In this video, we're gonna go over some logical fallacies that happen all the time every day in regular, everyday conversations that you might experience but you're not sure what to do with it or what's going on really what's getting twisted. So we're going to go over it. It's very, very common. Most of these happen all the time in all kinds of normal real life conversations. So let's get started. First is, of course, the twisted argument.

Everyone has been on the wrong side of this for example, you might say, exercise is great for you. And the person will say, Do you think I'm fat? And you're like, No, no, no, what do you mean like he just totally like, twisted my argument right? From from point A to point B does not follow. Okay, so you right away you have to stop people over there and say, You twisted my argument. This is not what I said.

If you let it snowball, it can go wrong, especially especially with this example. So the twisted argument is that, that when the other person makes a conclusion that was not implied and can be derived from your statement happens every day. Now, next one argument, that's an irrelevant argument to the debate, for example, you say again, exercise is good for you, the other person saying, well, I like sitting on the couch. That's better. And you say, Hitler used to sit on the couch. And wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

So you're saying that Hitler used to sit on the couch, so that that proves that sitting on the couch is bad for you? Well, this is just irrelevant to our debate. Right? So this example is logically irrelevant. Okay, some bad person sits on the couch. That doesn't mean that the sitting on the couch is bad for you sitting on the couch might be bad for you.

But that argument that if somebody else does it, for example, so it might be bad or it just doesn't logically follow. So some points are directly irrelevant to the debate and you have to right away, point them out and make sure that it doesn't count. And you don't continue the debate based on that premise that they said. Next argument from the from a lack of knowledge. So you can say we don't know for sure. But it must be but it looks like it's so it must be true.

And it makes it hard for you because you can't you can't prove it. It can't be proven. You can just prove it, because there is a lack of knowledge. So it's an unfair argument. So argument from a lack of knowledge is an unfair argument because they're what they want you to do is make an assumption. And you don't have enough information to just prove their assumption.

So it's an unfair argument. It's incorrect for them to state the assumption as truth. It's unfair for them to put the burden of proof or disproof on you. Ad hominem This is happens all the time. And this happens, especially when talking about politics or something that's very, you know, emotion invoking, when you start to attack the person instead of their argument is very bad. So if you say if I make an argument, and you say you are a bad person for saying that, that's ad hominem.

No, I'm not a bad person. I just made a point. Right? So attacking the person, they're bad person. They're whatever, they smell bad, they look bad, they're ugly, they're racist, whatever. That's wrong.

That's the wrong answer. Because you just made a point XYZ. They need to address your point, not you personally. Okay. So if they're addressing you personally, that is wrong. They should not do that.

It's unfair to the argument that sounds To you. Next, you should also not blindly believe in authority. So, you know, if some doctor professor said something, it must be true, you have no idea. If you don't have enough of your own facts and information, then you can't really trust the person just because their authority, you always have to back up the facts and research them because they might be malicious. They might have their own agenda, because they are an authority. Number one, they may also be wrong sometimes number two, you don't know if they're malicious.

You don't know what their intent is. So and even if they're an authority, like there are teachers out there does not make does not make them if they're a PhD or professor does not make them. By itself. A true expert in the field. There's plenty of bad doctors, there's plenty of bad teachers. So just authority in by itself.

You should not believe that. especially true for religious figures may Possibly, okay. I think total evidence if you just have one example one case study, okay? That does not make for a rule. Okay? So if you just have something happens once, you can base next arguments on it that does not prove truth in the original statement, right?

If you just have a simple set of one that proves something, they just the evidence is too little too anecdotal. And you can't rely on that. Case Studies aren't proofs. They are like guidelines there. They are, like hints that something might be but then it doesn't mean that you know, if one bus is blue, it doesn't mean that all buses are blue. Right?

So correlation without causation. Like, let's say you ate better today, and tomorrow, your skin cleared up. It's very possible that you you your skin color, Hear it out because you ate better. And you might say that okay, well, so if I eat better, my skin will clear up. But it also can be true that maybe you got more sleep, maybe you were just happier and your body was less stressed. And so this lack of stress caused other health benefits to happen.

So there's many other factors that could be at play. And you can say that just because you ate better, you know, it's it's definitely plausible, but that's the false it here is it's it's plausible. And so we stop looking further, but it not might actually not be true. There may be other factors at play. So correlation does not cause it does not mean causation. And of course, there's really this is really common, consoling thinking or wishful thinking, for example, people all people are good.

People just mean well, you know, you can categorize people. Those are all Like wishful thinking that I like very good thoughts. And so it's very easy to have them. Because it does it makes you not have to look into things further. Right? It's consoling, because let's say let's say you don't think, let's say the other point of this is, on the one hand, the wishful thinking and the consoling point is that all people are good.

And on the other side of that, is that not all people are good, right? That argument right away is confrontational because oh my god, some people are malicious. What do I do about it? It's a much harder world to live in. It's much easier to just say, oh, people are good. All that.

So you know, in other arguments, follow, let's all share, we're all equal, all that they're all very good wishful thinking and very consoling thoughts to have does not mean that they are true. They are just very easy for your brain to go through. They're non confrontational. You don't have to do anything. Okay, but And the opposite of those forced you to do work like, Oh my god, what do you mean some people are bad. Now I have to defend myself.

Now I have to figure out, you know, I have to restrict some things that makes your world so much harder. It was much easier to it was tempting, much more tempting to think that controlling or wishful thinking thoughts even though they are totally, if you just apply a tiny bit of reason they're obviously not true. Obviously, not all people are good. It's impossible. Can't. And even if you say deep down, they're all good.

Well, no one has any idea what's going on deep down anyway. Anyway. So this is wishful thinking. Now another one is being asked to this disprove a fallacy, okay? If somebody says, common Ark, common example God exists, and you ask them okay, well, can you you would ask them if they make this outlandish statement, not not so much outlandish but like it's not something we can prove, with logic or With real world examples or anything we can see, we have to take it on trust, right? We have to take the argument on trust.

And you can do that. So you say, Can you prove it? Okay, can you prove the guidances? And the party if the person says, I can't prove it, but you also can't disprove it. So I think that must be true. You can't You can't just prove me.

That's wrong, because the burden of proof is on the person who said the outlandish statement, okay. Not the burden of the burden of proof is not on the receiver. The burden of proof is the person who's saying some Bs, right. So these are the very common logical fallacies. They happen literally everyday you have any kind of debate or conversation, multiple of these if you pay attention. multiple of these will happen in a given conversation, especially if the conversation is about figuring something out or a debate or argue They happen all the time, way more often than it seems.

So, think about these and try to notice them as they happen. Do you make these policies? Do your conversational partners make these policies, either stop them or stop yourself and then you'll start to be you'll start to get more to more objective conversations.