutual respect to all factions in society.
I studied religion extensively, and from it I find many philosophical concepts that are quite meaningful. But I view it as a form of art, not a belief system.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces I agree overall but the claim that believing in things without evidence is illogical isn't, strictly speaking, true - It's a question of what type of logic you subscribe to: fx. classical or intuitionistic logic.
If I say that in Pi there is a sequence where the number nine is repeated 100 times, classical logic would agree with it (because pi is infinite and thus it would follow that this does happen), but intuitionistic logic would demand that you could point it out.
Solario392 1 week ago
@Solario392: If you want to subscribe to a particular brand of logic, be my guest. I prefer to acknowledge Bertrand Russell's notion that one should not believe anything without evidence in all practical applications. The example you posed is demonstrable, and therefore fits practical logic in the truest sense of the term.
chinopisces 6 days ago
@chinopisces And we need to differentiate between logic that is logically sound and an logic that is valid.
Religious arguments might be valid, if we accept the premisses, but the premisses themselves are, most likely, not sound.
Solario392 1 week ago
@Solario392: I reject the premise of religious faith being the standard to base my reasoning. All religious arguments that pose supernatural claims require this in order for their arguments to be valid. Even with this, the claims are not demonstrable. Faith is illogical by default.
chinopisces 6 days ago 2
@chinopisces So should atheists.
Yesica1993 1 week ago
@Yesica1993: I'm willing to bet atheists have a greater understanding of logic in general than theists.
chinopisces 1 week ago
@chinopisces Not really, since a claim like this should've been followed with evidence.
Yesica1993 1 week ago
@Yesica1993: What do you mean, not really? You mean I'm not really willing to bet? Your comment is non sequitur.
chinopisces 6 days ago
@chinopisces Some anti-religious people might want to watch it, too. Especially the one about straw men.
MSoulPoet 1 week ago
@MSoulPoet: I'm less concerned with anti-religious people than batshit crazy fundies.
chinopisces 6 days ago
my favourites of this series are 'Broken Logic' and 'A precautionary tale' In a world of 'short sound bites' and 'dumbing down' of topics there is so much oversimplification and broken logic going on that it make my blood boil at times (figuratively).
lasiorhinuskrefftii 1 month ago 6