Hello and welcome to the third lesson from the module attribution.
In this lesson, we win this car's logical fallacies.
Let's go through the learning objectives of this lesson. We will start with the definition off fallacies. Then we will see the classifications off fallacies, and we will see common examples off policies that can be encountered in cyber threat. Intelligence policy is defined as lose off invalid or faulty reasoning
or wrong moves in the construction, often argument or analysis.
Basically, it's a kind off error. In reasoning,
policies may be created and eventually or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people.
The vast majority off the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involved explanations or definitions or other products or freezing.
Sometimes they turn fallacy is used even more. Brozi toe indicate any false belief or cause of false belief,
logical fallacies or logical gaps that invalidates arguments aren't always easy to spot. While some of them come in the form of flout, blaring and consistencies, other can easily fly under under the raider,
sneaking into everyday meetings and conversations and detected
having an understanding off. These basic a logical fallacies can help you more confident. Lee parts The arguments on separate facts from sharply dressed fiction.
We can define two types of fallacies. The 1st 1 or the formal fallacy, also called deductive policy
or logical solace. E.
It is a flow in the structure off a deductive argument, which renders the argument invalid.
The presence off the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the arguments, premises or its conclusion.
Both may actually be true or may even be more probable as a result of the argument.
But the deductive argument is a still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the matter. Describe it.
In contrast, a formal policy an infernal policy originates in a reasoning error or the other than a flow in the logical form of the argument.
Deductive argument containing an informant policy may be formally valid but still remain rationally
Briefly, a formal policy can be detected by examining theological form off the reasoning, whereas an informal policy, the pants upon the content of the reasoning and possibly the purpose of the reasoning. Let's dig more into each one of these fallacies
in order to get better understanding off the formal and informal policies. We will see common formal fallacies and common examples off informant policies. We will start with the common formal policies, and here we'll start with example off appeal to probability
or appeals to possibility, which is a logical fallacy off taken something for granted because it would probably be the case. It is basically when a conclusion is assuming, not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible,
but because it is possible that it is true,
no matter how improbable.
The second example off formal policies is anecdotal evidence fallacy
in place off logical evidence this false, he substitutes examples from someone's personal experience.
Arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence
done toe overlook the fact that one example can not stand alone as definitive proof off Great premise.
The anecdotal fallacy is also known as misleading vividness.
What is most vivid in our environment and most available to us is what is first used to draw conclusions. For example,
one of our clients double their conversions after changing all their lending page. Dex too bright red.
Therefore, changing all text to read is proven way to double conversions
Now let's move to the informal policies. We will start with the first ICU cheese burden off proof.
If a person claims that X
it is true, it is very responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion.
It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that takes, it's not true.
Similarly, it is also involved to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false.
In other words, just because there is no evidence presented against something
that doesn't automatically makes that thing true.
Our second example off common and formula policies is argument by repetition. This policy is also known as argument from nagging.
Basically, it means repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place off. Better supporting evidence, for example. Let's say this is wrong.
it isn't. Yes, it is.
Okay, I give up. It isn't.
This is a really and common example off argument by repetition.
So basically, this is all about fallacies. We started the lesson with the definition off policies. Then we move it toe follows his classifications, too formal and informal categories and from each category. We've seen some examples off formal policies,
such as the anecdotal evidence policy
and for the informal policies. We've seen examples such as argument by repetition.
Now that we are ready, tow, identify logical fallacies and cognitive vices that we've seen in the previous lessons.
How about managing them?
And this is what we are going to see in the next video.