What is stopping us from creating artificial intelligence known as AI? What is it about human intellect and cognition that separates us from a computer?
There lies an inherent problem which is philosophical in nature. This is the subjective matter of knowledge of self and experience. This is a problem because aside from an individuals deep immediate sense of self and experience we have no way of quantifying this externally.
This is a very serious article for me; I take logic and critical thinking as a thing of great import. Unlike some other articles where I write it from a perspective of teacher to student, this topic runs in the realm of students talking over a topic with no teacher in the room. Let’s all be honest, no one knows if a god exists or not, NO ONE. People might believe and feel they have good reason to yet they cannot produce empirical evidence. Non believers or atheists might have no belief in a god yet they must leave room open for the chance of a god existing (barring very specific definitions of god of course). (more…)
A priori is a philosophy term used to describe a type of knowledge. A priori means “from the earlier”, but this is kind of obvious because it sounds like the word “prior”. A priori knowledge is something you can figure out on your own with no research. A priori knowledge needs no investigation to justify or use it as a position in an argument. A priori is knowledge gained from other knowledge that was in turn gained through sense data. It is really just a technical definition meant to explain away 100% empiricism which says ALL knowledge must be experienced. (more…)
Here’s some good philosophical quotes and words of wisdom. Sometimes its good to ponder these for self help or just mental exercise. Here we go: (more…)
Is it hypocritical to be intolerant toward the intolerant? I think the answer is ‘no’ and here’s why. Tolerance is a noun while tolerant is an adjective. However the true essence of tolerance and being tolerant is a verb, it is an action one integrates into their daily life. If a person is tolerant in regards to intolerance they are actually not tolerant. Here we can see we are actually missing a word to describe tolerance in a verb form. (more…)
I think most people want to feel like they have control over their life. Feeling out of control without limits is terrifying. Skydiving might be enjoyable in that there is a limit, the parachute. This gives you a level of control in a situation where you otherwise have no control; like falling at 120 mph till you transfer all your accumulated energy into the earth (splat). Keep this example of control and limits in mind as we analyze the concept of free will.
Free will is the belief that we have control over our actions. Having free will would mean that the future is not set and that we can alter the outcome of events by our self’s thinking or rationale. The concept of free will segues into many deeper philosophical problems like time and consciousness. (more…)
What is moral? When faced with a scenario or set of choices how do we know what is moral? It’s about to get deep, real deep. I’m gonna pick apart the brain and analyze why a thing is moral or immoral. There might even be some grotesque over-analyzation of thought patterns and over detailed wording of ideas like “broad vs specific behavior of humans”. I think one of the best ways to hit this topic right is to scope through some examples and bring up moral dilemas. In doing so we can peruse the dynamics of the human beings decision making apparatus. So let’s figure out what is moral. (more…)
The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam is where one assumes a thing is true if it cannot be proven to be false or that a thing is false if it cannot proven to be true. In both directions a fallacy has occurred because in the absence of evidence no conclusion can be drawn.
If these arguments were logical and compelling cases for beliefs then any fantasy story could be declared true and be valid simply because it could not be proven wrong. Let your imagination wander and you can see the silliness this type of thinking could produce. (more…)
There are tons of logical fallacies out there, so many that it can seem overwhelming to learn them. Among the mountains of fallacies facing us are several that seem to come up often. These fallacies also help make a good foundation to help us understand more obscure or harder to understand logical fallacies. So here are my top 5 logical fallacies. (more…)
A Bandwagon Fallacy is when a statement is assumed to be logically valid because of popular support.
“Does god exist? Several billion people can’t be wrong!”
Yes they can, in fact 100% of humanity could be wrong, there was a time when no one understood disease thinking it to be evil spirits. The number of humans believing in a thing has no bearing on reality. Do I know if a god exists? No and neither does anyone else and it doesn’t matter if 99% of humanity believed we should still require evidence.
“7 in 10 doctors say acupuncture works, therefore it must work”
Here is a combination of appeal to authority and the bandwagon fallacy. Many people place trust in an authority on health like a doctor so when a majority of them promote a thing it must be true! No, sorry again, but this just isn’t so. We always need evidence, easily obtainable, repeatable, and testable evidence.
Many people once thought the earth was flat, this certainly didn’t make it so.
Premise: Many people believe A to be true
Conclusion: Therefore A is true
I would like to convince religious people not to use arguments of popularity. I will use variable religions in my next examples to show why religious people would not want to adopt fallacy of the majority structures into their belief systems.
Using the above examples, these religions would have automatically been false if arguments of popularity were in fact valid structures by which to support claims. If you are religious you have to dispense all notions of popularity or belief founded on sheer number of adherents. This also means that forever and into your future you should never take into account if your friends and family are of a certain religion, for this is reasoning by an Bandwagon Fallacy.
I love learning and hope that if you don’t that I can convince you to love it too. I never stopped learning after college, in fact my learning increased. My raw, unquenched, and enduring thirst for learning and knowledge seems to be limited only by physical weaknesses. I get excited about learning because I feel a drive to learn will increase the chances of finding truth and morality. Learning grants one power because learning gives you more options in life.
My mission is to get the world excited about learning. I believe a world that loves learning will be better world. Don’t let yourself stop learning because you have a piece of paper saying you sat in classes for 4 years, it’s time to realize that learning doesn’t stop at graduation.
At the end of the article is a list of links to tons of free videos and classes online. (more…)
Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor evidence and information which already supports previously held ideas or beliefs. The human mind will trick itself into protecting currently held beliefs regardless of evidence. In 2003, psychologist John Jost, analyzed over 80 studies, topping more than 20,000 people. The findings of such studies, as well as others, support the presence of confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is comprised of two main behaviors. The first behavior is searching and the second is filtering or appraising. (more…)
From simple clothing styles to the Nazi Youth movement one thing is common, indoctrinated behaviors prevail. Across all cultures and time, that humans can remember, indoctrination has guided and shaped human lives. Let’s look at how indoctrination might have originated and why it is so effective. (more…)
You must do as I say, you must be one of us! One of us! One of us! Actually, I don’t want you to blindly follow anything. This often is the mantra of many ideologies and it is indoctrination. Let’s look at indoctrination and why it is so bad.
Indoctrination is a form of teaching that differs from regular teaching because the material is often unproven and fallacious. Indoctrination demands no questions or critical thinking about the subject. It can be found in many places but the largest indoctrination occurs between adult authority figures and children. It should be noted that usually indoctrination occurs in power structures where the one indoctrinating feels power and privilege over the indoctrinated. (more…)
I have just been informed that I could have charges brought against me. For what you ask? Well for simply making this site. Yes, you heard that right. I am not actually gonna be charged with anything so don’t worry, but this was the reaction of someone that saw my site. Her literal words were “he can be charged for that”. Charged with a crime for merely talking about logic and critical thinking. She must have been so scared of the message that she believed (somehow lacking knowledge of Freedom of Speech) that merely thinking critically and publishing those ideas was a crime. Astonishing right? (more…)
Philosophical Logic is concerned with the study of argument, meaning, and truth. It is very familiar with informal logic in that it can touch several different systems of logic. This logic and informal logic both have a similar leaning in that they seek to figure out arguments, statements, and beliefs however is possible.
For me personally my own argumentation and logic style is built on philosophical and informal logic. The main reason for this is the importance and value placed on human value and judgement. Some logic systems can exist and be focused completely on non human content, mathematical logic for example (although it can also be concerned with human content as well).
Mathematical logic is mathematical in nature. Mathematical logic is divided into the categories of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof theory.
Modal Logic is an extension of more formal logic. It is an attempt to use modal elements to form logic structures that are not absolute. For example terms such as probability, possibilities, necessity are elements of modal logic.
Peaceful discourse is a probable element of middle east peace.
Peaceful discourse is a necessity for middle east peace.
Middle east peace is a possibility with peaceful discourse.
Above I purposefully used a very complex example with many variables. Modal logic can be comprised of very complex logic structures. The above examples might be comprised of thousands of mathematical equations. Modal logic has a semantic vocabulary and axiomatic system which forms its logic and arguments.
After the logician has a good grasp of informal logic and logical fallacies a more in depth study of modality could be of great benefit. For the beginner modal logic might be too technical.
Predicate logic is a series of formal logic systems with a defined logic alphabet. These formal systems are first order logic, second order logic, many order logic, and infinitive logic. Predicate logic is unique because of the symbols, alphabet and variables used to express relations between premises and conclusions. This is a pretty hardcore and complex logic, a beginner should probably gloss over this logic for now.
Syllogistic Logic is a form of logic where conclusions are inferred from two premises. This is easier to understand with examples. I will have to note that this type of logic is rather narrow in scope and archaic. It can form logical arguments but other forms of more modern logic often supersede this. Still it is good to have a familiarity with it.
Premise: All dogs are carnivorous
Premise: Pugs are dogs
Conclusion: Therefore all pugs are carnivorous
Premise: Fish need water to breathe
Premise: Fish use gills for breathing
Conclusion: Gills use water for breathing
Characteristics associated with informal logic are development of criteria, identification of logical fallacies, development of premises, criticism, argumentation tactics and analysis of data.
Informal logic is concerned with valid premise identification. A premise is the base which we build conclusions from. A premise is the main initial subject of a statement. Here is a statement:
“Because Henry has never told a lie, I believe him”
The premise here is “Henry has never told a lie”, our conclusion is believing Henry.
As we approach an argument, belief, or statement we must establish criteria for the premises. In the above example how might we look at the conclusion if we knew the premise was not true? What if we knew the premise was absolutely true? What if we did not not for sure either way? As you can see the validity of a premise is very important to be able to formulate true conclusions. To help us figure out if a premise is true or false we must be able to create criteria with which to judge them. Sometimes there will be many criterion or just one criteria.
To find out if a person has ever told a lie or not we might establish criteria such as:
Also as we establish criteria for the premise these criteria should attempt to solidify logical absolutes about the condition of the premise.
Logical fallacies are break downs and incorrect structuring of arguments and beliefs. Identifying logical fallacies is key to creating good arguments and beliefs. If something is structured fallaciously we cannot know if it is true or not because the logic of the statement is not sound. Remember though, that just because something is structured fallaciously does not mean it’s conclusion is false!
A key skill that develops along with Informal Logic is critical thinking. This is often associated with informal logic because the practice of informal logic usually involves thinking about your own thoughts. When learning and practicing informal logic the logician should be as concerned with their own premises, possible fallacies, and logic structure as with the actual content of the discussion. In fact the content of the discussion is rather arbitrary until the logician can easily identify premises and logical fallacies. Identifying logical fallacies and premises naturally segues into critical thinking as we have to analyze how and why thoughts are formed.
A fallacy of division is where someone forms a conclusion from a true aspect of a thing assuming the true thing also applies to all or some of its individuals or parts.
1. Fallacy: Terrorist attacks committed by Muslims are in the name of Islam, therefore all Muslims are terrorists.
Reality: The majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
2. Fallacy: Israel has killed innocent people therefore all Israelis are murderers.
Reality: The majority of Israelis are not murderers.
3. Fallacy: America is the fattest country on the earth, therefore all Americans are fat.
Reality: Not all Americans are fat.
If A is true about B then it is true about B.1, b.2, and b.3
When faced with this in a debate or discussion one will have to persistently funnel the talk back to the division from the original truth. The tricky thing about this is that it starts with a true statement, often times both people will agree on the premise. Then a conclusion is made, believed to be logical in nature, but it is actually a logical fallacy. Just focus on the division, the focal point at where truth becomes “not truth”.
Correlation does not imply causation is a fallacy where two things that correlate are mistaken to be in a cause and effect relationship. There might or might not be a causal relationship present. If there is a cause and effect relationship it might be reversed or there might be no causal relationship at all among the subjects.
A very famous example of this is air conditioning and crime. It was noted in a study that crime rose as air conditioning use increased. However, air conditioning was not the cause of the crime. What was really happening was that hot weather caused more people to go outside thus increasing human interaction and possibility for crimes to be committed. This was correlation where two things ‘crime’ and ‘air conditioning’ were both effects of hot weather rather than each other.
When examining subjects and correlation vs causation there are several possibilities for relations between subjects:
A is correlated with B
A is believed to cause B
Reality: B causes A (reversed actuality)
A is correlated with B
A is believed to cause B
Reality: C causes B (third cause)
A is correlated with B
A is believed to cause B
Reality: A causes B (actual causation)
Circular cause and consequence is where the consequence of a thing is also the cause. Often the mere contemplation of the consequence is what causes the consequence.
Religious fundamentalist become so infatuated with apocalyptic prophecy their fear and agitation leads to violence, destruction, and death.
Worrying about doing bad on a test causes so much anxiety that you forget many answers, the consequence (doing bad on the test) ended up causing itself due to the mere thought of it.
The fear the stock market will crash causes people to stop investing thus causing the stock crash.
Use of this fallacy is seen by having foresight into behavior within a system. So let’s look at how this is tactically used and how we can point it out. Someone might say that the Jews returning to Israel/Palestine is proof of biblical prophecy. However, if one sees the behavior within the system we can then see that the mere prophecy existing might be the cause for the Jews returning to Israel/Palestine. By merely having the prophecy in the religion causes many Jews to strive to return home, and Christians to help them.
The argument from repetition fallacy is where an argument is repeated over and over until no further progress can be made and all points are exhausted. Normally a person will have a belief or position that does not have evidence, is blatantly false, or is fallaciously structured. They will repeat this over and over no matter what contradictory argument is laid before them.
The argument from ignorance fallacy is where one believe something to be true or false based on the absence of contradictory evidence. This often happens when someone with a claim or position tries to justify their claim because they have no better answer. The claim they believe usually has no evidence for it and is used to fill in gaps of ignorance (lack of knowledge).
I can’t explain the universe therefore god did it
I can’t explain how life/humans came to be therefore god did it
The above do not mean a god did not do it, and they are not sufficient justifications that a god did do it. The above arguments are simply not sufficient for justification of their conclusions. Better arguments, not fallacious structured, would need to be introduced for any justification of the claims.
Appeal to Law Fallacy is where one believes a thing is either immoral or moral based on the laws or lack of laws in reference to the thing. Typically one argues against an action because it is against the law, or justifies an action simply because no law exists against it.
One of the greatest examples of Appeal to Law in America is Alcohol and drug laws especially weed. So many people are willing to drive to a liquor store and get a bottle of wine but vote for pathetic politicians that seek harsh drug laws against weed. Fundamentally there is no difference between alcohol and weed. In fact there is enough data to give argument that alcohol is more dangerous.
A is moral because there is no law against it
A is immoral because it is illegal
Denying the Antecedent is where the conclusion of two statements is thought to falsify the initial truth statement. For this to happen we need an initial statement of truth. Then we make a second statement about the initial statement that is also true. From this if we conclude that the initial statement is false we have denied the antecedent, thus committing the fallacy.
If Mike is a Muslim then he is also a human being.
Mike is not a Muslim
Therefore Mike is not a human being.
If A then B
A is not true
Therefore B is not true
Affirming the Consequent is where two statements are true and we come to a conclusion based off the two statements except the two true statements are not contingent on one another especially in the conclussions descriptor. This might sound confusing at first but it is rather easy to understand after you see an example.
If Susan goes to college and gets her Masters then she is educated.
Susan is educated.
Therefore Susan has her Masters.
The above example does not take into account that education can be one in many forms and getting a masters is not exclusive to being educated. Let’s look at another example.
If someone follows Christianity then they will give to charity
Ellen gives to charity
Therefore Ellen is a Christian
Ellen is actually has no religion and the conclusion is assuming an absolute based on two prior statements of truth. The problem is that charity is not exclusive to Christianity or any philosophical doctrine. This absolute conclusion is fallacious and not true.
If A then B
Affirm B
Therefore A
Affirming a Disjunction Fallacy is when we assume one of two statements is false just because on is proven true.
Statement 1: Bob is a Christian
Statement 2: Bob hates Muslims
Initial truth: Bob is a Christian
Conclusion: The statement that Bob hates Muslims is false
Reality: Bob really does hate Muslims
The is-ought fallacy is when someone assumes a conclusion based on an ‘ought’ rather than an ‘is’. The major problem is that an ‘ought’ is often derived from an instinct, false premise, or cultural morality.
Argument: A ought to be B therefore C
Reality: C cannot be logically verified by the ‘ought’ connection of A and B
The masked man fallacy is where two true and logical conclusions are combined and lead to a false conclusion.
“I don’t know who the arsonist is but I know who my brother is and therefore he cannot be the arsonist.”
There are two statements that could be true, not knowing who the arsonist is a true statement and knowing the brother is true. However when we combine the two statements we possibly get a false conclusion. In this case the brother actually is the arsonist, the arguer does not know this.
The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.
An infinite amount of silly statements might be declared and be completely unprovable, hence we cannot assume validity in the face of unprovability. This is what is known as burden of proof.
Argument: “X is true and you can’t prove that X is false, therefore it’s true”
Reality: X might be false and simply because one cannot prove a thing false does not mean it is true.
Person 1: “How do you justify your belief in god?”
Person 2: “Can you prove me wrong?”
Person 1: “I don’t have to prove you wrong, you are the one with the claim”
Person 2: “Your just making that rule up, you have to prove me wrong!”
Person 1: “No, for you see living with this type of ideology is ignorant and stupid, anyone making a positive claim or assertion has the burden to prove the claim. Otherwise, any and every idiot claim and false statement would have to be disproven in order to even live a somewhat normal existence. Allow me to demonstrate ‘there is a purple dragon behind the moon that created the earth…now prove me wrong’. It would be sheer lunacy and outright madness to expect you to have to prove me wrong, but it is logical to have to have me back up my claim”
Person 2: “B-b-b-but…”
Person 1: “There there now, let’s go get some iced cream”
A is true and it is true till proven otherwise
A naturalistic fallacy is any case in which someone concludes that something is a moral necessity simply because it is more natural. In this fallacy something considered natural is usually considered good, and something considered unnatural is bad. The main thing is that what is natural is assumed to be moral.
This fallacy is often associated with moral arguments where the claim is supported with positive verbiage. Some of this positive wording might include things like “superior”, “honorable”, “noble”, “pleasant”, or “desired”.
This fallacy is often confused or criticized with the is-ought fallacy. One should be well versed and comfortable with the is-ought fallacy if they wish to have a really good grasp on the naturalistic fallacy. It is also the inverse of the moralistic fallacy, where what is good or right is believed to be inherent or natural.
Argument: “It is noble to sacrifice oneself for their country, therefore those that make this sacrifice are more moral than those that don’t”
Argument: “Homosexuality is not natural as it is not used for reproduction, therefore it is immoral and homosexuals are bad.”
Because A is natural then B is moral
A is natural and B is unnatural so therefore B is immoral
Some argue that the naturalistic fallacy as described by Moore was not a fallacy at all. Many of the arguments against it boil down to naturalistic proponents against non-naturalistic proponents.
You can read some critiques of the fallacy here:
The argument from fallacy is a fallacy where one discounts a conclusion merely because the logic structure for the conclusion is a fallacy.
When someone structures an argument in a fallacious manner and comes to a conclusion, this conclusion might still be correct. The only problem is that we cannot know by this alone if the conclusion is absolutely false. The fallacy certainly is enough for us to doubt, but it is not absolute in a wrong conclusion.
Argument conclusion: A is B and B is A
Fallacy Rebuttal: This is begging the question
Actuality: B is A
Appealing to Probability is a logical fallacy where one assumes that a thing is inevitable simply because it is possible. Probability can be useful to find out the likelihood of future events, probability is not a fallacy in itself. Appeal to Probability is a fallacy because it is used to assume an absolute.
A is possible/probable therefore A is absolute
“There are so many religions so one of them has to be correct”
A red herring fallacy is a purposeful change in topic to distract from the original topic. So if we have two people debating a particular statement one might change the topic seemingly to promote discussion but in fact it is a ploy to change the topic. (more…)
Where does morality come from? To find the answer we can first examine where people once believed morality came from. We will look at the logic structures of both ancient and modern beliefs concerning morality and try to come to a logical conclusion. We will also try to figure out what morality is or at least make an attempt to describe the highest probability for what morality is composed of. (more…)
How can we really know something? It is very important to be able to determine what you can know and what you can’t. Sometimes we think we know something because it seems so obvious, yet obviousness is not a guarantee of truth. We are going to go over some things which complicate what we can know and why it is important to think about this. (more…)
Fallacy of Aggressive Amnesia is an argumentation tactic whereby a person continually hops from topic to topic forgetting about the original contested premise. This is a very confusing and efficient tactic and can be quite aggressive in nature. It is similar to a red herring fallacy in that it distracts the other person from the the original contested premise. The difference is the style and tactic of an almost unconscious like “amnesia” of all counter arguments. The person attempts to overwhelm or flood the argument with so many new points and arguments leaving no room to efficiently respond. Each counter argument is responded to with several new arguments or fallacies not directly related. (more…)
Below is a series of questions to ask yourself concerning a personal held belief. Answering these honestly will help teach how to avoid logical fallacies.
(more…)
I am writing an article critiquing the logic community and modern logicians. The modern logicians, people that study logic, have failed the rest of humanity and their craft. Partly for being unable to empathize with the rest of humanity and also due to economic societal structures. We logicians have a natural urge to study and analyze, we tend to think a lot and be quite proud of our ability to scrutinize our own thoughts endlessly.
The rest of the population is more at ease watching sports or talking about makeup. Certainly the preoccupation of the logician is not the interest of most of humanity. Interestingly though the skill set of a logician is essential for the progress of humanity.
Appeal to popularity is when someone tries to validate a statement based on the number of people that support or do not support the statement.
“Look at how many people people believe in God, he obviously must exist”
Just because people believe a thing to exist does not necessarily mean it does. God either exists or it does not. If it doesn’t and 99% of people believed it still wouldn’t exist. If it did exist and only 1% believed it still would exist.
“7 in 10 doctors say acupuncture works, therefore it must work”
It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say acupuncture works, if there is no evidence to support the statement we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions. If a lot of doctors say acupuncture works all that really is worthy of our time is further investigation to try and find real evidence. There is not reason to blindly believe.
Many people once thought the earth was flat, this certainly didn’t make it so.
Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true
Premise: Most people disagree with B
Conclusion: Therefore B is false
I would like to convince religious people not to use arguments of popularity. I will use variable religions in my next examples to show why religious people would not want to adopt fallacy of the majority structures into their belief systems.
Using the above examples, these religions would have automatically been false if arguments of popularity were in fact valid structures by which to support claims. If you are religious you have to dispense all notions of popularity or belief founded on sheer number of adherents. This also means that forever and into your future you should never take into account if your friends and family are of a certain religion, for this is reasoning by an appeal to popularity fallacy.
There is an article called Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator proposed by a Muslim named Yusuf Mullan. He is proposing the existence of Allah, the Arabic name for god.
Here is a list of 10 ways or techniques you can try to help improve critical thinking.
In this lecture I describe what critical thinking is, what tools are needed for critical thinking, and what benefits you get from critical thinking. I also describe attributes and skills that help promote critical thinking.
I was asked/challenged this question “How is something created from nothing?“. To analyze this while thinking critically we have to dissect the syntax and structure of the question, define the subjects, and logically structure a conclusion. When I was asked this question there was no pre-text for the question. I do not know if this is in reference or context to a religion or a god. Nevertheless we can still analyze and dissect the question logically and critically.
We have two subjects in this question, ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. Something can be logically defined as anything that conforms to the Law of Identity. The Law of Identity states that a thing is what it is and it is not what it is not, a horse is a horse and it’s not not a horse. In this subject we are using ‘something’ and this pretty much opens wide anything that conforms to the Law of Identity. So we could restructure the question as “How is a Horse created from nothing? or “How is a rock created from nothing?”.
When we make a conclusion that is based on a subject’s origin and not on the actual content we make a genetic fallacy. Genetic fallacies are very common and we are all too ready to lend credibility to statements from sources that have similar beliefs and ideologies as us. (more…)
The video goes over the logical absolutes. The Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, and the Law of Excluded Middle. Here is a written article about logical absolutes
I had the opportunity to know the thoughts and ideas of many Egyptians before and during the uprising. My wife is an Egyptian and we have family and friends that are Egyptian in America and in Egypt. I watched and and analyzed her interactions on Facebook and noticed many peculiar reactions and behaviors from a small number of Egyptians in Egypt.
While most Egyptians continued to bravely support the protest and uprising, in the latter days of the uprising my wife got into several confrontations with Egyptians on Facebook. I noticed several logical fallacies they perpetrated against her, I also noticed cognitive bias being displayed by them, in part I believe from fear.