10 SESAT PIKIR YANG SERING DILAKUKAN! | Eps 125

Summary

The video script delves into the concept of 'logical fallacies,' errors in reasoning that distort arguments. It introduces 'false dilemma' and 'ad hominem,' among others, illustrating how they limit thought and misrepresent opposing views. Examples are given to clarify these fallacies, such as oversimplifying complex issues or attacking a person's character instead of their argument. The script also addresses 'hasty generalization,' 'circular reasoning,' and 'post hoc fallacy,' among others, aiming to educate viewers on recognizing and avoiding these common logical pitfalls.

Takeaways

• 🧠 Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to flawed conclusions in arguments.
• 🔑 The transcript discusses various types of logical fallacies, including false dilemma, ad hominem, hasty generalization, circular reasoning, post hoc fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, slippery slope, strawman, and tu quoque.
• 🚫 False dilemma (false dichotomy) is the mistake of assuming only two alternatives or choices in an argument, limiting the scope of possibilities.
• 🤺 Ad hominem is a fallacy that involves attacking the person rather than addressing the argument, often aiming to discredit the opponent's character.
• 🏃‍♂️ Hasty generalization is the act of drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size or a single event, leading to an overgeneralized view.
• 🔁 Circular reasoning is when the conclusion of an argument is the same as one of its premises, creating a logical loop without actual proof.
• ⏱️ Post hoc fallacy, or post hoc ergo propter hoc, is the incorrect assumption that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second.
• 🚂 Bandwagon fallacy is the belief that a claim is true simply because many people believe it or do it, equating popularity with truth.
• ⛓ Slippery slope is a fallacy that suggests a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, often without valid evidence.
• 🌾 Strawman fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack, often by exaggerating or distorting the original position.
• 🔄 Tu quoque is the fallacy of justifying a fault by pointing out that others also possess the same fault, effectively ignoring the issue at hand.

Q & A

What is meant by 'sesat pikir' or 'logical fallacy'?

Sesat pikir or logical fallacy refers to errors in constructing correct logic within an argument, leading to illogical, misguided, and misleading conclusions.

How does the 'false dilemma' or 'false dichotomy' fallacy manifest in arguments?

The 'false dilemma' fallacy occurs when an argument is presented as if there are only two alternatives or choices, limiting the range of possibilities to just two extremes, such as black or white, without considering other potential options.

What is the 'ad hominem' fallacy and how does it distort arguments?

The 'ad hominem' fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where an argument is countered by attacking the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself. This personal attack is intended to discredit the opponent's character, making their argument seem less valid.

Can you explain the 'hasty generalization' fallacy with an example?

The 'hasty generalization' fallacy is when someone makes a broad conclusion based on a small sample size or a few isolated incidents. For example, if someone concludes that all men are unfaithful because their three ex-boyfriends cheated, they are making a hasty generalization.

What is 'circular reasoning' and how does it affect the validity of an argument?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise within the same argument, creating a cycle. This fallacy is flawed because it assumes the conclusion is true without providing independent evidence.

How does the 'post hoc' fallacy mislead people about cause and effect?

The 'post hoc' fallacy, or 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', is a logical fallacy that assumes that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. This is misleading because correlation does not imply causation.

What is the 'bandwagon fallacy' and why is it a logical fallacy?

The 'bandwagon fallacy', also known as 'argumentum ad populum', is a fallacy that assumes something is true or good simply because many people believe it or do it. This is a fallacy because the popularity of a belief does not make it true.

Can you provide an example of the 'slippery slope' fallacy?

The 'slippery slope' fallacy is when an argument suggests that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, usually negative. For example, if someone argues that allowing a film to be shown in a theater will inevitably lead to an increase in crime rates, they are committing a slippery slope fallacy.

What is 'straw man' fallacy and how does it distort the original argument?

The 'straw man' fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument by exaggerating, distorting, or simplifying it, then attacking the misrepresented argument instead of the original one. This fallacy is deceptive because it avoids addressing the actual argument.

How does the 'tu quoque' fallacy attempt to justify wrong actions?

The 'tu quoque' fallacy is when someone defends their own wrong action by pointing out that someone else does the same thing. This fallacy is flawed because it attempts to justify an action by comparing it to another wrong action, rather than addressing the morality of the act itself.

What is the 'onus probandi' fallacy and how does it affect the burden of proof?

The 'onus probandi' fallacy occurs when the burden of proof is incorrectly placed on the person challenging a claim, rather than on the person making the claim. This fallacy is problematic because it shifts the responsibility for providing evidence away from the claimant.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Understanding Logical Fallacies

This paragraph introduces the concept of logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that lead to flawed conclusions. It explains that these fallacies can be found in various forms and are common in arguments. The paragraph specifically highlights 'false dilemma', where only two alternatives are considered in an argument, limiting the scope of possibilities. Examples are given to illustrate how this fallacy can oversimplify complex issues, leading to a binary view of the world. The discussion also touches on how these fallacies can manifest in real-life situations, such as political discussions and social media, where people might label others based on limited perspectives rather than considering a broader range of arguments.

05:01

🗣️ Addressing Common Logical Fallacies

The second paragraph delves into various types of logical fallacies, including ad hominem, hasty generalization, circular reasoning, post hoc fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, slippery slope, strawman fallacy, and false cause. Each fallacy is briefly explained with examples to demonstrate how they are used incorrectly in arguments. The paragraph aims to educate viewers on recognizing these fallacies to avoid being misled or engaging in flawed reasoning. It emphasizes the importance of logical consistency and evidence-based reasoning over emotional appeals or unfounded assumptions.

10:03

🚫 Countering Logical Fallacies

The final paragraph discusses the burden of proof fallacy, where the responsibility of providing evidence is incorrectly placed on the opponent rather than the claimant. It points out that this tactic is often used to defend weak claims without substantial evidence. The paragraph concludes by summarizing the importance of being aware of logical fallacies to engage in more rational and productive discussions. It encourages viewers to apply this knowledge to improve their critical thinking skills and to challenge arguments that rely on fallacious reasoning.

Keywords

💡Logical Fallacy

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. In the context of the video, logical fallacies are the central theme, as they are errors in logic that lead to false conclusions. The video discusses various types of logical fallacies, such as false dilemma and ad hominem, and provides examples to illustrate how they distort the truth and mislead people in arguments.

💡False Dilemma

False dilemma, also known as false dichotomy, is a fallacy that occurs when only two options are considered, even though there may be more. The video uses the example of labeling someone as either a supporter or an opponent without considering the possibility of nuanced views. This fallacy limits the scope of discussion and oversimplifies complex issues.

💡Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is a fallacy that involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. The video explains that this tactic is used to discredit someone's point of view by focusing on personal traits or characteristics, such as their beliefs or affiliations, which are irrelevant to the argument's validity. An example from the script is criticizing someone's opinion on a film by attacking their personal life instead of discussing the film's merits.

💡Hasty Generalization

Hasty generalization is a fallacy where a conclusion is drawn from a small or unrepresentative sample size. The video points out that this fallacy oversimplifies complex issues by making sweeping statements based on limited evidence. For instance, the script mentions drawing conclusions about all men based on the behavior of a few, which is an unfair and inaccurate representation.

💡Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning is a fallacy where the conclusion is derived from premises that essentially restate the conclusion. The video explains that this type of reasoning is flawed because it does not provide any new evidence or logical progression to support the conclusion. An example from the script is claiming that a person is always right because they are a woman, which is a tautology rather than a logical argument.

💡Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that assumes a cause-and-effect relationship simply because two events occur in sequence. The video illustrates this by showing that just because one event follows another, it does not mean the first event caused the second. For example, winning a race after wearing a certain brand of shoes does not mean the shoes caused the victory.

💡Bandwagon Fallacy

The bandwagon fallacy is a type of argument that suggests that a proposition must be true or good because many people believe it. The video critiques this fallacy by highlighting that popularity does not equate to truth. The script gives an example of assuming a product is the best simply because it is widely used, which is a misleading basis for judgment.

💡Slippery Slope

Slippery slope is a fallacy that asserts a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like a snowballing effect. The video uses this concept to show how minor actions are sometimes exaggerated to predict dire consequences without sufficient evidence. An example given is the assumption that watching action movies will lead to an increase in crime rates.

💡Strawman Fallacy

A strawman fallacy is when an argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack. The video explains that this involves distorting or exaggerating an opponent's position to create a false impression. The script provides an example of accusing someone of supporting sexual promiscuity and corruption simply because they support a particular educational policy.

💡Tu Quoque

Tu quoque is a fallacy that attempts to justify a fault by asserting that others also commit it. The video describes this as a defense that deflects criticism by pointing out the faults of others, rather than addressing the issue at hand. An example from the script is justifying littering because others are corrupt, suggesting that one wrong does not make another right.

💡Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is the responsibility to provide evidence for a claim. The video discusses how this concept is misused when the burden is incorrectly placed on the person challenging a claim, rather than the person making it. The script gives an example of someone accusing themselves of corruption and then demanding that others prove their innocence, which reverses the logical order of evidence and argumentation.

Highlights

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning logic within an argument.

False dilemma or false dichotomy is the mistake of considering only two alternatives in an argument.

Ad hominem is a fallacy where one attacks the person rather than the argument.

Hasty generalization is drawing conclusions from a small sample or based on repeated incidents.

Circular reasoning is when the conclusion is the same as the premise, creating a logical loop.

Post hoc fallacy is the incorrect assumption that because two events occurred in sequence, one caused the other.

Bandwagon fallacy is concluding that something is true because many people believe or do it.

Slippery slope is the assumption that a single action will lead to a chain of extreme events without valid evidence.

Strawman fallacy is misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

Tu quoque fallacy is justifying a wrong action by pointing out that someone else does the same or worse.

Burden of proof fallacy is shifting the responsibility of proof from the claimant to the opponent.

Logical fallacies are common in everyday life and can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts.

Understanding logical fallacies can help in constructing better arguments and avoiding fallacious reasoning.

The video discusses various types of logical fallacies with examples to illustrate their occurrence.

Logical fallacies can be found in social media, political debates, and everyday conversations.

The video aims to educate viewers on recognizing and avoiding common logical fallacies.

Transcripts

Apa itu sesat pikir sesat pikir atau

istilah kerennya logical field adalah

kesalahan dalam menyusun logika yang

tepat dalam sebuah argumen e sumaryono

dalam bukunya dasar-dasar logika

mendefinisikan sisa pikir sebagai proses

penalaran atau argumentasi yang

sebenarnya tidak logis salah arah dan

menyesatkan simpelnya sesat pikir adalah

kesalahan orang dalam mengambil

kesimpulan dari premis-premis yang sudah

ada hingga menjadikan argumennya tidak

nyambung dan ngawur ada banyak sekali

jenis dan ragam dari logical field dalam

bukunya mengumpulkan 300 lebih jenis zat

pikir ada setidaknya 10-20 jenis yang

sering kali ditemui Selamat datang di MB

Universe Mari kita bahas satu persatu

false dikotomi atau false ketika kita

menganggap hanya ada dua alternatif

pilihan dalam sebuah argumen mereka yang

terjebak sesat pikir ini membatasi

kemungkinan dan pilihan hanya ada dua

kalau tidak putih pasti hitam kalau

tidak kiri pasti kanan kalau tidak

mendukung pasti menolak padahal belum

tentu seperti itu bisa saja ada pilihan

lain dan kemungkinan yang lain sesat

pikir ini membuat kita melihat dunia

hanya a dan b tanpa melihat C hingga Z

contoh mudahnya ketika ada yang

mendukung kebijakan Jokowi pasti

langsung diberi label Cebong dan kalau

mau kritik kebijakan pemerintah langsung

ucap kampret atau kadrun padahal bisa

saja ada alasan lain di balik argumen

itu bisa saja mendukung kebijakan Jokowi

Karena kebijakan itu layak dan tepat

atau bisa saja mengkritik pemerintah

karena memang ada yang salah dan layak

dikritik kita pasti pernah menemukan

percakapan seperti ini Cina itu negara

yang hebat loh pertumbuhan ekonominya

berkembang pesat sekarang bilang aja Lu

pernah ama komunis kan kebijakan

Presiden Jokowi ini kurang tepat karena

bisa memberatkan rakyat di mata kampret

mah Jokowi selalu salah sebenarnya

investasi sama negara asing itu juga

penting loh meningkatkan pendapatan

negara dari pajak dan lapangan kerja

Bisa bertambah luas ini nih hantek asing

yang senang Negeri sendiri di jajah

negara lain hal seperti ini seringkali

terjadi Entah di dunia nyata maupun di

dunia maya lebih-lebih di sosial media

Ini Realita yang terjadi sekarang

alih-alih menjawab ar gumen dengan

argumen Justru malah saling memberi

label kepada yang tidak sependapat atau

sebuah pemahaman

at hominem adalah sesat pikir yang

intinya melawan argumen lawan bicara

dengan menyerang pribadi secara langsung

dan bukan menyerang argumennya terkadang

malah terkesan mencaci dan memaki yang

Tujuannya adalah untuk menjatuhkan Citra

lawan bicara agar seolah argumennya

tidak valid Contoh alur filmnya terlalu

monoton lebih bagus kalau konfliknya

lebih di dalam lagi

kritik film deh emang lu bisa bikin film

pada kasus seperti ini terlihat sekali

bahwa si B langsung menyerang pribadi si

a yang tidak membuat film tanpa

memperhatikan argumen tentang film itu

sendiri padahal orang yang tidak membuat

film juga boleh berargumen tentang film

dan belum tentu argumennya salah bisa

saja benar dan valid intinya at hominum

adalah short to do Messenger no Todo

message padahal sangat keliru jika

mengukur kebenaran atau kesalahan sebuah

argumen hanya dengan melihat dari sifat

karakter apalagi suku atau agama

parahnya at hominem umum sekali

ditemukan lebih-lebih di kolom komentar

media sosial secara sederhana at homina

muncul ketika seseorang tidak mau

menerima argumen lawan bicara sehingga

akhirnya mencari-cari subjek lain untuk

dipersalahkan

semua cowok sama aja tukang selingkuh

semua cewek itu matre

Islam itu teroris

Cina anti Islam

Kita pernah dong dengar Orang ngomong

seperti ini atau mungkin kamu salah

satunya pernyataan tersebut adalah

contoh dari Hesti generalization salah

satu logical valenci atau susah pikir

yang paling sering ditemukan

simpelnya Hesty generalization adalah

terlalu cepat mengambil kesimpulan dari

sampah yang kecil atau menyamaratakan

suatu hal berdasarkan kejadian yang

pernah dialami secara berulang-ulang

contohnya Lisa punya 3 mantan laki-laki

kebetulan ketiganya adalah tukang

selingkuh karena hal ini Lisa pun

mengambil kesimpulan bahwa semua

laki-laki sama saja sama-sama tukang

selingkuh padahal kesimpulan yang

diambili saat itu belum tentu

menggambarkan karakteristik cowok

keseluruhan karena ada juga cowok yang

setia dan bertahan pada satu pasangan

nah menyimpulkan semua cowok brengsek

dengan hanya mengambil sambal kecil

adalah salah satu contoh dari Hesty

generalization kita beri contoh yang

lebih berat Budi melihat ayah paman dan

kakeknya sehat walaupun merokok lantas

Budi menyimpulkan bahwa merokok tidak

membahayakan tubuh tiga pelaku pembunuh

diri di sebuah bangunan identifikasi

sebagai seorang muslim lalu kesimpulan

yang diambil masyarakat adalah Islam itu

teroris

menyamar ratakan sesuatu yang kompleks

dengan sebuah contoh kecil tentu adalah

hal yang keliru dalam konteks lebih luas

dapat memicu stekmatisasi bahkan konflik

yang memecah belah

adalah kesimpulan yang ditarik

berdasarkan asumsi sebelumnya dan

dilakukan secara berputar-putar atau

menjadikan asumsi awal sebagai

kesimpulan akhir sesat pikir ini juga

Jamak dan seringkali ditemukan dalam

kehidupan sehari-hari contoh cewek

selalu benar apa buktinya karena cewek

nggak pernah salah kenapa cewek nggak

pernah salah karena cewek selalu benar

dari sini bisa dilihat bahwa argumen si

A berputar-putar kesimpulan dia di akhir

adalah sama dengan argumen di awal si A

sebenarnya tidak memberikan jawaban atau

kesimpulan namun hanya berputar-putar di

situs-situ saja karena hal ini daging

the question juga disebut dengan

penalaran melingkar atau circular seni

yang polanya adalah P benar jika q benar

dan Q benar karena P benar

[Musik]

adalah zat pikir yang terjadi karena

kesalahan pengambilan keputusan dari

hubungan sebab dan akibat bentuk posok

dinyatakan sebagai berikut karena

peristiwa ia mengikuti peristiwa X

peristiwa yg pasti disebabkan oleh

peristiwa X contohnya Kamu memakai

sepatu merk A dan ternyata kamu

memenangkan lomba lari kamu lantas

mengambil kesimpulan bahwa kemenangan

itu pasti akibat dari memakai sepatu itu

sepatu itu seolah membawa keberuntungan

hingga membuatmu menang padahal yang

membuat kamu menang tentu sebenarnya

adalah kecepatan dan usahamu dalam

berlatih

[Musik]

argumen atau biasa lebih dikenal dengan

sebutan band Wagon valesi adalah

kesalahan dalam mengambil kesimpulan

bahwa suatu hal itu benar karena

dipercayai banyak orang polanya adalah

jika banyak yang percaya atau melakukan

Maka hal itu menjadi benar

inti dari sesat pikir ini adalah

menjadikan suara mayoritas sebagai suara

kebenaran padahal belum tentu

contoh jutaan orang memakai produk a

maka sudah pasti itu adalah produk yang

paling baik

contoh lainnya adalah Masih banyak orang

merokok sambil mengendarai motor maka

saya juga akan melakukannya karena itu

adalah wajar

[Musik]

sleep adalah kesalahan berpikir dimana

sebuah tindakan pasti akan menyebabkan

rantai peristiwa berikutnya yang terlalu

ekstrim namun tanpa dilandasi oleh bukti

yang valid

pola dari slip adalah Jika a maka B jika

b maka c dan seterusnya

contoh jika film action terus

ditayangkan di bioskop bisa-bisa tingkat

kejahatan makin tinggi Maka film action

harus dilarang

contoh lainnya kehilangan pulpen maka

tidak bisa mencatat tidak mencatat maka

tidak belajar tidak belajar maka tidak

lulus tidak lulus maka tidak bisa

bekerja tidak bekerja maka tidak

menghasilkan uang dan seterusnya

sesuai namanya sesat pikir ini biasanya

digunakan Agar lawan bicara merasa

tergelincir tersesat dan ketakutan

[Musik]

adalah menyimpulkan argumen lawan bicara

secara serampangan atau bahkan

melebih-lebihkan

contoh Kamu dukung Permendikbud 30 ya

dukung banget Oh berarti kamu dukung

seks bebas Dan perzinahan dong

contoh lainnya Kamu kenapa telat sih

datangnya tadi macet sayang ah Bilang

aja kamu udah nggak sayang sama aku kan

seperti namanya stroman atau

orang-orangan sawah yang gunanya sebagai

pengganti orang dengan sesat pikir ini

mengubah argumen lawan menjadi argumen

baru untuk kemudian dia serang padahal

argumen itu sama sekali tidak pernah

diucapkan oleh lawan bicaranya

tolong snack versi adalah kekeliruan

berpikir Ketika seseorang membenarkan

kesalahan dengan menunjukkan kesalahan

yang sama atau lebih buruk padahal ini

tentu keliru karena dua hal yang salah

tidak menjadikan salah satunya menjadi

benar

contoh

alah buang sampah sembarangan mah biasa

aja kali itu koruptor yang korupsi duit

rakyat lebih parah

contoh lainnya Yanto mencuri uang Doni

maka Doni dibenarkan untuk mencuri uang

Yanto

secara literal badan

pembuktian badan the provelecy adalah di

mana seseorang membuat klaim tetapi

menempatkan beban pembuktian ke lawannya

padahal yang seharusnya membuktikan

klaim adalah si pembuat klaim bukan

pihak pembantah

contoh Saya tidak korupsi kok apa

buktinya anda tidak korupsi buktikan

saja Tunjukkan bukti-bukti kuat kalau

saya memang korupsi

hal ini adalah cara untuk mempertahankan

klaim lemah tanpa bukti kuat jika lawan

tidak bisa membuktikan maka itu dianggap

sebagai bukti klaim mereka

Nah itulah beberapa sosok pikir yang

sering dilakukan semoga video ini

bermanfaat sampai jumpa salam Universe

[Musik]