46 min
Ep 172 Intellectual self-defense for truth seekers Living Outside the Matrix
-
- Education
Intellectual self-defense is just as important as physical self-defense. We need to be able to protect ourselves from false arguments, so that we are not fooled into acting against our own self-interest. These days it is sad to say that propaganda and false ideas dominate the news narrative, and unless we are equipped to identify the false arguments that underlie these false ideas we avail ourselves to being mind-controlled. Because to control a mind is simply the power to sow ideas, ideas that influence and motivate towards particular behaviours.
A logical fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. In this episode of “Living outside the Matrix”, I present 13 of the most basic logical fallacies. These are taken from Leonard Peikoff’s course ‘Introduction to Logic’ [available on Youtube – link below]. They are very common both in the thinking of individuals, and in the media presentation of ideas. The Latin names are a legacy from Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher who identified most of them over 2000 years ago.
1 Argumentum Ad Veracundiam — appeal to reverence
There are two form of this fallacy, the first is the the quantitative form that is often referred to as the appeal to the majority. This is when two or more other people hold an idea to be true, therefore it is considered to be true. It is the fallacy of the intellectually dependent. The reason it’s a fallacy is because of the primacy of existence; things are what they are, A is A independent of anyone’s thoughts, beliefs, or say so. There is no actual reasoning involved when this fallacy is committed, it is an avoidance of reasoning, and an attempt to ride on the thinking of others. The implicit thought is that one or two people could be wrong, but not everyone! However, most people today do not do their own thinking. so following the crowd is a dangerous option. Widespread adoption of an idea means nothing, not logically, and not even on a probability basis.
The second form of this fallacy is the qualitative form, which is often referred to as the appeal to authority. This is where an assumption is made on the part of the individual that a particular person, institution, or source of information sounds convincing, therefore I will believe what they say. Propagandists play on this by presenting experts and claiming to be following the science. The point to note is that we must defer to authority with great care. Nothing is true just because someone says it is, no matter how clever they may appear to be. In discerning truth you must look for the reasons that validate an idea, listen to the expert and follow the argument. Ask yourself, what evidence is available to back up the claim? Does it make sense? What is the track record of this source? is it reliable and trustworthy? Beware of prestige jargon that can be used to impress you. Focus on the logic, not the presenter, or the delivery.
2 Argumentum Ad Baculum — the appeal to force
This is the threat of force or harm in the ‘argument’. Of course, there is no argument in fact, only a threat. This fallacy amounts to ‘might makes right’, or ‘accept this, or suffer the consequences’. But reason and force are opposites, so force can have no place in a process of reasoning!
The supernatural version of this fallacy is ‘if you don’t believe in God you will go to hell’. In modern schooling we also see an example — ‘accept and learn this, otherwise you will fail your exams’.
3. Argumentum Ad Hominem — appeal to the man
This fallacy also comes in two forms, one referred to as abusive, the other circumstantial. In the first case, an idea is being attacked by association with the man of dubious character. In the second case it is because the man (or deliverer of the message) has other contradictory beliefs.
Intellectual self-defense is just as important as physical self-defense. We need to be able to protect ourselves from false arguments, so that we are not fooled into acting against our own self-interest. These days it is sad to say that propaganda and false ideas dominate the news narrative, and unless we are equipped to identify the false arguments that underlie these false ideas we avail ourselves to being mind-controlled. Because to control a mind is simply the power to sow ideas, ideas that influence and motivate towards particular behaviours.
A logical fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. In this episode of “Living outside the Matrix”, I present 13 of the most basic logical fallacies. These are taken from Leonard Peikoff’s course ‘Introduction to Logic’ [available on Youtube – link below]. They are very common both in the thinking of individuals, and in the media presentation of ideas. The Latin names are a legacy from Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher who identified most of them over 2000 years ago.
1 Argumentum Ad Veracundiam — appeal to reverence
There are two form of this fallacy, the first is the the quantitative form that is often referred to as the appeal to the majority. This is when two or more other people hold an idea to be true, therefore it is considered to be true. It is the fallacy of the intellectually dependent. The reason it’s a fallacy is because of the primacy of existence; things are what they are, A is A independent of anyone’s thoughts, beliefs, or say so. There is no actual reasoning involved when this fallacy is committed, it is an avoidance of reasoning, and an attempt to ride on the thinking of others. The implicit thought is that one or two people could be wrong, but not everyone! However, most people today do not do their own thinking. so following the crowd is a dangerous option. Widespread adoption of an idea means nothing, not logically, and not even on a probability basis.
The second form of this fallacy is the qualitative form, which is often referred to as the appeal to authority. This is where an assumption is made on the part of the individual that a particular person, institution, or source of information sounds convincing, therefore I will believe what they say. Propagandists play on this by presenting experts and claiming to be following the science. The point to note is that we must defer to authority with great care. Nothing is true just because someone says it is, no matter how clever they may appear to be. In discerning truth you must look for the reasons that validate an idea, listen to the expert and follow the argument. Ask yourself, what evidence is available to back up the claim? Does it make sense? What is the track record of this source? is it reliable and trustworthy? Beware of prestige jargon that can be used to impress you. Focus on the logic, not the presenter, or the delivery.
2 Argumentum Ad Baculum — the appeal to force
This is the threat of force or harm in the ‘argument’. Of course, there is no argument in fact, only a threat. This fallacy amounts to ‘might makes right’, or ‘accept this, or suffer the consequences’. But reason and force are opposites, so force can have no place in a process of reasoning!
The supernatural version of this fallacy is ‘if you don’t believe in God you will go to hell’. In modern schooling we also see an example — ‘accept and learn this, otherwise you will fail your exams’.
3. Argumentum Ad Hominem — appeal to the man
This fallacy also comes in two forms, one referred to as abusive, the other circumstantial. In the first case, an idea is being attacked by association with the man of dubious character. In the second case it is because the man (or deliverer of the message) has other contradictory beliefs.
46 min