Truth does not equal fact
Truth = Facts + Deduction,
That is, the so-called truth that we come into contact with is not a fact.
It's the fact plus the deduction of the medium that conveys the fact,
For example, a car overturns on the side of the road in a certain place, and a friend tells you that there is a car accident in a certain place, and the driver's life and death are unknown.
Or do you see the scene in person and think so, so? Is the truth you're exposed to as fact?
The answer is: not necessarily
In work and life, we often make logical mistakes, and we don't know that sometimes these logical fallacies are sometimes fatal.
Today the author has selected 10 of the most common specific logical fallacies to take a look at.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="12" >1, incorrect attribution</h1>
From the possibility that two things may be related, it is concluded that one thing is the cause of the other.
Seeing that two things exist at the same time, it feels that one of them is the cause of the other. Your mistake is that two things that exist at the same time do not necessarily have a causal relationship, or that the two things have a common cause, or that the two things have no causal relationship at all, and that their direct coexistence is just a coincidence.
Example: According to a United Nations survey, every kilogram of pork consumed produces 12.1 kilograms of carbon emissions. Some foreign media and organizations claim that "the earth's carbon emissions are too high, which is related to the fact that Chinese eat too much pork."
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="18" >2</h1>
To conclude that something is correct is only because it has not been proven to be wrong, or to conclude that something is wrong simply because it has not been proven to be correct.
The logic of many conspiracy theorists is this: You can't prove my theory wrong, then my theory is correct.
For example, some people say: So far there is no evidence to prove that aliens do not exist, so aliens exist. These are all appeals to ignorance.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="25" >3</h1>
Try to replace a powerful discourse by manipulating other people's feelings.
Feelings include fear, jealousy, resentment, disgust, and so on. A logically rigorous statement may provoke other people's emotional fluctuations, but if it is only used with emotion, it is a mistake to resort to feelings.
Every mentally healthy person is affected by feelings, so this fallacy works, but that's why it's a low-level ploy.
Example: Often in the circle of friends some people forward some articles, after adding a sentence not to forward how, how,
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="32" >4, landslide fallacy</h1>
"Probability" equals "necessity" or amplifies certain relevant factors and does not lead to a change in the outcome.
Sophists who use the slippery slope fallacy tend to use a long cascade of reasoning. Many of these reasonings are probabilistic (and even negligible probabilities), and the sophist deliberately says that it is inevitable, so that an almost unrelated result can be "inferred" from one thing.
Example: You have to study hard! If you don't study well, you can't go to a good high school, you can't go to a good university, you can't find a good job, you can only sweep the street! Are you so hard that you want to sweep the streets for the rest of your life!
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="38" >5, appeal to analogy</h1>
Analogies are suitable for elaboration, illustration, and conjecture.
In general, it is considered that an analogy is invalid only for two things whose commonality is not "large enough" at the level of the need to be argued, or two things whose commonality is outside the level of the need to be demonstrated
Example: "Dogs and people are mammals, and eating human flesh is immoral, so eating dog meat is unethical." (What humans and dogs have in common is biological, not moral.) ）
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="44" >6</h1>
It is a logical fallacy that uses the herd effect to make arguments. To put it bluntly, recourse to the public is only a means of persuasion, not a means of argument, and truth has nothing to do with the amount of support.
The typical form is also the wrong premise: "Everyone is like this, so it must not be wrong." ”
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="49" >7, 7 appeal to subjective emotions</h1>
This is actually the most common fallacy of non-formal logic.
Another form of appeal to subjective emotions is "empathy," such as "If you were the victim's parents, would you still think it would be wrong to sentence the perpetrator to death?" "The criteria for whether or not to impose the death penalty here should not be determined by the subjective feelings of the victim's parents.
There is also a logical fallacy that uses the compassion of the audience to make arguments. This is more of a propaganda tool.
Typical form: "Because A is pitiful, there is nothing wrong with what A has done." ”
Example: "Because A's family is very poor, there is nothing wrong with A carving a fake official seal to defraud medical expenses."
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="57" >8</h1>
Replace a powerful discourse with the perspective of an authority figure/institution.
To prove a point of view, it is not enough to simply excerpt someone else's point of view, at least to know the exposition of the authoritative point of view mentioned. Because authority figures/institutions also make mistakes, they cannot make unconditional assumptions about reasonableness. Of course, the opinion of an authority figure/institution may be correct, so it cannot be assumed that the view must be wrong just because the other party has used the fallacy of appealing to authority.
Example: "Something is true because a famous singer supports it."
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="63" >9, from argument to conclusion</h1>
Seeing that the level of other people's discourse is very low, or that there are errors in other people's statements, we think that other people's views must be wrong.
Just because there are errors or errors in other people's statements, you can't think that other people's views must be wrong. As the old saying goes, one should not ruin one's words or one's words because of one's words
Example: A person who advocates healthy eating publishes a very absurd diet theory on TV to promote the concept of healthy eating, and A thinks that healthy eating is deceptive after watching it, so he starts overeating every day. A commits the fallacy of deriving conclusions from arguments.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="69" >10</h1>
A certain property of an individual is the universal nature of the group that contains that individual.
Example: "One of my theories is correct, so all my theories are correct." ”
There are many more such fallacies in life, but memorizing the first paragraph of the text is enough to deal with it!