CA94 Logical Fallacies?

Counter Apologetics

Emerson Green에서 제공하는 콘텐츠입니다. 에피소드, 그래픽, 팟캐스트 설명을 포함한 모든 팟캐스트 콘텐츠는 Emerson Green 또는 해당 팟캐스트 플랫폼 파트너가 직접 업로드하고 제공합니다. 누군가가 귀하의 허락 없이 귀하의 저작물을 사용하고 있다고 생각되는 경우 여기에 설명된 절차를 따르실 수 있습니다 https://ko.player.fm/legal.

3+ y ago 32:06

MP3•에피소드 홈

저장한 시리즈 ("피드 비활성화" status)

When? This feed was archived on September 05, 2025 16:16 (3M ago). Last successful fetch was on May 11, 2025 20:11 (7M ago)

Why? 피드 비활성화 status. 잠시 서버에 문제가 발생해 팟캐스트를 불러오지 못합니다.

What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.

Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning.

I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding.

After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question.

Subscribe on YouTube

The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory – Maarten Boudry

Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” – Maarten Boudry

Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy – Michael Huemer

The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life – Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Transcript

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

linktr.ee/emersongreen

176 에피소드