24 common logical fallacies

Just like Jung and Freud parted ways, they didn't want to be an indestructible fortress, but pursued the ultimate truth.

No one communicates to beat each other.

24 common logical fallacies

catalogue

Article 1: Scarecrow

Article 2: Wrong attribution

Article 3: Appeal to feelings

Article 4: fallacy.

Article 5: Landslide fallacy

Article 6: Personal attacks

Article 7: Appeal to hypocrisy

Article 8: Personal doubts

Article 9: One-sided fallacy

Article 10: Induce the problem

Article 1 1: burden of proof

Article 12: Semantic ambiguity

Article 13: Gambler fallacy

Article 14: Band Float

Article 15: Appeal to the authorities

Article 16: fallacy of composition

Article 17: There are no real Scots.

Article 18: genetic fallacy

Article 19: Either black or white

Article 20: Stealing parameters

Article 2 1: recourse to nature

Article 22: Anecdotal evidence

Article 23: Texas sharpshooter

Article 24: Intermediate position

Article 1: Scarecrow

You distort others' opinions and make it easier for you to attack others.

You exaggerate, distort and even create other people's views out of nothing to make your own views more reasonable. This is an extremely dishonest behavior, which not only affects rational discussion, but also affects the credibility of one's own views. Because if you can distort other people's views negatively, you may distort your own views positively.

Example: Xiaoming said that the state should invest more budget to develop the education industry. Xiaohong replied: "I didn't expect you to be so unpatriotic and want to reduce defense spending so that foreign powers can take advantage of it." Xiaohong committed the scarecrow fallacy.

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 they have a common cause, or there is no causal relationship at all. Their direct coexistence 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.

Example: Xiaohong pointed out that in the past few centuries, the number of global pirates has decreased and the global temperature has increased, which leads to the conclusion that the decrease in the number of pirates causes climate change and pirates can reduce the global temperature. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of wrong attribution.

Article 3: Appeal to feelings

You try to replace a strong argument by manipulating other people's feelings.

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.

Example: Xiaohong saw Xiaoming eating dog meat in the restaurant, so he 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.

Article 4: fallacy.

When you see that the level of others' argument is very low, or that others' argument is fallacious, you think that others' views must be wrong.

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.

Example: An advocate of healthy diet published an absurd diet theory on TV to promote the concept of healthy diet. Xiaohong felt that healthy eating was deceptive after reading it, so she began to overeat every day. Xiaohong made a mistake.

Article 5: Landslide fallacy

You act like if A happens, then Z will happen, which means A shouldn't happen.

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 the objectivity when people discuss A.

Example: Xiaohong opposes gay marriage because she thinks that if we allow gay marriage, then someone will want to marry a table or chair. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of landslide.

Article 6: Personal attacks

When discussing, you attack or comment on the other party's character, motivation, attitude, status, class or situation, and use it as a reason to refute the other party's argument or support your own argument.

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. More about personal attacks.

Example: When Xiaoming put forward a reasonable proposal 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.

Article 7: Appeal to hypocrisy

Instead of directly responding to other people's criticism, you use criticism as your reply-"Didn't you ever ..."

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.

Example: When arguing with Xiaohong, Xiaoming pointed out that Xiaohong had made a logical fallacy. Xiaohong didn't defend herself directly, but responded: "You made a logical fallacy before." Xiaohong committed the fallacy of resorting to hypocrisy here.

Article 8: Personal doubts

Draw a conclusion that something may be false because you don't know or have enough knowledge.

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.

Example: 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.

Article 9: One-sided fallacy

When your point of view is proved wrong.

Wait, you excused yourself with special circumstances.

Humans don't like being proved wrong, so when they are proved wrong, they always try to excuse themselves. People always think that what they thought was right before must be right, so they can always find reasons to ask themselves questions. 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.

Article 10: Induce the problem

When you ask a question, you add an appropriate element so that the other person can only answer according to your meaning.

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

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

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.

Example: Xiaohong said that he believed that the universe was created by a God, because no one can prove that God does not exist, so God exists. Xiaohong committed the inversion of the burden of proof.

Article 12: Semantic ambiguity

You use puns or ambiguous language to distort the facts.

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

There is a monkey on the ground and seven monkeys on the tree. How many monkeys are there?

Article 13: Gambler fallacy

You think the occurrence of random things is related to what happened before.

When someone sees an independent random event (such as tossing a coin), they always think that it will be related to the previous event (there are five heads in front, and the next one must be tails). )

Article 14: Band Float

You are trying to explain, 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.

Example: Seeing how currency wars are so popular, Xiaohong believes that Rothschild and the Freemasons must be behind the scenes. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of band floating.

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 authority figures/institutions also make mistakes, so

Reason cannot be unconditionally assumed. 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

Do you think the characteristics of one part of a group are common to other groups?

Many times, what is reasonable for one component is unreasonable for other components. We can often observe the consistency between things, so when consistency does not exist, we will also think that there is consistency.

Example: Xiaohong bought a bike. When she saw that the seat of the bicycle was made of artificial leather, she thought that the other parts of the bicycle were also made of artificial leather.

Article 17: There are no real Scots.

You put forward a point and received criticism from others. You tried to defend your point of view by "appealing to purity".

You try to defend your flawed views by Monday morning quarterback and revising the standards.

Example:

Xiaohong: "Dutch people like to drink hot soup."

Xiao Ming: "Sun Yue is Dutch, so he doesn't like to drink Hu spicy soup."

Xiaohong: "Well, real Dutch people like to drink hot soup." & lt-Xiao Hong made the fallacy that there are no real Scots here.

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 method is similar to Article 6 "Personal Attack". 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.

Example:

Xiao Ming: "Sun Yue doesn't like hot soup."

Xiaohong: "Sun Yue is Dutch. How can he not like Hu spicy soup? " & lt-Xiaohong has made a genetic fallacy here.

Article 19: Either black or white

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

You used a simple and rude false dichotomy to cover up the existence of other possibilities. You want to mislead the discussion and undermine the constructive debate through black-and-white choices.

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.

Article 20: Stealing parameters

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

This is the fallacy of the bankruptcy of logical IQ, because you acquiesce in your premise hypothesis as true, and then prove it with circular argument.

Example: Everything in the Jing of Pit Dad taught by Pit Dad is true, because in the second paragraph of Chapter 1 of Jing of Pit Dad, it is mentioned that what Pit Dad said is true.

Article 2 1: recourse to nature

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

Just because something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is better. Killing each other is nature.

This is a common phenomenon, but most people think that we should not kill each other.

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

Article 22: Anecdotal evidence

You try to replace logical argument or strong evidence with personal experience or case.

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

Example: Grandpa Xiaohong is a heavy smoker for 30 years. Now he is in his 80 s and still in good health. Xiaohong draws the conclusion that smoking is harmless to his health. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

Article 23: Texas sharpshooter

You carefully select the evidence that is beneficial to your point of view from a large number of data/evidence, and don't use the data/evidence that is unfavorable to you.

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.

Example: In order to prove that it has done its duty, Red X will publicize it. It has distributed XXXX's donation to various places, but it has never mentioned the extravagance and waste of its public expenditure. Red X will commit the fallacy of "Texas sharpshooter".

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.

Example: Xiaohong thinks that vaccines can cause children's autism, and Sun Yue concludes from scientific research that vaccines can't cause children's autism. Xiaoming thinks that the compromise between the two views-vaccines can cause children's autism, but not all children's autism-is correct. Xiao Ming committed the fallacy of middle position.