Using Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro To Teach About Logical Fallacies
Added 2021-03-11 02:07:38 +0000 UTCWe are all guilty of using logical fallacies, but the less we use them, the better our lives will be. In this video, I use an episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, featuring guest Ben Shapiro, as an opportunity to teach about logical fallacies.
I will probably get crap for criticizing Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro. I will also probably get crap for saying I am a fan of Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro. And so it goes.
Regardless, I continue to appreciate your ongoing support. I hope you are all taking care of yourselves.
Comments
Also civics and debate should be mandated in all levels of schooling. It would help us get out of our bubbles and expose ourselves to a variety of ideas and arguments.
Naterade
2021-03-13 00:46:43 +0000 UTCThanks Nate! I never learned about them much in college. 😄
Mr. Beat
2021-03-13 00:44:45 +0000 UTCGreat video! I remember learning about fallacies in a public speaking course I took in college. Thank you for the refresher course on them!
Naterade
2021-03-13 00:44:09 +0000 UTCThere is no such thing as a Mr. Beat video that is too long.
Pillerstiller Bahn Ruthington
2021-03-11 04:14:17 +0000 UTCAppologizing for being nit picky was a nice touch because even though one could argue it isnt neccesarry it is a nice way of saying. "i know you the audiance are not idiots and you know i went nit picky but i did so for leason materals." I think you treated Ben and Rogan fairly and i kinda concluded from this that logical falacys make us human. also i thought it was a nice touch to say. "hey i like both of these guys." because it set the tone of "this isnt from a place of a hater" the only thing i need explained better is the Ancedotal Fallacy as the way it was presented just got lost on me completly see my comment above.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 03:35:12 +0000 UTCI will too! lol
Mr. Beat
2021-03-11 03:34:11 +0000 UTCI confess I have committed all of these fallacy's and will most likely commit these same fallacy's in the future. please forgive me.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 03:29:52 +0000 UTCHistorically when there was no form of law enforcement and limited right to bare arms was there higher, lower or same amount of crimes against humanity taking place? I wonder if there is any data for this or not or even enough information to find out.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 03:04:14 +0000 UTCThe new True Scotman falicy. i hate that term still today because someone can claim your using it in error without knowing their target. I was a evangelical for years before becoming Lutheran just recently. So someone would walk up to me and say "you Christians declaired war for your faith in the Crusade." i would respond "those were not Christians." the person would go. "thats the No True Scotsman falicy!" This made me mad many time and i would respond. "Christianity has an entry exam to declare one christian you cannot be born into it like a race, If someone belive baptism via water gets them to heaven then they are not a christian." Now I don't believe that way anymore but if I was arguing with an evangelical I would try not to make a blanket statement of "Christians did blank or declare they are committing a no true Scotsman fallacy" because I know they define the term Christian differently and thus the argument would be lost to them. Also, i have read the primary sources of the first crusade and now know that faith wasn't the key issue.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 02:59:12 +0000 UTCI do that one, too. I'm probably most guilty of the hasty generalization and the strawman fallacy, mostly since I can get lazy with my language.
Mr. Beat
2021-03-11 02:51:48 +0000 UTCGenetic fantacy I commit the most probably. But logically if someone lies to you constantly why would you listen anymore? The problem with news as you point out is it wasn't just one lie but multiple lies and that forces people to at least six choices, take the abuse, go with someone who lies in your favor, cherry pick, sacrifice time to study yourself, dont watch at all, or a mix of more than one.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 02:48:00 +0000 UTCThe Ancedotal falicy dosnt seem real to me in the way you explained it. Seems like a way to make people feel like they are crazy for having an experience. it would be like if you said "I drank from a red cup." you know it's red, you saw its red. but then someone says to you "there is no way you could have ever have drunk from a red cup that is the Anecdotal Fallacy." Maybe there is a better way to explain this falicy?
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 02:34:48 +0000 UTCOk a few seconds in i see what your doing. because the "Appeal to the Rabbis man" you can tell was a joke in good humor but even as a humorous thing it is still a door way for a leason. I personally hate the Appeal to Authority falicy as a argument to dismiss my argument. my thoughts generally are im a High School Graduate why would i not quote experts in their field or someone with at least more notoriety? when someone dismisses it as an appeal to authority fallacy it comes off as more of "nana boo boo im no listening!" At the same time the falicy is a real deal because people in their own field can get it wrong and people who are not experts in that field are sometimes used in arguments as well. Just like using Bill Nye as an authority in sceince.
Devin Canada
2021-03-11 02:24:15 +0000 UTC
