二十四谬误中英对照知识分享文档格式.docx

1、2.过度概化 （Hasty Generalization）McDonalds and KFC offer foods with little nutrition, and thus we cannot expect any fast food restaurant to provide us with nutritious foods.两个个例不足以推出一个真理。3.因果颠倒 （Post Hoc）Most young criminals watch violent movies before they commit their crimes; obviously, violent movies

2、 lead to juvenile delinquency.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）If God can do everything, can he make a stone so heavy that he cant carry?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 （Ad Misericordiam）Think of all the poor, starving African children! How could rich countries be

3、so cruel as not to help them?抒情是不能当作论证的。6.错误类比 （False Analogy）Young children are like flowers-flowers should stay away from terrible weather to grow, so children need to get rid of everything negative.孩子和花朵的区别太大。成长的过程也太复杂。最好不要用这两者来类比。7.虚假假设 （Hypothesis Contrary to Fact）If TV were not invented, today

4、 people would never have such wonderful entertainment brought by TV.因为电视已经被发明了，对于过去的否定假设后所得出的结论都是逻辑上的错误结论。8.无关转移 （Red Herring）Many people say we need to exploit the outer space, a point which I believe is wrong, because there are so many poor people on Earth who hardly make ends meet.有一个问题没解决并不代表着另一

5、个问题不值得解决。9.从众错误 （Bandwagon）Everyone says it is justified to learn a second language so we must learn one.人人都说，或者大多数都说，这并不意味着该观点正确。10.滑坡谬误 （Slippery slope）If we dont care about the environment, the world will die in 50 years.从环境问题到世界灭亡，中间有无数环节未提供论证。Examples of Slippery Slope1. We have to stop the tui

6、tion increase! The next thing you know, theyll be charging $40,000 a semester!2. The US shouldnt get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.3. You can never give anyone a break. If you do, theyll walk all over you.4. W

7、eve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!11. appeal to emotionYou attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.Appeals to em

8、otion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. Its important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that n

9、o compelling rational reason exists for ones position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but theyre ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make ones opponents justifiably emotional.Example:Luke didnt want t

10、o eat his sheeps brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who werent fortunate enough to have any food at all.12 . ad hominem ,personal attack 人身攻击You attacked your opponents character or personal trait

11、s in an attempt to undermine their argument.Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someones case without actual

12、ly having to engage with it.After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isnt married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.第七条：诉诸虚伪13. loaded question 含沙射影You asked a questio

13、n that had a presumption built into it so that it couldnt be answered without appearing guilty.Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appe

14、ar flustered or on the back foot.Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a drug habit.14 . appeal to authority诉诸权威You said that because an authority thinks some

15、thing, it must therefore be true.Its important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge

16、unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether th

17、eir claims are true or not.Not able to defend his position that evolution isnt true Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution （and presumably isnt a primate）.15 窃取论点. begging the questionYou presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.This

18、logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because its not very good.The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says

19、 so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbos Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.第二部分 以下完整版留着资料用。第一条：稻草人1. strawman/straw manYou misrepresented someones argument to make it easier to attack.By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabr

20、icating someones argument, its much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hate

21、s our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.第二条：错误归因2. false causeYou presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.Many people confuse correlation （things happening together or in sequence） for cau

22、sation （that one thing actually causes the other to happen）. Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have be

23、en decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.第三条：诉诸感情3. appeal to emotion第四条：谬误谬误4. the fallacy fallacyYou presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.It is entirely possible to make a claim that is

24、false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alys

25、e said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.第五条：滑坡谬误5. slippery slopeYou said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts a

26、ttention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.Colin Closet ass

27、erts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know well be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.第六条：人身攻击 6. ad hominem ,personal attackAd hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argumen