常见逻辑谬误(中英对照Fallacy)28251教学教材

Logical Fallacies逻辑谬误

Stereotypes about people (“pilot students are handsome," "grad students are nerdy," etc.) are common examples of hasty generalization.
Example
"My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"
Examples
President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.
The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.
for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later.
But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and effect. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

二十四种常见的逻辑谬误(完整版)

二十四种常见的逻辑谬误第一条：稻草人你歪曲了别人的观点,使你自己能够更加轻松的攻击别人.你夸张、歪曲,甚至凭空创造了别人的观点,来让你本身的观点显得更加合理.这是一种极端不诚实的行为,这不但影响了理性的讨论,也影响了你自己观点的可信度.因为如果你可以负面的歪曲别人的观点,你就有可能从正面歪曲自己的观点.例子：小明说国家应该投入更多的预算来发展教育行业,小红回复到："想不到你这么不爱国,居然想减少国防开支,让外国列强有机可乘." 小红就犯了稻草人谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二条：错误归因你从两个事物可能存在相关性,就得出一个事物是造成另一个事物的原因.你看到了两个事物同时存在,就觉得其中一个事物是另一个的起因.你的错误在于,同时存在的两个事物未必有因果关系,可能这两个事物有共同的起因,或者两个事物根本没有因果关系,它们直接的共存只是巧合.一个事情比另一个事情先发生同样不能说明两个事物肯定存在因果性.例子：小红指出,过去几个世纪全球海盗数量减少,全球温度在升高,从而得出是海盗的数量的减少造成了气候变化,海盗能够降低全球温度.小红犯了错误归因的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第三条：诉诸感情你试图通过操作别人的感情来取代一个有力的论述.你操作的感情可能包括恐惧、嫉妒、怜悯、骄傲等等.一个逻辑严谨的论述可能激起别人的情感波动,但是如果只用感情操作而不用逻辑论述,那你就犯了诉诸感情的错误.每个心智健康的人都会受感情影响,所以这种谬误很有效,但这也是为什么这种谬误是低级和不诚实的手段.例子：小红在饭店看到小明吃狗肉,于是上前训斥："你怎么可以吃狗肉,小狗多么可爱,就像小朋友一样,你忍心伤害小朋友吗？" 小红犯了诉诸感情的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第四条：谬误谬误你看到别人的论述水平很低,或者别人的论述里面有谬误,就认为别人的观点一定是错误的.很多时候,辩论的赢家获胜并不是因为观点正确,而是因为辩论技巧更好.作为一个理性的人,你不能因为别人的论述中存在谬误或者错误,就认为别人的观点一定是错误的.例子：一个提倡健康饮食的人在电视上发表了很荒唐的饮食理论来推广健康饮食理念,小红看后觉得健康饮食就是骗人的,于是开始每天暴饮暴食.小红犯了谬误谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第五条：滑坡谬误你搞得好像如果A发生了,那么Z也一定会发生会,以此来表示A不应该发生.你不讨论现下的事物<A>,而是把讨论重心转移到了意淫出来的极端事物<Z>.因为你没能给出任何证据来证明A的发生一定会造成极端事物Z的发生,所以这是一种诉诸恐惧的谬误,也影响了人们讨论A时候的客观性.例子：小红反对同性恋婚姻,因为她认为如果我们允许同性恋结婚,那么就会有人想要和桌子、椅子结婚.小红犯了滑坡谬论.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第六条：人身攻击你讨论时针对对方的人格、动机、态度、地位、阶级或处境等,而进行攻击或评论,并以此当作提出了理据去驳斥对方的论证或去支持自己的论点人身攻击时不一定是直接进行攻击,也可能是通过背后捅刀子、暗示听众等等方式来造成对对方人格的质疑.你试图用你对别人人格的攻击来取代一个有力的论述.更多关于人身攻击.例子：当小明提出了一个很合理的关于基础设施建设的提议的时候吗,小红说她不相信任何小明说的话,因为小明不爱国,经常批评政府,不懂得感恩.小红犯了人身攻击的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第七条：诉诸虚伪你不正面回应别人对你的批评,而是用批评别人作为你的回复——"你不也曾经....."你想要把通过用批评回应批评的方式,免去你为自己辩护的责任.你通过这种方法来暗示对方是个虚伪的人,但是不管别人虚伪与否,你都只是在回避别人对你的批评.例子：小明在和小红争论的时候指出小红犯了一个逻辑谬误,小红不正面捍卫自己,反而回应："你之前也犯了逻辑谬误." 小红在这里犯了诉诸虚伪的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第八条：个人怀疑你因为自己不明白或者知识水平不够,就得出一个事物可能是假的.一些很复杂的概念,比如生物进化等等需要一些基本的理解和知识.有些人因为不理解这些复杂的概念,而觉得这些东西是错误的.例子：小红指着块石头说："你说进化论是真的,那你让这块石头进化人给我看看."小红犯了个人怀疑的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第九条：片面谬误当你的观点被证明是错误的时候,你用特例来给自己开脱.人类都不喜欢被证明是错的,所以当他们被证明是错的时候总会想办法给自己开脱.人总是觉得自己以前觉得正确的东西必须是正确的,所以总能找到理由让自己阿Q一下.只有诚实和勇敢的人才能面对自己的错误和过去,并且承认自己犯错了.例子：小张说自己有特异功能,能用塔罗牌算出未出生小孩的性别,但是孩子生下来后发现猜错了,于是他就说是算命的人缺乏信仰,或者心灵不诚.小张犯了片面谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十条：诱导性谬误你在提出问题的时候加入了诱导的成分,使得对方只能按着你的意思来回答.常见的逼供或诱供就是.你试图用诱导性的问题来逼对方回答你提出的低级问题,从而破坏理性的讨论,打乱对方的逻辑.例子：小张怀疑自己的妻子搞外遇,为了一探究竟,于是就问她："谁谁的屁股上是不是有个胎记？"小张使用的就是诱导性问题.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------第十一条：举证责任你认为举证责任不在提出观点的人,而在于质疑观点的人.当有人提出一个观点结果被人质疑后,你认为举证的责任不在提出观点的人,而在质疑者.不能证伪一个事物,或者举出反例,并不能证明这个事物的合理性,这都是举证责任.当然,如果只因为没有足够的证据说明一个事物是合理的,也并不能肯定的说明它是不合理的.例子：小张说他相信宇宙是一个全知全能的神创造的,因为没有人能证明这个神不存在,所以神是存在的.小张就犯了举证责任的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十二第：语义模糊你用双关语或者意思存有歧义的语言来歪曲事实.当你被别人批评的时候又利用这些有歧义的语言作为自己的挡箭牌,为自己的利益辩护.例子：地上一个猴,树上骑个猴,一共几个猴？------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十三条：赌徒谬误你认为随机事物的发生和之前发生的事情是有相关性的.有人在看到独立的随机事件〔比如抛硬币〕时,总觉得会和前面的事情有相关性〔前面连着五个正面,下一个肯定要是反面了.〕------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十四条：乐队花车你试图说明因为很多人都在做同一件事情/相信同一件事物,这件事情就是对的.一个事物/观点的流行程度和它本身是否合理没有关系.地球是球形的,在人们相信地球是平的时代地球也是球形的,地球才不管你信不信它呢.例子：看到《货币战争》怎么那么畅销,小红相信一定是罗斯柴尔德和共济会在背后操纵着整个世界.小红犯了乐队花车谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十五条：诉诸权威你利用一个权威人物/机构的观点来取代一个有力的论述.要证明一个观点,只是摘录别人的观点是不够的, 至少要知道所提到的权威为什么有那样的观点.因为权威人物/机构也是会犯错误的,所以不能无条件的假设合理性.当然,权威人物/机构的观点有可能是对的,所以不能只因为对方使用了诉诸权威的谬误就认定这个观点肯定是错的.例子：小红不知道怎么反驳进化论,于是就说："我老公孙越是大科学家,他觉得进化论是错的."小红犯了诉诸权威的额谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十六条：合成谬误你认为一个总体的组成部分所具有的特性,对于这个总体的其它部分也是普适的.很多时候,对于一个组成部分存在合理性的事物,对于其它组成部分并不具有合理性.我们常能观察到事物之间的一致性,所以当一致性不存在的时候也会偏见的认为有一致性.例子：小红买了辆自行车,当她看到自行车的车座是人造革的时候,她就觉得自行车的其它部位也是人造革的.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------第十七条：没有真正的苏格兰人你提出了一个观点,并收到了别人的批评,你试图用"诉诸纯洁"的方式来捍卫自己的观点.你试图通过马后炮和修改标准的方式来维护自己那有缺陷的观点.例子：小红："所有荷兰人都喜欢喝胡辣汤".小明："孙越就是荷兰人,他就不喜欢喝胡辣汤."小红："好吧,所有[真正的]荷兰人都喜欢喝胡辣汤."<——小红这里就犯了"没有真正的苏格兰人"的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十八条：基因谬误你通过一个事物的出身来判断它的好坏.你试图逃避正面的讨论,而转而讨论事物的出处.这种做法和本文第六条"人身攻击"类似,都是想试图通过已有的负面印象来从侧面攻击对方,却不能正面的回应对方的论述.例子：小明："孙越不喜欢喝胡辣汤."小红："孙越是荷兰人,怎么会不喜欢喝胡辣汤？"<——小红这里就犯了基因谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十九条：非黑即白你把黑和白作为仅有的可能,却忽略了其它可能性的存在.你使用了简单粗暴的假二分法,来掩盖其它可能性的存在.你想通过非黑即白的选择来误导讨论,破坏辩论的建设性.例子：在谈到反恐战争时,总统说如果你不支持反恐战争,你就是支持恐怖分子.总统这里犯了非黑即白的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十条：窃取论点你采用循环论证的方法来证明一个被包含在前提里面的观点.这是一种逻辑智商破产的谬误,因为你把你的前提假设默认为真的,然后利用循环论证的方式来证明它.例子：KengDie教的经文《KengDie Sutra》里面说的东西都是真理,因为在《KengDie Sutra》第一章第二段里面提到了"KengDie所述都是真理."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十一条：诉诸自然你认为一个事物是"自然"的,所以它是合理、必然并且更好的.一个事物是自然的并不一定代表它就更好.互相杀戮是大自然中普遍存在的现象,但是大多数人都认为我们不应该互相屠杀.例子：小红认为吃草药肯定比吃人工制造的药有效,因为草药更加"自然".小红犯了诉诸自然的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十二条：轶事证据你试图用个人经验或者单独事例来取代逻辑论述或者有力的证据.比起复杂而确凿的证据来说,轶事证据更容易获得,但是却要粗浅很多.在绝大多数情况下,量化衡量的科学数据/确凿证据比个人经验/轶事要更加可信.例子：小红爷爷是个30年的老烟枪,现在80多岁身体还很健康,小红依次得出吸烟对身体无害的结论.小红犯了轶事证据的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十三条：德克萨斯神枪手你在大量的数据/证据中小心的挑选出对自己的观点有利的证据,而不使用那些对自己不利的数据/证据.你先开了一枪,然后在子弹击中的地方画上靶心,搞得自己真是个神枪手一样.你先决定了自己的立场,然后才开始找证据,并且你只找对自己有利的,而对于那些对自己不利的就选择性忽略.例子：红X字会为了证明自己尽到了职责,到处宣传自己拨出了####的善款,却只字不提自己公款消费的奢侈无度.红X字会犯了"德克萨斯神枪手"谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十四条：中间立场你觉得两个极端观点的妥协,或者说中间立场,肯定是对的.虽然大多数时候,真理确实存在于两种极端的中间地带,但是你不能轻易的认为只要是处于中间立场的观点就一定是正确的.谎言和实话的中间地带依然是谎言.例子：小红认为疫苗会造成儿童自闭症,孙越从科学研究的结论中得出结论认为疫苗不会造成儿童自闭症,小明认为两者观点的妥协——疫苗会造成儿童自闭症,但不是全部的儿童自闭症——才是正确的.小明犯了中间立场的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------。

二十四种常见的逻辑谬误(完整版)

二十四种常见的逻辑谬误第一条：稻草人你歪曲了别人的观点,使你自己能够更加轻松的攻击别人.你夸张、歪曲,甚至凭空创造了别人的观点,来让你本身的观点显得更加合理.这是一种极端不诚实的行为,这不但影响了理性的讨论,也影响了你自己观点的可信度.因为如果你可以负面的歪曲别人的观点,你就有可能从正面歪曲自己的观点.例子：小明说国家应该投入更多的预算来发展教育行业,小红回复到："想不到你这么不爱国,居然想减少国防开支,让外国列强有机可乘." 小红就犯了稻草人谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二条：错误归因你从两个事物可能存在相关性,就得出一个事物是造成另一个事物的原因.你看到了两个事物同时存在,就觉得其中一个事物是另一个的起因.你的错误在于,同时存在的两个事物未必有因果关系,可能这两个事物有共同的起因,或者两个事物根本没有因果关系,它们直接的共存只是巧合.一个事情比另一个事情先发生同样不能说明两个事物肯定存在因果性.例子：小红指出,过去几个世纪全球海盗数量减少,全球温度在升高,从而得出是海盗的数量的减少造成了气候变化,海盗能够降低全球温度.小红犯了错误归因的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第三条：诉诸感情你试图通过操作别人的感情来取代一个有力的论述.你操作的感情可能包括恐惧、嫉妒、怜悯、骄傲等等.一个逻辑严谨的论述可能激起别人的情感波动,但是如果只用感情操作而不用逻辑论述,那你就犯了诉诸感情的错误.每个心智健康的人都会受感情影响,所以这种谬误很有效,但这也是为什么这种谬误是低级和不诚实的手段.例子：小红在饭店看到小明吃狗肉,于是上前训斥："你怎么可以吃狗肉,小狗多么可爱,就像小朋友一样,你忍心伤害小朋友吗？" 小红犯了诉诸感情的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第四条：谬误谬误你看到别人的论述水平很低,或者别人的论述里面有谬误,就认为别人的观点一定是错误的.很多时候,辩论的赢家获胜并不是因为观点正确,而是因为辩论技巧更好.作为一个理性的人,你不能因为别人的论述中存在谬误或者错误,就认为别人的观点一定是错误的.例子：一个提倡健康饮食的人在电视上发表了很荒唐的饮食理论来推广健康饮食理念,小红看后觉得健康饮食就是骗人的,于是开始每天暴饮暴食.小红犯了谬误谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第五条：滑坡谬误你搞得好像如果A发生了,那么Z也一定会发生会,以此来表示A不应该发生.你不讨论现下的事物<A>,而是把讨论重心转移到了意淫出来的极端事物<Z>.因为你没能给出任何证据来证明A的发生一定会造成极端事物Z的发生,所以这是一种诉诸恐惧的谬误,也影响了人们讨论A时候的客观性.例子：小红反对同性恋婚姻,因为她认为如果我们允许同性恋结婚,那么就会有人想要和桌子、椅子结婚.小红犯了滑坡谬论.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第六条：人身攻击你讨论时针对对方的人格、动机、态度、地位、阶级或处境等,而进行攻击或评论,并以此当作提出了理据去驳斥对方的论证或去支持自己的论点人身攻击时不一定是直接进行攻击,也可能是通过背后捅刀子、暗示听众等等方式来造成对对方人格的质疑.你试图用你对别人人格的攻击来取代一个有力的论述.更多关于人身攻击.例子：当小明提出了一个很合理的关于基础设施建设的提议的时候吗,小红说她不相信任何小明说的话,因为小明不爱国,经常批评政府,不懂得感恩.小红犯了人身攻击的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第七条：诉诸虚伪你不正面回应别人对你的批评,而是用批评别人作为你的回复——"你不也曾经....."你想要把通过用批评回应批评的方式,免去你为自己辩护的责任.你通过这种方法来暗示对方是个虚伪的人,但是不管别人虚伪与否,你都只是在回避别人对你的批评.例子：小明在和小红争论的时候指出小红犯了一个逻辑谬误,小红不正面捍卫自己,反而回应："你之前也犯了逻辑谬误." 小红在这里犯了诉诸虚伪的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第八条：个人怀疑你因为自己不明白或者知识水平不够,就得出一个事物可能是假的.一些很复杂的概念,比如生物进化等等需要一些基本的理解和知识.有些人因为不理解这些复杂的概念,而觉得这些东西是错误的.例子：小红指着块石头说："你说进化论是真的,那你让这块石头进化人给我看看."小红犯了个人怀疑的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第九条：片面谬误当你的观点被证明是错误的时候,你用特例来给自己开脱.人类都不喜欢被证明是错的,所以当他们被证明是错的时候总会想办法给自己开脱.人总是觉得自己以前觉得正确的东西必须是正确的,所以总能找到理由让自己阿Q一下.只有诚实和勇敢的人才能面对自己的错误和过去,并且承认自己犯错了.例子：小张说自己有特异功能,能用塔罗牌算出未出生小孩的性别,但是孩子生下来后发现猜错了,于是他就说是算命的人缺乏信仰,或者心灵不诚.小张犯了片面谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十条：诱导性谬误你在提出问题的时候加入了诱导的成分,使得对方只能按着你的意思来回答.常见的逼供或诱供就是.你试图用诱导性的问题来逼对方回答你提出的低级问题,从而破坏理性的讨论,打乱对方的逻辑.例子：小张怀疑自己的妻子搞外遇,为了一探究竟,于是就问她："谁谁的屁股上是不是有个胎记？"小张使用的就是诱导性问题.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------第十一条：举证责任你认为举证责任不在提出观点的人,而在于质疑观点的人.当有人提出一个观点结果被人质疑后,你认为举证的责任不在提出观点的人,而在质疑者.不能证伪一个事物,或者举出反例,并不能证明这个事物的合理性,这都是举证责任.当然,如果只因为没有足够的证据说明一个事物是合理的,也并不能肯定的说明它是不合理的.例子：小张说他相信宇宙是一个全知全能的神创造的,因为没有人能证明这个神不存在,所以神是存在的.小张就犯了举证责任的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十二第：语义模糊你用双关语或者意思存有歧义的语言来歪曲事实.当你被别人批评的时候又利用这些有歧义的语言作为自己的挡箭牌,为自己的利益辩护.例子：地上一个猴,树上骑个猴,一共几个猴？------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十三条：赌徒谬误你认为随机事物的发生和之前发生的事情是有相关性的.有人在看到独立的随机事件〔比如抛硬币〕时,总觉得会和前面的事情有相关性〔前面连着五个正面,下一个肯定要是反面了.〕------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十四条：乐队花车你试图说明因为很多人都在做同一件事情/相信同一件事物,这件事情就是对的.一个事物/观点的流行程度和它本身是否合理没有关系.地球是球形的,在人们相信地球是平的时代地球也是球形的,地球才不管你信不信它呢.例子：看到《货币战争》怎么那么畅销,小红相信一定是罗斯柴尔德和共济会在背后操纵着整个世界.小红犯了乐队花车谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十五条：诉诸权威你利用一个权威人物/机构的观点来取代一个有力的论述.要证明一个观点,只是摘录别人的观点是不够的, 至少要知道所提到的权威为什么有那样的观点.因为权威人物/机构也是会犯错误的,所以不能无条件的假设合理性.当然,权威人物/机构的观点有可能是对的,所以不能只因为对方使用了诉诸权威的谬误就认定这个观点肯定是错的.例子：小红不知道怎么反驳进化论,于是就说："我老公孙越是大科学家,他觉得进化论是错的."小红犯了诉诸权威的额谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十六条：合成谬误你认为一个总体的组成部分所具有的特性,对于这个总体的其它部分也是普适的.很多时候,对于一个组成部分存在合理性的事物,对于其它组成部分并不具有合理性.我们常能观察到事物之间的一致性,所以当一致性不存在的时候也会偏见的认为有一致性.例子：小红买了辆自行车,当她看到自行车的车座是人造革的时候,她就觉得自行车的其它部位也是人造革的.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------第十七条：没有真正的苏格兰人你提出了一个观点,并收到了别人的批评,你试图用"诉诸纯洁"的方式来捍卫自己的观点.你试图通过马后炮和修改标准的方式来维护自己那有缺陷的观点.例子：小红："所有荷兰人都喜欢喝胡辣汤".小明："孙越就是荷兰人,他就不喜欢喝胡辣汤."小红："好吧,所有[真正的]荷兰人都喜欢喝胡辣汤."<——小红这里就犯了"没有真正的苏格兰人"的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十八条：基因谬误你通过一个事物的出身来判断它的好坏.你试图逃避正面的讨论,而转而讨论事物的出处.这种做法和本文第六条"人身攻击"类似,都是想试图通过已有的负面印象来从侧面攻击对方,却不能正面的回应对方的论述.例子：小明："孙越不喜欢喝胡辣汤."小红："孙越是荷兰人,怎么会不喜欢喝胡辣汤？"<——小红这里就犯了基因谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第十九条：非黑即白你把黑和白作为仅有的可能,却忽略了其它可能性的存在.你使用了简单粗暴的假二分法,来掩盖其它可能性的存在.你想通过非黑即白的选择来误导讨论,破坏辩论的建设性.例子：在谈到反恐战争时,总统说如果你不支持反恐战争,你就是支持恐怖分子.总统这里犯了非黑即白的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十条：窃取论点你采用循环论证的方法来证明一个被包含在前提里面的观点.这是一种逻辑智商破产的谬误,因为你把你的前提假设默认为真的,然后利用循环论证的方式来证明它.例子：KengDie教的经文《KengDie Sutra》里面说的东西都是真理,因为在《KengDie Sutra》第一章第二段里面提到了"KengDie所述都是真理."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十一条：诉诸自然你认为一个事物是"自然"的,所以它是合理、必然并且更好的.一个事物是自然的并不一定代表它就更好.互相杀戮是大自然中普遍存在的现象,但是大多数人都认为我们不应该互相屠杀.例子：小红认为吃草药肯定比吃人工制造的药有效,因为草药更加"自然".小红犯了诉诸自然的谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十二条：轶事证据你试图用个人经验或者单独事例来取代逻辑论述或者有力的证据.比起复杂而确凿的证据来说,轶事证据更容易获得,但是却要粗浅很多.在绝大多数情况下,量化衡量的科学数据/确凿证据比个人经验/轶事要更加可信.例子：小红爷爷是个30年的老烟枪,现在80多岁身体还很健康,小红依次得出吸烟对身体无害的结论.小红犯了轶事证据的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十三条：德克萨斯神枪手你在大量的数据/证据中小心的挑选出对自己的观点有利的证据,而不使用那些对自己不利的数据/证据.你先开了一枪,然后在子弹击中的地方画上靶心,搞得自己真是个神枪手一样.你先决定了自己的立场,然后才开始找证据,并且你只找对自己有利的,而对于那些对自己不利的就选择性忽略.例子：红X字会为了证明自己尽到了职责,到处宣传自己拨出了####的善款,却只字不提自己公款消费的奢侈无度.红X字会犯了"德克萨斯神枪手"谬误------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 第二十四条：中间立场你觉得两个极端观点的妥协,或者说中间立场,肯定是对的.虽然大多数时候,真理确实存在于两种极端的中间地带,但是你不能轻易的认为只要是处于中间立场的观点就一定是正确的.谎言和实话的中间地带依然是谎言.例子：小红认为疫苗会造成儿童自闭症,孙越从科学研究的结论中得出结论认为疫苗不会造成儿童自闭症,小明认为两者观点的妥协——疫苗会造成儿童自闭症,但不是全部的儿童自闭症——才是正确的.小明犯了中间立场的谬误.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------。

十种谬误中英对照

十种谬误中英对照了解基本逻辑，避免常见错误?要了解基本逻辑错误一定不能错过一篇英文小品文LoveIsAFallacy(作者MaxShulman)，这里仅列举出十种最常见的逻辑错误。

?1.草率前提(DictoSimpliciter)?例如：Womenareonave ragenotasstrongasmenandlessabletoperformwellpolitically.Therefore,womencan''tpulltheirweightingovernmentwork.?点评：虽然女性确实在政界担任较少工作，但这不意味着女性群体中所有的人都是这样。

?2.过度概化(HastyGeneralization)?例如：McDonald''sandKFCofferfoodswithlittlenutrition, andthuswecannotexpectanyfastfoodrestauranttoprovideuswithnutritiousfoods.?点评：两个个例不足以推出一个真理。

?3.因果颠倒(PostHoc)?例如：Mostyoungcriminalswatchviolentmoviesbeforetheycommittheircrimes;obviously,violentmoviesleadtojuveniledelinquency.点评：甲事情发生在乙事情之前，这并不代表着先发生的甲事情就是后发生的乙事情的原因。

4.矛盾前提(ContradictoryPremises)?例如：IfGodcandoeverything,canhemakeastonesoheavythathecan''tcarry??点评：前提条件中就有相互矛盾的地方，结论当然是错误的。

?5.感性论证(AdMisericordiam)?例如：Thinkofallthepoor,starvingAfricanchildren!Howcouldrichcountriesbesocruelasnottohelpthem??点评：抒情是不能当作论证的。

【8A版】常见逻辑谬误(中英对照Fallacy)

分散注意力的谬误（FallaciesofDistraction）两难推理（FalseDilemma）错谬：为多于一个答案的问题提供不足（通常两个）的选择，即是隐藏了一些选择，最典型的表现是非黑即白观点。

例子：萨达姆是邪恶的，所以美军是正义之师。

解释：除正邪之争外，还有邪邪之争及许多难分正邪的纷争，所以不能单以萨达姆邪恶便认定美军正义。

诉诸无知（FromIgnorance）错谬：因为不能否定，所以必然肯定，反之亦然。

例子：没有人能证明鬼不存在，那么鬼肯定存在。

解释：总有些事是既不能否定，亦不能肯定的。

除了肯定和否定，我们还可以存疑吧！滑坡谬误（SlipperySlope）错谬：不合理使用连串因果关系。

例子：迟到的学生要判死刑。

因为迟到是不用功的表现；将来工作也不勤力；不勤力导致公司损失；公司损失就会倒闭；公司倒闭会使人失业；失业造成家庭问题；家庭问题导致自杀率上升，为了防止自杀率上升，我们应判迟到的学生死刑。

解释：滑坡谬误中假定了连串“可能性”为“必然性”。

比方说，迟到是否“必然”是不用功的表现？将来工作又是否“必然”不勤力？答案可想而知。

例子虽然夸张，但其实许多时候大家亦会犯相同错误而不自知。

复合问题（CompleGQuestion）错谬：一条问题内包含两个无关的重点。

例子：你还有没有干那非法勾当？（你有干非法勾当吗？是否还有继续？）解释：简单的一句提问，其实隐藏了两个问题。

你给予其中一条问题的答案，并不一定和另外一条的一样。

例如你有干非法勾当，但未必等于你还有继续。

诉诸其他支持（AppealstoMotivesinPlaceofSupport）诉诸势力（AppealtoForce）错谬：以势力服人。

例子：若你不想被解雇，你必须认同公司的制度。

解释：这是以工作机会强迫员工认同制度，员工不是依据制度好坏来决定认同与否。

诉诸怜悯（AppealtoPity）错谬：以别人的同情心服人。

例子：希望你接受我这个多月来天天通宵撰写的建议书。

英语写作中常见的逻辑谬误

English Logical FallaciesMost academic writing tasks require us to make an argument ---- that is, to present reasons for a particular claim or interpretation we are putting forward. We have been told that we need to make our arguments more logical or stronger. And we may have worried that we simply are not a logical person or wondered what it means for an argument to be strong. Learning to make the best arguments we can is an persistent process, but it does be possible: "Being logical" is something anyone can do, with practice! Each argument we make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express our reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support our conclusion (the main claim or interpretation we are offering). We can make our arguments stronger by 1, using good premises (ones we have good reason to believe are both true and related to the issue);2, making sure our premises provide good support for our conclusion; 3, checking that we have addressed the most important or related aspects of the issue (that is our premises and conclusion focus on what is really important to the issue we are arguing about);4, not making claims so strong or sweeping that we can not really support them.It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when we have strong feelings about our topic ---- if a conclusion seems obvious to us, we are more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with our evidence. Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in our own and others' writing,we can strengthen our ability to evaluate the arguments we make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. We can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, rather weak, very strong, or rather strong. An argument which has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. So what do fallacies look like?Dicto SimpliciterDefinition: When a premise is generally committed, the exception is ignored.Example: Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to perform well politically. Therefore, women can not pull their weight in government work.Comment: Although it is true that there are less women work in politics,but it does not mean that all women are incompetent in government work. Hasty GeneralizationDefinition: The premise is obviously not adequate, the user just jumps to the conclusion.Example: McDonald's and KFC offer foods with little nutrition, and thus we cannot expect any fast food restaurant to provide us with nutritious foods.Comment: Two cases are not enough to launch a general truth.Post HocDefinition: There is no connection between the cause and the fact. Example: Most young criminals watch violent movies before they commit their crimes; obviously, violent movies lead to juvenile delinquency.Comment: A event happens before B event, while it does not mean that B event takes place because of the occurrence of A event.Contradictory PremisesDefinition: The premise and the conclusion contradict each other, so there can be no conclusion.Example: A society is free and only if liberty is maximized or people are required to take responsibility for their actions.Comment: The premise of this argument contradict each other, which result in the false conclusion.Ad MisericordiamDefinition: When a question is posted, the answer is totally dependent of another topic.Example: Think of all the poor, starving African children! How could rich countries be so cruel as not to help them?Comment: Lyrical expression cannot support a precise argument.False AnalogyDefinition: The premises committed universally are falsely used in the conclusion, or the conclusion and the premises happen not in the same situation.Example: Young children are like flowers ---- flowers should stay away from terrible weather to grow, so children need to get rid of everything negative.Comment: Strictly speaking, the difference between children and flowers is a little bit too various, and the process of growth is too complicated. It is better to avoid being used in such case.Hypothesis Contrary to FactDefinition: It is falsely believed that there is only one possibility to the state of affairs.Examples: If TV were not invented, today people would never have such wonderful entertainment brought by TV.Comment: We cannot draw conclusions based on the negation of someestablished facts.Poisoning the WellDefinition: The teller attempts to place the listener in a position from which he or she is unable to reply.Example: You say I should not drink, but you have not been sober for more than one year.Comment: The teller says the listener is not sober, which limit the correctness of the whole content no matter what the listener would state next.So how do we find fallacies in our own writing?Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in our own arguments: Pretend we disagree with the conclusion we are defending. What parts of the argument would now seem fishy to us? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to strengthening those parts.List our main points; under each one, list the evidence we have for it. Seeing our claims and evidence laid out this way may make us realize that we have no good evidence for a particular claim, or it may help us look more critically at the evidence we are using.Learn which types of fallacies we are especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in our work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely on false analogies or set up hypothesis contrary to fact. Read over some of our old papers to see if there is aparticular kind of fallacy we need to watch out for.Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping words like "all," "no," "none," "every," "always," "never," "no one," and "everyone" are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words like "some," "many," "few," "sometimes," "usually," and so on.All in all, knowledge about logical fallacies helps us construct better arguments and refute the arguments of our opponents. As we practice in debate, we will actually be able to improve our reasoning and be a better thinker.。

高英-logic-fallacy-八大逻辑谬误

滑坡谬误
总结词
指论证中假设一个初步行动会导致一系列不太可能的后续事件，最终导致极端的负面结果。
详细描述
滑坡谬误是一种常见的逻辑谬误，表现为在论证中假设一个初步行动会导致一系列不太可能的后续事件，最终导致极端的负面结果。这种谬误的错误在于假设初步行动必然导致负面结果，而没有提供足够的证据来支持这一连串的事件必然发生。滑坡谬误常常出现在政策辩论和商业决策中，由于缺乏足够的证据支持，因此这种推理方式并不具有说服力。
间的感受和安排。
假因谬误的案例分析
总结词
假因谬误是指将一个事件视为另一个事件发生的原因，尽管实际上两者并无因果关系。
详细描述
例如，有人认为“自从我开始戴这个护身符，我就没有感冒过”，认为护身符是防止感冒的原因。但实际上，很可能只是巧合，护身符与不感冒并无因果关系。
倒置因果的案例分析
总结词
倒置因果是指将事件发生的顺序颠倒，错误地认为前一事件是后一事件的原因。
高英-logicfallacy-八大逻辑谬误
contents
目录
• 八大逻辑谬误概述 • 形式逻辑谬误 • 非形式逻辑谬误 • 应用与实践 • 案例分析
01
CATALOGUE
八大逻辑谬误概述
定义与特点
定义
逻辑谬误是指论证中存在的逻辑缺陷或错误，导致论点或结论不可靠。
特点
逻辑谬误通常表现为推理过程中的不合逻辑或不严谨，可能源于错误的推理规则或概念使用不当。
要点二
详细描述
以人废言是指因为一个人的身份或观点而否定其言论的价值或真实性。例如，有人可能会因为某位专家的政治立场而否定其关于气候变化的观点，或者因为某位作家的性别而否定其关于性别平等的观点。这种谬误忽略了言论本身的逻辑和证据价值，而仅仅因为持有某种立场或观点的人的身份而对其言论进行否定。

logicalfallacy逻辑错误[终稿]

logical fallacy 逻辑错误[终稿](一)了解基本逻辑，避免常见错误要了解基本逻辑错误一定不能错过一篇英文小品文Love Is A Fallacy(作者MaxShulman)，这里仅列举出十种最常见的逻辑错误。

1.草率前提 (Dicto Simpliciter)例如:Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to perform well politically. Therefore, women can't pull their weight in government work.点评:虽然女性确实在政界担任较少工作，但这不意味着女性群体中所有的人都是这样。

2.过度概化 (Hasty Generalization)例如:McDonald's and KFC offer foods with little nutrition, and thus we cannot expect any fast food restaurant to provide us with nutritious foods.点评:两个个例不足以推出一个真理。

3.因果颠倒 (Post Hoc)例如:Most young criminals watch violent movies before they commit their crimes; obviously, violent movies lead to juvenile delinquency.点评:甲事情发生在乙事情之前，这并不代表着先发生的甲事情就是后发生的乙事情的原因。

4.矛盾前提 (Contradictory Premises)例如:If God can do everything, can he make a stone so heavy that he can't carry?点评:前提条件中就有相互矛盾的地方，结论当然是错误的。

八大逻辑谬误举例英文

八大逻辑谬误举例英文逻辑谬误是在推理或论证中出现的错误推断，导致结论不可靠或不合理。

以下是八大逻辑谬误的一些例子，用英文举例：1.Ad Hominem Fallacy（人身攻击谬误）:-Example:"Don't believe Jane's argument about the economy;she's always making mistakes in her personal life."2.Appeal to Authority Fallacy（权威引证谬误）:-Example:"This new medicine must be effective because Dr.Smith,a famous doctor,recommends it."3.Circular Reasoning Fallacy（循环论证谬误）:-Example:"I believe the Bible is true because it says that God wrote it,and I believe in God because the Bible says so."4.False Cause Fallacy（虚假因果谬误）:-Example:"Every time the rooster crows,the sun rises.Therefore,the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise."5.Hasty Generalization Fallacy（草率概括谬误）:-Example:"I met two people from New York,and they were both rude.All New Yorkers must be rude."6.Red Herring Fallacy（引入误导谬误）:-Example:"We shouldn't worry about climate change;there are more urgent issues like unemployment to address."7.Straw Man Fallacy（打倒草人谬误）:-Example:"Opponents of the tax reform argue that we need to cut spending. But that would mean cutting essential services and harming the poor."8.False Dilemma Fallacy（虚假二分法谬误）:-Example:"Either you support every aspect of the government's policy,oryou're against your country."这些例子帮助说明了逻辑谬误是如何在不同的情境中发生的，以及它们为什么会导致不可靠的推理。

十种谬误中英对照

十种谬误中英对照了解基本逻辑，避免常见错误?要了解基本逻辑错误一定不能错过一篇英文小品文LoveIsAFallacy(作者MaxShulman)，这里仅列举出十种最常见的逻辑错误。

?1.草率前提(DictoSimpliciter)?例如：Womenareonaveragenotasstrongasmenandlessabletoperformwellpolitically.Therefore,womencan''tpulltheirweightingovernmentwork.?点评：虽然女性确实在政界担任较少工作，但这不意味着女性群体中所有的人都是这样。

?2.过度概化(HastyGeneralization)?例如：McDonald''sandKFCofferfoodswithlittlenutrition,andthuswecannotexpectanyfastfoodrestauranttoprovideuswithnutritiousfoods.?点评：两个个例不足以推出一个真理。

?3.因果颠倒(PostHoc)?例如：Mostyoungcriminalswatchviolentmoviesbeforetheycommitt heircrimes;obviously,violentmoviesleadtojuveniledelinquency.点评：甲事情发生在乙事情之前，这并不代表着先发生的甲事情就是后发生的乙事情的原因。

?4.矛盾前提(ContradictoryPremises)?例如：IfGodcandoeverything,canhemakeastonesoheavythathecan''tcarry??点评：前提条件中就有相互矛盾的地方，结论当然是错误的。

?5.感性论证(AdMisericordiam)?例如：Thinkofallthepoor,starvingAfricanchildren!Howcouldrichcountriesbesocruelasnottohelpthem??点评：抒情是不能当作论证的。

Fallacies谬误分析2019版教学PPT

• A debater construes an argument to be other than what it is then attacks this misconstrued version of the argument rather than the real version.
• Example: Someone opposing the death penalty argues that the death penalty risks executing an innocent person. The straw person response might be: “you’re suggesting we open the doors of our prisons and let everyone out to avoid wrongfully convicting anyone.”
China Debate Education Network The Quality of Arguments: Fallacies
论点的品质：谬误
7/3/2020
Criteria for Logical Assessment of Arguments
评价论点逻辑性的基本标准 • Standard of Acceptability可接受性标准
• Is the evidence acceptable to the audience? • Three criteria for acceptability
– Is the evidence common knowledge? – Is the evidence supported elsewhere? In an
• Examples

Fallacies谬误分析2019版教学PPT

• 前提谬误：论点不满足可接受性要求 • Irrelevant reason: an argument fails to minimally satisfy the
criteria of relevance. • 推理谬误：论点不满足对关联性的最低要求。 • Hasty conclusions: all evidence and links taken together fail to
• Is the relationship between evidence and claim strong enough to convince a reasonable audience?
• Does the link fully transfer the acceptability of the evidlink have any relationship the evidence and the claim. In other words, does the link, to any degree, assist the arguer in transferring the acceptability of the evidence to the claim?
• This is a minimal standard of the quality of the link between evidence and claim.
Standard of Sufficiency
• Sometimes evidence is relevant to the claim but still not sufficient.
• Sufficiency varies from situation to situation.

常见逻辑谬误（Commonfallacy）

常见逻辑谬误（Common fallacy）Common fallacyOrder tyrantIn the current China network, all kinds of controversy never dissipate too wolf. However, a large part of the debate was nonsense, tangled up, speak the same situation, let a person feel very helpless. One of the main reasons for the lack of information and knowledge in the debate is that one of the main reasons is the confusion of logical thinking, which leads to the emergence of various logical fallacies and sophistry. In the article, the author wanted to take stock of various common logical fallacies.Logic fallacy is divided into formal logic, false logic and non formal logic fallacy.Formal logic fallacy refers to the logical fallacy resulting from reasoning, deduction and argument without formal logic reasoning rules:Negative antecedent fallacy: "if A is then B; non A; so non B"."Example: if it is a bird, then it will die; people are not birds; therefore, people will not die."This is the misuse of categorical syllogism. The correct form of categorical syllogism should be: "if A is then B; A; so B?"."Sure post fallacy: "if A is then B; B; so A?";"Example: if it is fried dough sticks, then it is delicious; bread is delicious; therefore, bread is a fried bread stick."This is also the misuse of categorical syllogism.False dilemma reasoning: "A" or "B" or "C"; non A; so B."This is a misuse of disjunctive syllogism. Disjunctive syllogism is of the form: "A or B; A; B." The concatenation is in this form: "P1" or "P2" or "P3"...... Or Pn; non P2 and non P3...... And not Pn; so P1." In Holmes's words, "when all the other possibilities are eliminated and there is one left, it is the truth, no matter how unlikely it may seem."."The fallacy is called "false dilemma reasoning" because it is often expressed in such a form: "support China or support the United States; you do not support China; so you support the United States."." The formulation of sophist deliberately "neutral" option to hide, cause the illusion of disjunctive syllogism. It is worth noting that some people tend to classify false dilemma into informal logic fallacy.There are many forms of logic fallacy, most of which have not yet been formally named, and are not expressed here. The following focuses on informal logic fallacy:Appeal to ignorance: to judge that a thing is right, simply because it has not been proved wrong; or to judge that a thing is wrong, because it is not proved to be right.The logic of many conspiracy theorists, for example, is this: you can't disprove my theory, so my theory is right.For example, some "Chinese medicine powder" logic: science can not falsify the theory of traditional Chinese medicine, so the theory of Chinese medicine is correct. It looks like a beehiveOf course, "Chinese medicine powder" will attack people who do not accept Chinese medicine. They are resorting to ignorance: "at present, the theory of traditional Chinese medicine can not be scientifically proved, but it does not mean that Chinese medicine is wrong."." In fact, this is not to resort to ignorance, because people in this life threatening medical things, people not only do not accept the falsification of the theory, also do not accept unproven and not falsifiable theory, and only accept the proven theory.Circular reasoning. Also called "expected reasons" and "begging for magic"". This is the logical fallacy of using hypotheses to prove hypotheses.Typical form: "if P, then Q, if Q, then R, if R is P then; assume P; so P."."Example: "XX" says that God exists; because XX is the word of God, XX must not be wrong; therefore, God exists."Of course, when using the circle argument, the quibble will go around a big circle, making it seem impossible.When it comes to circular reasoning, by the way, the loopdefinition. A real example is used (it seems nineteenth Century) circles on the kilogram is defined as "from the standard air quality," a liter of water, and the definition of the standard atmospheric pressure is 101325 Pa, and the definition of the unit of pressure is the "Newton Pa (N/ per square metre" (m^2 the definition of the unit)), Newton of force is "so that the quality of a kilogram to produce a square meters per second acceleration force" (kg - m/ (s^2)), thus resulting in a circular definition. Later, in order to avoid circular definitions, kilograms were used to define the quality of an international kilogram of raw materials.Landslide fallacy. A logical fallacy that transforms "possibility" into "necessity".Those who use the fallacy of landslide often use a long string of reasoning linked together. Many of these reasoning are probabilistic (even small to negligible probabilities), whereas the quibble is deliberately stated as inevitability,Thus, one can eventually produce "almost no connection" results from one thing.Example: "if you buy the Japanese goods, the Japanese company will be profitable; if the Japanese corporate earnings, then development of Japanese companies to expand; if Japanese companies grow, the national strength of Japan will become the first in the world; if the power of Japan to become the world's first, then Japan will Chinese aggression. So if you buy Japanese goods, you're helping Japan invade china."All kinds of "exaggeration" is often used in landslide fallacy.Overgeneralization。

常见逻辑谬误（中英对照Fallacy）

分散注意力的谬误‎（Fallaci‎e s of Di‎s tractio‎n）两难推理‎（False D‎i lemma）∙‎错谬：为多于一个‎答案的问题提供不‎足（通常两个）的‎选择，即是隐藏了‎一些选择，最典型‎的表现是非黑即白‎观点。

∙例子：‎萨达姆是邪恶的，‎所以美军是正义之‎师。

∙解释：除‎正邪之争外，还有‎邪邪之争及许多难‎分正邪的纷争，所‎以不能单以萨达姆‎邪恶便认定美军正‎义。

诉诸无‎知（From I‎g norance‎）∙错谬：因为不‎能否定，所以必然‎肯定，反之亦然。

‎∙例子：没有人‎能证明鬼不存在，‎那么鬼肯定存在。

‎∙解释：总有些‎事是既不能否定，‎亦不能肯定的。

除‎了肯定和否定，我‎们还可以存疑吧！‎滑坡谬误（‎S lippery‎Slope）∙‎错谬：不合理使用‎连串因果关系。

‎∙例子：迟到的学‎生要判死刑。

因为‎迟到是不用功的表‎现；将来工作也不‎勤力；不勤力导致‎公司损失；公司损‎失就会倒闭；公司‎倒闭会使人失业；‎失业造成家庭问题‎；家庭问题导致自‎杀率上升，为了防‎止自杀率上升，我‎们应判迟到的学生‎死刑。

∙解释：‎滑坡谬误中假定了‎连串“可能性”为‎“必然性”。

比方‎说，迟到是否“必‎然”是不用功的表‎现？将来工作又是‎否“必然”不勤力‎？答案可想而知。

‎例子虽然夸张，但‎其实许多时候大家‎亦会犯相同错误而‎不自知。

复‎合问题（Comp‎l ex Ques‎t ion）∙错谬‎：一条问题内包含‎两个无关的重点。

‎∙例子：你还有‎没有干那非法勾当‎？（你有干非法勾‎当吗？是否还有继‎续？）∙解释：‎简单的一句提问，‎其实隐藏了两个问‎题。

你给予其中一‎条问题的答案，并‎不一定和另外一条‎的一样。

例如你有‎干非法勾当，但未‎必等于你还有继续‎。

‎诉诸其‎他支持（Appe‎a ls to M‎o tiv es i‎n Place ‎o f Suppo‎r t）诉诸势‎力（Appeal‎to Forc‎e）∙错谬：以势‎力服人。

高英 logic fallacy 八大逻辑谬误ppt课件

No!
8
Post hoc 牵强附会
McDonald's and KFC offer foods with little nutrition, and thus we cannot expect any fast food restaurant to provide us with nutritious foods.
No!
Making an analogy between different things.
12
Hypothesis contrary to fact
与事实相反的假设
If I had studied harder, I would definitely have passed that test .
No!
14
Poisoning the well 井下放毒
My opponent is a notorious liar. You can't believe a word that he is going to say.
No!
P.oisoning the Well, or speaking “against the man” rather than the issue , in which the premises may
No!
Drawing any supportable conclusion from a hyperthesis that is not ture.
13
Poisoning the well 井下放毒
My opponent is a notorious liar. You can't believe a word that he . is going to say.

十种谬误中英对照

十种谬误中英对照了解基本逻辑，避免常见错误要了解基本逻辑错误一定不能错过一篇英文小品文Love Is A Fallacy(作者Max Shulman)，这里仅列举出十种最常见的逻辑错误。

1.草率前提(DictoSimpliciter)例如：Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to perform well politically. Therefore, women can't pull their weight in government work.点评：虽然女性确实在政界担任较少工作，但这不意味着女性群体中所有的人都是这样。

2.过度概化(Hasty Generalization)例如：McDonald's and KFC offer foods with little nutrition, and thus we cannot expect any fast food restaurant to provide us with nutritious foods.点评：两个个例不足以推出一个真理。

3.因果颠倒(Post Hoc)例如：Most young criminals watch violent movies before they commit their crimes; obviously, violent movies lead to juvenile delinquency.点评：甲事情发生在乙事情之前，这并不代表着先发生的甲事情就是后发生的乙事情的原因。

4.矛盾前提(Contradictory Premises)例如：If God can do everything, can he make a stone so heavy that he can't carry?点评：前提条件中就有相互矛盾的地方，结论当然是错误的。

LogicalFallacies因果分析中的逻辑谬误

LogicalFallacies因果分析中的逻辑谬误Logical Fallacies 因果分析中的逻辑谬误These are famous types of bad logic and reasoning. If you know about these, you will be more clever at creating arguments and attacking your enemy’s arguments.1.Dicto Simpliciter, Unqualified Generalization 绝对判断Making general statements about complicated situations when you don’t have evidence is a fallacy. Words like “always, all, never, every, most” can show an unqualified ge neralization.Example: All people from New York are rude.2.Hasty Generalization 轻率判断It is wrong to make a generalization when you only have a few samples.Example: Prince William has blue eyes, Bill Clinton has blue eyes, my dad has blue eyes. White people have blue eyes.3.Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well 人身攻击/井下放毒Attacking and insulting your enemy instead of focusing on the issue is a fallacy.Example: The President cheated on his wife and lied about it. He’s a dirty guy.We shouldn’t use his economic pla n.4.Ad Populem, Appeal to the People 投其所好Telling people what they want to hear, or what they fear.Example: I know I can count on you for money, because you are generous.5.Ad Misercordiam, Appeal to Pity 诉诸同情Making people feel pity and sadness to get what you want is a fallacy.Example: Look at these poor starving children. Send me money now!6.Testimonial, Association，证言证据/权威联想Someone great or famous is associated with your argument.Example: Beethoven was forced by his dad to play music. You should be too!7.Post Hoc, After That so Because Of That 牵强附会/假性因果Just because event B happened after event A doesn’t mean A caused B.Example:President Obama was elected in 2008, and in 2011 America’s economy began to recover. Obama fixed the economy!8.Either-Or, Two Alternatives 两难推理Offering people a choice between two things with no middle ground or other possibilities is often a fallacy.Example: Do you want a class leader who is ugly and smart, or one who is pretty and stupid?9.Begging the Question, Circular Arguments 循环论证Instead of proving the truth of your conclusion, you just assume that the conclusion is true.Basically, it just means you avoid giving real evidence.Example:Serious punishment prevents crime because it prevents criminals from doing bad things.10.Slippery Slope 滑坡理论Claiming that one event will lead to other bad events is a slippery slope argument.Example:America must defeat the communists in Vietnam, or communist parties will take control of Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, and then the world!11. Straw Man 稻草人谬误To make a Straw Man argument, pretend your enemy said something that he didn’t really say, then attack that argument.You will seem smart and he will seem stupid.Example: The school leaders think we’re too stupid and carel ess to keep water heaters in our rooms. Don’t they know this is a school with high requirements, and we all have high Gao Kao scores? We are not stupid at all!12.False AnalogyTo make an argument based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons. Also known as faulty analogy, weak analogy, wrongful comparison, metaphor as argument, and analogical fallacy.E xample: Harvard University doesn’t teach freshmen writing, so our high school shouldn’t teach students writing, too.13.Appeal to the Wrong AuthorityThis fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallaciousExample: Dr. Johan Skarn, won the Nobel Prize in physics, says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field.14.Non Sequitur 不依据前提的推理A fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it.Example: "We realize that it would be in the best interest of the community and our children to address the issue expeditiously. In order to make this happen, I respectfully request an eight-month payment delay calling for payment of the $10 million obligation on August 31, 2015."15.Red Herring 转移话题A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.Example: "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."16. Contradictory Premises 二立背反\大前提有矛盾An argument (generally considered a logical fallacy) that draws a conclusionfrom inconsistent or incompatible premises.Essentially, a proposition is contradictory when it asserts and denies the same thing.Example: If God can do anything, He can make a stone so heavy that He won’t be able to lift it.Which fallacies are in these statements? Tell me why the logic is bad.1.We shouldn’t spend money to improve the canteen. The cooks are all wife-beating drunks.2.The school shouldn’t improve the dormitories be cause most Chinese dorms are horrible. It’s normal here.3.Students should have more politics classes. Grades have gone up since we increased the number of politics classes.4.Mao Zedong had a simple dormitory. You should have a simple dormitory too!5.If we spend more money on your dormitory, we won’t have money to hire good teachers. You’ll get a bad education.6.We shouldn’t force the restaurant owners at the West Gate to clean up the street and their restaurants. They’re so poor! Lots of the cooks have no education, and their profit is solow. They’re struggling to survive!7.The class leader is laughing behind your back, forcing you out of bed and making you go to long, boring meetings, because she gets a thrill by hurting you. Class leaders can’t punis h us for their pleasure! It’s cruel and abusive and unfair. Screw that class leader!8.We need class meetings! If we don’t have them, soon we won’t see each other, and then our class will have no organization!9.We need long class meetings. Long class meetings are good for you.Class work: create a 1-paragraph argument for or against one of these statements. Use a fallacy that we learned about in your reasoning. Your partner will find the fallacy and argue against it.Topic choices:1.It is better to fight monsters than aliens.2.At weddings, everyone should kiss the bride.3.People who smoke in public should be killed.。