Overall that was a great video, however I have two problems.
1) I’m not sure I agree with there assessment of the peanut butter garbage. I think it is either a straw man (a caricature of the evolution theory) or an irrelevant conclusion (even if it was a good analogy it does not defeat evolutionary theory because it doesn’t speak against any of its point). I’ve already pointed this out though.
2) This point is open for discussion: When the mother threatens to take away Christmas presents because of her son’s non-belief in God (specifically, Jesus as God), they claim this is irrelevant conclusion. I think this is correct, but it also seems like it also could be an appeal to force or even emotion. I was wondering if the fallacy can only be committed through an analysis of the semantically structure or if one witnesses the speaker give the argument if things like inflection and non-verbal communication can be taken into account. The mother clearly seems to be threatening her son while giving the argument. Of course, millions of people give Christmas presents without thinking about Jesus for one moment. Just wondering what everyone thought about this point. It may dig us deep into the philosophy of language, but that could be a good thing.
Yikes! Sorry, I should have proofread the prior post before hitting submit.
Overall that was a great video, however I have two problems.
1) I’m not sure I agree with there assessment of the peanut butter garbage. I think it is either a straw man (a caricature of the evolution theory) or an irrelevant conclusion (even if it was a good analogy it does not defeat evolutionary theory because it doesn’t speak against any of its point). I’ve already pointed this out though.
2) This point is open for discussion: When the mother threatens to take away Christmas presents because of her son’s non-belief in God (specifically, Jesus as God), they claim this is irrelevant conclusion. I think this is correct, but it also seems like it also could be an appeal to force or even emotion. I was wondering if the fallacy can only be committed through an analysis of the semantically structure or if one witnesses the speaker give the argument if things like inflection and non-verbal communication can be taken into account. The mother clearly seems to be threatening her son while giving the argument. Of course, millions of people give Christmas presents without thinking about Jesus for one moment. Just wondering what everyone thought about this point. It may dig us deep into the philosophy of language, but that could be a good thing.
Yikes! Sorry, I should have proofread the prior post before hitting submit.
A great video segment. Thanks!