This week we take a look at people’s favorite way of arguing virtually anything: the logical fallacy. This just might be one of the most useful series, albeit short, for proponents of the Just Third Way — both to show them what to avoid and what to expect. As Professor Dave says, “In learning about logic, we've come to understand how an argument involves two or more premises followed by a conclusion. When the conclusion does not follow from the premises, this is an invalid argument. In such a case, a logical fallacy has been committed. This can be the case due to a faulty coherence between the premises or from external factors, but either way it just means bad reasoning. What are formal fallacies vs. informal fallacies? Let's get a better understanding of this concept.”:
CLICK ON THE LINKS, NOT THE PHOTO
You must click on the link below to get to the video, not on the photo.
Logical Fallacies, Part I: Formal and Informal Fallacies
(The links right above are what you’re supposed to click on.)
And if you want the playlists for previous videos:
Economic Personalism (The Book)
Economic Personalism v. The Great Reset
Socialism, Modernism and the New Age
#30#
