4 More Philosophical FAILS!

"when i was a kid i believed the frequency of my nightmares could be limited by going from the light switch to the bed as fast as possible" i feel seen.

Been a fan for about a year, but just found this one. Doubt that you'll ever see this, but I thought I'd shout out anyway.

In the US, the most common "appeal to authority" is "The Bahbul Says." I'm a Christian, by the way, and I know that this is not just stupid, but evil.
Yes, you are, or were years ago, a much kinder person than I am. I am not willing to cut the Fundies any slack, because they are Haters.
Yes, I think that Fundamentalists of any religion are ill-educated and unloving.
It really bothers me that they believe that you don't have a right to exist and live the life you need to live.
Keep up the great work, and may the God you don't believe in bless you always.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. E.g. I think the Adam Smith Institute is ignorant, naive, outdated, and, well, falsified.

Can someone [pleeeaaase explain the "quantom" problem? I dont get how it has to do anything to do with philosophy….

Call the whole ""quantum quantum quantum" thing the Chopra fallacy. His usual argument is "Quantum spiritualness, therefore solipsism is true, and you know it because I said 'quantum,' which is only used by super smart people."

I particularly like Randall Munroe's take on the argument of 'having a right to your opinion'. It's the ultimate concession: you are saying that the best argument for your position is that you are legally allowed to maintain it.

This video is the story of my life. But it's to be expected when you're an intellectual in a conservative Christian family and community.

You know, I once had to endure the comment "Philosophy is just asking questions without getting any answers".

In reference to #4 and someone can be wrong even with all the credentials in the world. When a professor and a student argue, it's not true that the professor is automatically right, the professor is human too, they make errors sometimes and sometimes they aren't logical. Ideas should be criticized as they stand, not criticized based on the people who have these ideas.

Um .. I don't fully understand the quantum one.

Would number 4 being getting at appeals to authority just because they are an authority is logically fallacious?

But if someone question your idea, or make any crititc, it doesn't mean that their critic is necessarily right. Or even if a specific critic is right, it doesnt mean that your whole ideia is wrong, maybe you will have to make some alterations, some improvements.

There are a lot of critics about democracy, and some are really good, but that doesn't mean that democracy is wrong and we should not use it as a form of govern.

I think 4 is acceptable in some cases. If my doctor says I have this and that than I will believe it because I assume he has studied a lot to become a doctor and he knows a lot more about the human body than I do. But strictly speaking I am using an argument from authority. 

 Likewise if anyone would say that Einstein's general theory of relativity is wrong and came up with an argument I personally don't understand than I would still assume Einstein and all scholars and professors that agree with his theory are right. Not because of any flaw in his argument i've detected(I don't even understand his argument), but because it seems exceedingly unlikely that some random guy without huge credentials really has what it takes to give an alternative(like Einstein did with Newton) and discard Einstein's theory.

 So eluding 4 is in a way a privelage to those who know enough about a certain subject. If im not really into a certain field I will tend to almost blindly believe anything the so called experts say.

It it weird that as soon as you said Heisenberg while talking about quantum I got it, and that also learnt what this, along with Schrodinger's cat, meant in relation to quantum reality because of a certain show called Big Bang Theory?

Quantum! Quantum, quantum! Penrose! Therefore: Consciousness !

What needs to be explained is the difference between a theistic "Truth" and a scientific "Truth" Both are searching for a right statement but go about it in 2 different ways.

Quantum bit is very true! 
However I do also think that your, and everyone in the comments', instant reaction to dismiss any argument that involved Quantum Mechanics is also not the best.
There are some debates, the ethics abortion for example, that would be very hard to have without any scientific input and is often had forgetting that when the debate is had both sides of the argument often use scientific terms in deciding when life begins for example. 
Just because Quantum Physics is newer and more difficult to stomach, for some, shouldn't mean it is left out completely.
I don't think that the Science should constitute a philosophical argument at all but I also feel that to instantly disregard it and not actually learn what it implies is equally closed minded. Knowing it and interpreting it might give some direction that can be followed up by philosophical inquiry
Thoughts?

off topic, I'm new to the channel, maybe you've already explained this. But I'm still curious.
It appears that you're literally talking out of one side of your mouth, and I wonder if that's a conscious choice, for a kind of metaphorical resonance, or if there's some kind of muscle thing going on?

You should do one on the 3rd horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Id love to hear your thoughts on it.