24 logic error reprogramming

In my first class, please preview 24 logical errors, defense mechanisms and so on. Some students don't quite understand this: we are here to grow up spiritually. What are logical errors used for? We're not here to learn logic.

I want to talk about this.

As we all know, in my place, the main way to grow up is: consciousness. We talked about entanglement in the elementary class and so on ... It doesn't matter if some people haven't heard it. Just think, if a person is entangled in his heart and has some pain and discomfort, it is often caused by our thoughts and beliefs, isn't it?

These thoughts and beliefs, here, are collectively called: thoughts. How could he do this to me? For example: why did he do this to me! Another example: ah, I'm not good enough ... and so on.

Our emotions are often closely linked to these thoughts. Therefore, it is very important to realize the content of these thoughts and the hidden logic behind them.

Our internal logic is equivalent to our way of thinking, which directly affects our mood. Many times, we will be blinded by the wrong logical way and can't get out of all kinds of ideas. Ideas that contain logical errors are like a maze, a maze with no way out. ......

The picture below shows a Mobius ring and a Klein bottle.

Mobius ring

Klein bottle

What am I talking about? It is that our thinking sometimes enters such a "cycle". Then the more I think about it, the more painful it becomes. Just like the classic: Why are you doing this to me? Why? Why? why .......

We are all focused on exploring why each other is going. If we understand the logical mistakes in our thinking, it is easy to see that there is a problem here.

I have a student. I showed him 24 logical mistakes. After reading it, he sighed: "Ah, most of them are what I often say and think!" "So, as far as my experience is concerned, if we can't easily see that logical mistakes change our way of thinking and realize ourselves, it is almost a dream.

Next, let's take a concrete look at 24 common logical errors.

Article 1: Scarecrow

Scarecrow is a villain made of straw. It's not a real person. In this metaphor, "scarecrow" means something easy to deal with. You first turn the other person's point of view into an easily overturned version, and then refute it, but what you refute is actually not the other person's true point of view.

In the process of arguing with others, if you deliberately distort others' views in order to attack others more easily, for example, exaggerate, distort or even create others' views out of thin air to make your own views more reasonable. This leads to the scarecrow fallacy. This not only affects rational discussion, but also affects the credibility of one's own views.

for instance

A: I like typhoon weather since I was a child.

How cold-blooded! Do you know how many casualties and economic losses the typhoon caused?

Note: Typhoon is very destructive. A cold-blooded person who likes this tragedy? Not necessarily. When he says he likes typhoon weather, all he can think about is his personal feelings-like cool weather or the excitement of roaring in the wind. However, under the moral stick of B, A is really a hundred arguments. The scarecrow was easily knocked down and A stepped down. The scarecrow is so successful that it is difficult for others to see the problem at the moment.

for instance

I like Japanese art.

B: What? The Japanese invaded China in World War II. How can you love them, you traitor!

Note: "Love Japanese art" and "love Japanese militarism" are two different things.

for instance

Xiaoming: "Why don't you reply to my WeChat?"

Xiaohua: "I was very busy yesterday. I was going back, but I was too busy to remember. "

Xiao Ming: "I know that in your heart, work is more important than me."

for instance

The wife said, "honey, it's time to clean the garage." The husband protested: "What? Cleaning again? Must I clean the garage every day? "

In other words, the scarecrow fallacy is taken out of context and the concept is stolen. The enlightenment of the scarecrow fallacy is that we must ensure the consistency of the topic in the argument, otherwise the scarecrow fallacy will not effectively weaken the argument.

Article 2: Wrong attribution

You can draw the conclusion that one thing is the cause of another from the possible connection between two things.

When you see two things exist at the same time, you will feel that one of them is the cause of the other. Your mistake is that two things that exist at the same time may not have a causal relationship. Maybe these two things have the same cause, or there is no causal relationship at all. Their direct existence is just a coincidence. Just because one thing happens before another does not mean that there must be a causal relationship between the two things.

for instance

Xiaoming is very hungry. He bought a roast chicken and two baked cakes, but he still felt hungry after eating. So he made two bowls of rice and didn't feel full after eating it. So Xiaoming concluded: roast chicken and sesame seed cake are not enough to satisfy hunger, only rice is useful!

for instance

Seeing that Ma Yun succeeded, Xiao Wang concluded: Didn't he just do e-commerce a few years ago? Seeing Huawei's success, Xiao Zhao summed it up as follows: Man is the wolf spirit, and technology is the wolf spirit.

It is difficult for such people to pick out all the conditions and reasons when analyzing problems. One is the lack of knowledge reserves, and the other is the inertia of thinking.

Article 3: Appeal to feelings

An argument commits the fallacy of appealing to emotion if and only if it tries to prove the conclusion by appealing to human emotion rather than reason.

The emotions you manipulate may include fear, jealousy, pity, pride and so on. A logical and rigorous exposition may cause other people's emotional fluctuations, but if you only use emotional operation instead of logical exposition, you will make the mistake of appealing to feelings. Everyone who is mentally healthy will be affected by feelings, so this fallacy is very effective, but this is also why this fallacy is a low-level dishonest means.

for instance

Xiaohong saw Xiaoming eating dog meat in the restaurant, so she went forward and reprimanded him: "How can you eat dog meat? The puppy is so cute, just like a child. Do you have the heart to hurt a child? " Xiaohong committed the fallacy of appealing to feelings.

for instance

Mom loves you so much, how can she lie to you?

for instance

If you buy our car, you will have a higher status than others.

Article 4: fallacy.

When you see other people's logic is wrong, or his level of exposition is very low, you feel that there is nothing right with his point of view.

Many times, the winner of the debate is not because of the correct point of view, but because of better debate skills. As a rational person, you can't think that other people's views must be wrong just because they are fallacious or wrong.

for instance

A: "We need a balanced diet, because it is very helpful to control smog."

B: "What a mess! It seems that a balanced diet is deceptive. "

for instance

Tom: "I speak English, so I am English."

Xiao Zhang: "Americans, Canadians and people from other countries also speak English. You associate speaking English with being British, which is a logical mistake. So, you are not right, you are not English. "

Note: Tom may or may not be English. His argument is fallacious, which is not enough to show that his conclusion is wrong.

for instance

Xiao Wang: "All cats are animals, Mimi is an animal, so Mimi is a cat."

Xiao Zhang: "You made a logical mistake when you said that, so Mimi is not a cat."

Article 5: Landslide fallacy

Also known as overextension. "If A happens, then B will happen, then C will happen, then D will happen, then Z will happen, then A should not happen", which uses a series of causal inferences, but exaggerates the causal intensity of each link and draws an unreasonable conclusion.

You don't discuss the present thing (a), but shift the focus of discussion to the imaginary extreme thing (z). Because you haven't given any evidence to prove that the occurrence of A will definitely lead to the occurrence of extreme things Z, this is a fallacy of resorting to fear, and it also affects people's objectivity when discussing A.

for instance

Xiaohong opposes gay marriage, because she thinks that if we allow gay marriage, then someone will want to get married with a desk and chair. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of landslide.

for instance

You must study hard! If you don't study hard, you can't go to a good high school, a good university or a good job, so you can only sweep the streets! Do you want to sweep the streets all your life?

for instance

"If you can't even clean up a room, what can you do in the future?"

Article 6: Personal attacks

By attacking a person (personality, status, motivation, attitude, class or situation, etc.). ), instead of attacking his argument, change the topic of discussion, and finally achieve the purpose of slandering his argument. The so-called "right person, not a thing."

Personal attacks are not necessarily direct attacks, but may also cause doubts about the other party's personality by stabbing people in the back and hinting at the audience. You try to replace a strong argument with your attack on other people's personality.

for instance

When Xiaoming put forward reasonable suggestions on infrastructure construction, Xiaohong said that she didn't believe anything Xiaoming said, because Xiaoming was unpatriotic and often criticized the government and didn't know how to be grateful. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of personal attack.

for instance

"You are not a historian. What qualifications do you have to express your opinions? "

for instance

"You are an employee of an oil company. For the benefit, of course you will question global warming! "

Article 7: Appeal to hypocrisy

I pointed out your mistake, and you accused me in turn: "Didn't you …", thus avoiding admitting or explaining your mistake. This is a common way to avoid problems and even reduce inner guilt.

You want to respond to criticism with criticism, so as to avoid the responsibility of defending yourself. You imply that the other person is a hypocritical person, but no matter whether others are hypocritical or not, you are just avoiding criticism from others.

for instance

A: "Why did you throw away my book without my permission?"

B: "Didn't you eat my snack without my permission last time?"

for instance

"Why don't you talk about him when he did it, and criticize me when I did it?"

for instance

A: "Please don't talk loudly during self-study" B: "Aren't you talking, too?"

for instance

"I'm sorry to trouble you to be quiet and disturb my movie."

"Who let you sit next to me? I didn't invite you. "

Article 8: Personal doubts

You come to the conclusion that something may be fake because you don't understand it or your knowledge level is not enough.

Some very complex concepts, such as biological evolution, need some basic understanding and knowledge. Some people think these things are wrong because they don't understand these complicated concepts.

for instance

Xiaohong pointed to a stone and said, "You say the theory of evolution is true, so let this stone evolve for me." Xiaohong committed the fallacy of personal doubt.

for instance

"I don't understand this kind of thing, so it can't be true."

Article 9: One-sided fallacy

When your argument is proved wrong, you can excuse yourself by changing the rules and making up exceptions or special cases.

People don't like being proved wrong, so when they are proved wrong, they always try to excuse themselves. Only honest and brave people can face their mistakes and admit that they have made mistakes.

Example: Xiaohong said that she has a special ability to calculate the sex of an unborn baby with tarot cards. But after the baby was born, she found that her guess was wrong, so she said that the fortune teller lacked faith. Xiaohong made a one-sided mistake.

for instance

"I know our family's agreement is who screwed up and who is responsible for cleaning. However, I just screwed up and didn't think it was a problem. If you can't stand it, you have to clean it. "

for instance

"Our company's system is to travel in economy class. But I'm the boss and I have to fly business class. "

Article 10: Induce the problem

There is a trap in the question. No matter how you answer it, the other party will inevitably feel guilty and embarrassed.

You try to force the other person to answer your low-level questions with leading questions, thus undermining rational discussion.

for instance

Xiaohong suspected that her husband Sun Yue was having an affair. To find out, she asked him, "Is there a birthmark on Hsuanchan's ass?" Xiaohong used a leading question.

for instance

Are you still smoking?

B: No.

A: Look! You smoked!

A's question presupposes that B has smoked. No matter whether B answers "yes" or "no", it is equivalent to admitting that he has smoked before. If B has never smoked at all, the safest thing to do is to answer "I have never smoked." Or simply don't answer.

for instance

"What do you think is Chen Dawen's height?" "160 cm." "Are you sure? Give you another chance and think about it. " "I think it's 160 cm." "Do you want to reconsider?" ……

Article 1 1: burden of proof

You think the burden of proof is not on the person who puts forward the opinion, but on the person who questions it.

When someone puts forward an opinion and the result is questioned, you think the burden of proof is not on the person who puts forward the opinion, but on the questioner. You can't falsify a thing, or you can't prove its rationality by citing counterexamples. Of course, just because there is not enough evidence to show that a thing is reasonable does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable.

for instance

A: "The examination-oriented education system in our country should be improved." ?

B: "Why change it?"

A: "Why not change it?"

Note: A committed the fallacy of burden of proof. When the other party should prove that his assertion is correct, people are often inadvertently induced to think that it is necessary to prove that the other party's assertion is wrong by themselves.

for instance

"At this moment, in the orbit between the earth and Mars, there is a teapot that runs around the sun. Of course you can't falsify, so this statement is correct. "

Article 12: Semantic ambiguity

Misleading or distorting facts with puns or vague expressions.

You use puns or ambiguous words, and when you are criticized by others, you use these ambiguous words as your shield.

for instance

A monkey on the ground, a monkey on the tree, and some monkeys?

for instance

"It is right to donate to charity, so it is right for charity to ask us for money."

Note: here is a vacillation between two or more meanings of an important word. The word "right" is ambiguous. It can mean that something is right or good (for example, "I got all the answers correctly in this test"), or that someone has the right to get something (for example, "everyone has the right to life"). It is important to ensure that the meanings of the main words used in the argument are always consistent.

Article 13: Gambler fallacy

Gamblers often have a mentality: his luck has been continuously good to unlucky; I've had bad luck several times in a row, so it's time to change. In fact, each round of gambling is an independent random event, and there is no connection between them. Gamblers' fallacy is to force independent random events.

Once gamblers are convinced of this connection, they will regard it as an indisputable truth. Common gambler fallacies in life include: lottery players' analysis of winning numbers; Stock market experts' "trend analysis" of the broader market; "The general trend of the world, long-term division will be combined, long-term division will be combined." ...

for instance

"The five coins thrown in front are heads, and the next one must be tails."

for instance

"I gave birth to a daughter twice before, and this time it should be a boy."

Article 14: Band Float

Influenced by the atmosphere, people often dance involuntarily with the rhythm of bands and floats. Similarly, people's thinking is always used to following the crowd. Many people are doing the same thing, or believe in the same thing, so everyone thinks this thing is correct. The fallacy of band floating means that you try to explain it, because many people are doing the same thing/believing the same thing, so it is right.

The popularity of a thing/idea has nothing to do with whether it is reasonable or not. The earth is spherical. When people believe it is flat, it is spherical. The earth doesn't care if you believe it or not.

for instance

Seeing that the "currency war" is so hot, Xiaohong believes that Rothschild and the * * * Economic Association must be behind it. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of band floating.

for instance

"Everyone is like this, so it can't be wrong."

Article 15: Appeal to the authorities

You use the opinions of authoritative people/organizations instead of strong arguments.

To prove a point of view, it is not enough to extract other people's points of view, at least to know why the authority mentioned has that point of view. Because authoritative figures/institutions also make mistakes, we can't unconditionally assume rationality. Of course, the views of authoritative figures/institutions may be right, and we cannot assume that this view is definitely wrong just because the other party uses the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Example:

Xiaohong didn't know how to refute the theory of evolution, so she said, "My husband Sun Yue is a great scientist. He thinks that evolution is wrong. " Xiaohong committed the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Article 16: fallacy of composition

It is believed that the characteristics of one part of a thing are also applicable to other parts or the whole of the transaction.

What is reasonable for some parts does not mean that it is equally reasonable for other parts. But some people always stubbornly believe that if some parts of a group have characteristics, then all parts of the group also have characteristics. We need to give evidence of this overall consistency.

for instance

Xiaohong found a singer lip-synching while watching the party, so she thought all the songs at the party were lip-synching.

for instance

The story of the blind man touching the elephant: each blind man only touches a part of the elephant, but thinks it is the whole elephant.

Article 17: There are no real Scots.

When a person claims that "all A's are B's" but encounters the counterexample of "A is not B", he changes his mind and claims that "B" is not a real A, and all "real A's" are B's. At this point, "real A" and "real B" are just a set of mutually defined logics, and the original problem has not been solved, because A may not be.

You put forward a point and are criticized by others. You try to avoid the criticism of the other side by "calling for purity", cover up the loopholes in your own point of view, and maintain your flawed point of view by Monday morning quarterback and revising the standards.

Example:

Xiaohong: Any psychologist will read the book Mob.

Xiaoming: I have been a psychiatrist for so many years and have never read this book.

Xiaohong: All "real" psychologists will read this book.

for instance

A:? Men are lewd. ?

b:？ No, no, no, Newton is a man, but Newton is not lewd.

A:? Newton was not a real man. Real men are lewd.

Example:

Hard work is bound to succeed.

I tried hard, but I didn't succeed. ?

A: You didn't really work hard, or you didn't work hard enough.

Article 18: genetic fallacy

You judge things by their origins.

You try to avoid positive discussion and discuss the source of the matter instead. This practice is similar to the "personal attack" in Article 6 of this article. They all try to attack each other from the side through the negative impression they have, but they can't respond positively to each other's arguments.

for instance

How can black Africans be afraid of the hot weather in China?

for instance

Xiao Ming said: "Japan has risen twice in the past 150 years because they have thoroughly studied modern European and American civilizations."

Xiaohong said: "Japan is obviously an Asian country. How can it be more like Europe and America than Russia? "

Xiaohong made a genetic fallacy.

Article 19: Either black or white

You regard black and white as the only possibility, but ignore other possibilities.

When there are multiple possibilities, only two optional possibilities are provided. I want to mislead the discussion and undermine the constructive nature of the debate through black-and-white choices. To jump out of this fallacy, we should actively ask "Why": Why should we listen to you, either A or B? !

Example:

When talking about the war on terror, the president said that if you don't support the war on terror, you support terrorists. The president made a black-and-white mistake here.

for instance

Resisting Japanese goods is patriotism, and not boycotting Japanese goods is unpatriotic.

for instance

Young people should give their seats to those who seem to need them. If you don't, you have no quality and low personal morality.

Article 20: Stealing parameters

You use the method of circular argument to prove a point contained in the premise.

You assume that your premise is true by default, and then prove it with circular argument. Basically, it can be thought that "stealing evidence" means asking readers to accept the conclusion directly without giving any real evidence. This kind of logical confusion argument often happens when people have deep-rooted assumptions in their hearts, because people have taken these deep-rooted views as definite ones.

Example:

I know there is a God, because the Bible says so, and the Bible can't be wrong, because it was written by God. ?

for instance

Africa is the largest continent because it is bigger than any other continent.

for instance

Smoking can kill you, because cigarettes are deadly.

for instance

Student: "Why didn't I get full marks in this paper?"

Teacher: "Because what you wrote didn't meet the requirement of full marks."

Article 2 1: recourse to nature

If you think something is "natural", then it is reasonable, inevitable and better.

The naturalness of things does not make them have good or bad attributes. Killing each other is a common phenomenon in nature, but most people think that we should not kill each other.

for instance

Xiaohong thinks that eating herbs is definitely more effective than eating artificial drugs, because herbs are more "natural". Xiaohong committed the fallacy of appealing to nature.

for instance

Vegetarianism is stupid because humans have been eating meat for thousands of years.

Article 22: Anecdotal evidence

You try to use personal experiences or cases, such as the stories of friends you heard in your life, or the case of a visitor, instead of logical arguments or strong evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is easier to obtain than complex and conclusive evidence, but it is much shallower. In most cases, quantitative scientific data and conclusive evidence are more credible than personal experience and anecdotes.

for instance

Grandpa Xiaohong is a 30-year-old smoker, and now he is still in good health in his 80 s. Xiaohong therefore draws the conclusion that smoking is harmless to his health. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

for instance

Eating a lot of sugar won't cause tooth decay, because Xiao Zhang eats a lot of sugar every day, but he has no tooth decay.

Article 23: Texas sharpshooter

You carefully select the evidence that is beneficial to your point of view from a large number of data/evidence, instead of using the data/evidence that is unfavorable to you.

To put it simply, this logical mistake is to point to where to hit, that is, to draw a conclusion first and then find the reason. You fired a shot first, and then drew a bull's-eye where the bullet hit, making yourself look like a sharpshooter. You decide your position first, and then you start looking for evidence. You only look for what is good for you and selectively ignore what is not good for you.

for instance

Wife: Are you dating other women outside?

Husband: I swear to God, I have absolutely no other woman!

The fact is that he has another man. ......

Article 24: Intermediate position

You think the compromise between the two extreme views, or the middle position, must be right.

Although many times, truth does exist between the two extremes, you can't easily think that as long as it is in the middle, it must be correct. The middle ground between lies and truth is still lies.

for instance

Xiaohong thinks that vaccines can cause autism in children, and Xiao Huang draws the conclusion from scientific research that vaccines will not cause autism in children. Xiao Chen believes that the compromise between these two views-that vaccines can cause autism in children, but not all children-is correct. Little orange committed the fallacy of middle position.

for instance

In order to attract more attention, Xiaolan thinks it is necessary to redesign the company's website, while Xiao Huang thinks it is not necessary to make any changes to the website. Therefore, Xiao Lu thinks that the best way is to redesign a part of the website.