with the rise of new online media and the Sea of information it has brought along with it readers and informed citizens alike are provided with the difficult task of discerning fact from fiction and accurate reasoning from faulty one Trump Russia the FBI the Paris attack it just never stops every day there is a new viral story that is surrounded by a novel launch of commment and opinions from all sides of the political aisle but which one makes more sense and how can we truly know well thankfully we have the tools of logic to guide us in this arduous Quest For Truth first of all it is important to recognize that no matter how smart you think you are we are all imperfect beings subject to inadvertently committing silly mistakes this is where logical fallacies arise now although this may sound like a doom picture I'm painting to you where we're nothing but dumb creatures trying to figure out an infinitely complex world you need not look at that side of the coin on the contrary I would say we should be thankful for the fact that we recognize our own mistakes and can use our knowledge of logical fantasies as Shields against stupid arguments due to the importance of recognizing these reasoning mistakes in others and in ourselves I therefore will provide you with the five most common logical fallacies found in the media number one ad homonim so you're at the dinner table discussing the immigration issue with your friend and claim that a politician from X party commented that having unrestricted immigration into the country could in some ways be detrimental your friend furious at the other end of the table responds ah but why would you listen to that politician didn't you hear the Scandal he cheated on his wife as you can see what your friend is doing is not attacking the argument itself but the person from which the argument comes in other words instead of responding why it is that immigration is not detrimental to the country which would be the proper way to respond he brings up characteristics of the politician that are absolutely irrelevant to the subject at hand whether he cheated or not on his wife has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong number two the moralistic fallacy you happen to stumble upon a controversial paper that discusses The evolutionary roots of rape proposing a theory that as observed in other species males with lower chances of reproductive success in the tribe and fear of genetic Extinction May face the option of using either either Force to spread their genes or let their DNA be left out this outrages you to which you say but rape is wrong and horrible it can't be natural the scientists are crazy this is the mistake of assuming that whatever is morally wrong must not be natural to say that there is a biological basis for rape is not the same as saying that it is morally right or justifiable number three the political correctness fallacy so you're at your college campus attending a talk by a widely known and controversial Economist he happens to disagree with a gender wage Gap he provides evidence for wise studies that show that there is a gap are only taking average salaries into account and aren't taking into consideration other crucial factors such as occupation and working hours suddenly you hear a big crowd at the back screaming get this mogist out of Campus how can you say that men and women are paid equally that's offensive what these confused college students are engaging in is in the political correctness fallacy North American campuses are increasingly restricting their freedom of speech in name of not being offensive towards particular religious ethnic or social groups this however Shields irrational argument from criticism under the banner of treating everyone equally as you can see it doesn't matter whether the fact that there is no wage Gap is offensive to you or not this does not change the truth number four the red herring fallacy you're watching a debate about the existence of God and its relation to morality it is a theist against an atheist the theist says if there is no God then how can you say that killing or raping is wrong to which the atheist response there needs to be no Supreme deity to determine moral truths were these handed over by a god they wouldn't be objective but rather arbitrarily selected to which the theist responds but how are you atheist so sure about the non-existence of God science does not perfect after all as you can see what has happened here is that the conversation has derailed from the initial Topic at Focus which was the relationship of morality to God to a conversation about science and its limits two completely different things once the theist couldn't respond to the atheist counterargument he decided to change topics and last but not least redo adum so you're watching a debate on a popular media outlet and two people are arguing about the Israeli Palestinian conflict person a claims Israel should stop building illegal settlements in the West Bank in order to improve the chances of having peace person B responds you sound like a Nazi you want to remove the Jews from their land where do you want them to live you sound like Hitler although this one might be a little subtler it is clear after a while what person B is doing modern political discussion has ways of shutting down an argument simply by accusing other people of either being racist nazil likee or misog in no way did person a claim any hatred towards juice or removing them from where they are he simply stated that seizing the construction of settlements would be beneficial for both parties two astronomically I repeat different things well anyways folks thank you for your time please make sure to like And subscribe if you enjoyed the video