Are there any classic stories about sophistry?

A said to B, "I can prove that a person has three heads." B said, "I want to hear your opinion." A said, "Everyone has a head, no one has two heads, and one person has one more head than no one, so one person has three heads." Although B knows that A's argument is wrong, he can't point out where it is wrong. In A's argument, literally, the word "nobody" appears twice before and after, but its meaning is different. In No One Has Two Heads, "no" is a negative word, negating the judgment that "someone has two heads", which means "no one has two heads". The subject of this full-name negative judgment is "people", not "no one"; In One Man for Many, the negative word "no" denies the concept of "person", so "nobody" expresses an independent negative concept-"nobody", that is, "nobody". If the former "nobody" and the latter "nobody" have the same meaning, then "nobody has two heads" is a wrong judgment. Therefore, A's argument is to use the literal or literal similarity to secretly change the concept, thus reaching an absurd conclusion.

You are a man with horns on your head.

Ob Ridders, a famous sophist in ancient Greece, once said to a man, "What you have not lost is what you have, right?" The man replied, "Of course!" Then Aberg Des added, "You haven't lost the horn on your head, so you are a man with horns on your head." The man was puzzled, knowing that he had been fooled, but he couldn't say why, and he didn't know how to refute Aubrey Ridders. Aubrey Ridders's sophistry is that the former's "not lost" means that what you originally owned still exists, while the latter's "not lost" means that what you don't have still exists. This is imposed on others, because there is no question of "losing" or "not losing" something that has never existed. It can be seen that in Aubrey Ridders's argument, the word "not lost" expressed two different concepts before and after, and made the mistake of stealing the concept.

Bold and uninhibited, has this officer ever lost you?

Once upon a time, there was a county magistrate who wanted to buy gold ingots, and the shopkeeper sent two gold ingots according to the order. The magistrate asked, "How much are these two gold ingots?" The shopkeeper replied, "Grandpa wants to buy it, and the villain only sells it at half price." The county magistrate took one and returned it to the store. After many days, he didn't pay the bill. The shopkeeper said, "Please give me the gold ingot price." The magistrate pretended not to understand: "Didn't I already give it to you?" The store said, "Little people have never had it!" The county magistrate was furious and said, "Bold and unruly, this official asked you for two gold ingots, but you said you only charged half price. I have returned one to you, which is equivalent to half price. Why have my officials lost you! "

The store listened, and it was very sad.

In order to extort money, the county grandfather racked his brains to try to correct people. At first glance, what he said seems reasonable. Let's assume that each gold ingot is 1000 yuan, and the store says it is sold at half price, that is, each gold ingot is minus 500 yuan. Now, the county magistrate does not leave both gold ingots, but only one, and the other is returned to the store at the price of 1000 yuan, of which 500 yuan paid half the price of the gold ingot, and the remaining 500 yuan paid the store as the price of the gold ingot left by himself. The mystery here is that, first of all, the returned gold ingot should not still be calculated at 1000 yuan; Secondly, I didn't pay for this gold ingot myself (if I have already paid 1000 yuan, I don't need to return it if the price is reduced by half), so it still belongs to the store, not to the county magistrate. How to use it to convert the price of the gold ingot left behind? It is the sophistry of the county magistrate to take what originally belonged to others for himself. Conceptually, it is a deliberate confusion of concepts, that is, "returning a gold ingot to you" is equivalent to "returning the price of a gold ingot to you".

Confidential matters shall not be disclosed in advance.

Once upon a time, three scholars went to Beijing to catch the exam. On the way, they met a fortune teller named "Living Immortal" and asked for advice: "How many can we take in this exam?" The fortune teller closed his eyes and counted for a while, then put up a finger. The three scholars didn't understand what it meant and asked for clarification. The fortune teller said, "The secret must not be revealed, and you will understand it later." Later, only one of the three scholars was admitted, and that person came to reward him. As soon as they met, they praised him and said, "Sir, you are really good, and you really deserve your reputation." I also learned to put up a finger like a fortune teller and say, "There is really only one." After the scholar left, the fortune teller's wife asked him, "Why are you so smart?" The fortune teller smiled and said, "You don't understand the mystery. A finger can be erected to make a variety of explanations: if three people are admitted, it is' all admitted'; If you fail the exam, it is' all failed'; One in the exam is' one in the exam'; If you get two in the exam, it's' one failed'. No matter what the facts are, I can prove that my calculation is correct. " Hearing this, the wife said happily, "You really have a set. I am convinced. " The flexibility of using polysemous words and applying concepts subjectively is cunning sophistry. Sophists often deliberately make their own words ambiguous, ambiguous and ambiguous in the discussion, so as to act according to circumstances and leave room for arbitrary explanation for themselves. Fortune-tellers use the ambiguity of "one" in special circumstances to quibble and defraud others of money.

Are you not talking now?

There is a movie in the cinema. Some people in the audience are talking loudly. A nearby audience suggested to them, "Would you please stop talking?" One of the boys said, "Hey, don't you talk now?"

Talking loudly when watching movies in public places is against the minimum social morality. It is entirely correct to criticize this behavior. Instead of accepting criticism, the young comrade accused the critics of "speaking", confusing "speaking loudly" at the movies with "speaking to stop this kind of behavior" and "talking to people" in a general sense, which is a sophistry that deliberately confuses concepts.

How can there be no contradiction between the two?

A: "Lao Zhang and Lao Li work well together, and there has never been any contradiction."

B: "Who says there is no contradiction!"

Answer: "Please tell me the basis of their contradiction."

B: "Without contradiction, there would be no world. Everything has contradictions. How can there be no contradiction between them? "

"Contradiction" is a polysemous word, which can express different concepts in different contexts, at least the following concepts: (1) Expressing philosophical concepts refers to the "unity of opposites" between two opposites in objective things; (2) refers to "ideological contradiction", that is, the contradiction of objective things is reflected in people's minds; (3) refers to "logical contradiction", which is a contradiction in the organizational structure of thinking, manifested in the contradiction in speech; ④ refers to "inconsistency", such as "contradiction between words and deeds" and "contradiction between subjective motivation and objective effect"; (5) refers to the phenomenon of "disunity" between people in daily life. A used the word "contradiction" in the meaning of (5) above, and B stole it for the meaning of (1), which was a deliberate wrangling.