PBS Idea Channel's Logical Fallacies

[EricKei]

The PBS Idea Channel over on the Tubes of You recently released their second set of videos that explain/discuss certain logical fallacies. I'm just curious what y'all's take on these videos are. Do you feel that they are accurate? Useful? Thought-provoking? Or just a waste of time? I kinda like 'em, and I was wondering about some of your own views from people who actually engage in debates around here more often than I do -- as you would know about these subjects on more substantial ways.

Whaddya think?

(note - links are to the 'compilation' versions, which are basically just the individual-fallacy vids with bookends)

part1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb-h0sXkH4

part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybOvddwpJAg

[TheHuckster]

I find them accurate. I think The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is one of the more difficult to identify in the wild.

Here at Fratching, for the most part, I think we're better than the average Internet forum at debating. Fallacies are committed often, but in my experience, they're not as heinous as most of the debates I've seen elsewhere. The ad hominem which, to me, is among the worst, is almost non existent here. I think best of all we're good at finding the correct authority to cite, rather than pure anecdotal evidence from someone's best friend's aunt.

I think it's important to consider The Fallacy Fallacy, since I'd say that's the one that more seasoned and knowledgeable debaters might commit. It's fine to call someone out if they're committing a fallacy, but that doesn't completely invalidate their opinion; it simply requires further thinking about the points at hand and come back with a better argument.

[Rageaholic]

I think it's important to consider The Fallacy Fallacy, since I'd say that's the one that more seasoned and knowledgeable debaters might commit. It's fine to call someone out if they're committing a fallacy, but that doesn't completely invalidate their opinion; it simply requires further thinking about the points at hand and come back with a better argument.

It's also annoying when someone accuses others of committing fallacies when they are not. For example, saying that a cat must eat meat because it is a natural carnivore is not committing the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. Neither is arguing about the negative consequences of an action an 'appeal to consequences'.