阅读志:谬误侦探
17 Nov 2020目录
人生艰苦，小心忽悠。甄别谬误，不被忽悠。
1 求知之心
1.1 訓練心智
第一部分 是 The enquiring mind 求知的心，第一篇内容就是心智可訓練。
Your grandpa always said you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
老話雖然如此，人想自我想改變，才真能改變。
The mind is like a muscle. It needs exercise too.
我們的心智如同肌肉，可以訓練。
1.2 善於傾聽
第一部分第二篇内容是善於傾聽。
A person who is humble and who loves to listen may show these characteristics:
- He is more interested in hearing what other people have to say than in having them listen to him. Humility brings respect for others and for their thoughts.
- He places a modest value on his own opinions – he admits that other people often have better ideas than he does.
- He willingly admits when he doesn’t know something. If he doesn’t understand something, he is open about it.
- He is willing to question his own position on an issue.
If a person shows these qualities, then he may be someone who loves to listen. And being a person who loves to listen is another ingredient in an inquiring mind.
上面是傾聽者的幾個特徵：
- 感興趣于他人所説，而不是自己濤濤不覺。
- 適度看待自己的觀點，並承認他人的觀點通常比自己的觀點更有想法。
- 願意承認自己未知之事物，並以敞開心去接受未知事物。
- 他愿意质疑自己在一个问题上的立场。
1.3 正反觀點
第一部分第三篇關於正反觀點
When we are forming an opinion on an issue, it is often a good idea to collect other people’s viewpoints on it. The more viewpoints we hear, the better we understand the whole picture.
看待一個問題，不要僅僅局限于自我的觀點，多收集他人的觀點。此爲，看待一個問題，要看正反觀點，便於看清問題全貌，理解問題。
本篇講了Oscar在“世界是平的”這個組織中，對於世界是平的這個觀點深信不疑，並認爲其他認爲世界是圓的之人都是錯誤的。這種人容易聽信他人的觀點或想法，自己並不去驗證，思考。相當於他人的思想代替了自己的思想，然而並不知道這個思想是否正確。人云亦云，沒有考慮正反觀點。
Oscar is not honestly evaluating both sides of the issue firsthand. He isn’t studying things for himself. He has only listened to one side of the issue – the Flat Earth side. No wonder his side makes sense to him. Any side may seem logical if we only see things from that one point of view.
瞭解正反觀點的益處：
- 判斷自己的觀點是否正確
- 如果他人觀點錯誤，可以幫助他人。
2 回避問題
2.1 红鲱鱼谬误
第一篇 Red Herring Fallacy 紅緋魚謬誤
顧“左右”而言他（小臭魚謬誤）引入”小臭魚”(不相關的論點)而不知
Whenever we introduce something irrelevant into an argument, we are avoiding the question.
a red herring is an irrelevant topic which distracts us from the real question.
A red herring introduces an irrelevant point into an argument. Someone may think (or may want us to think) it proves his side, but it really doesn’t.
案例
Logical Form:
Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.
Example #1:
Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?
Ken: But what is morality exactly?
Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?...
Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.
來源：https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring
https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/
2.2 識別紅緋魚
如何識別“red herring”？所説觀點或事情，雖然正確但是與當前論點無關，那麽這個觀點或事情就是“red herring”.
2.3 詭辯謬誤
诡辩（Special Pleading）谬误乃是红鲱鱼谬误一种：
Special Pleading 牛津词典的解释，其实也就是仅找有利于自己的观点，证据。
special pleading:
trying to persuade sb about sth by mentioning only the arguments that
support your opinion and ignoring the arguments that do not support it.
When someone uses a double standard or argues for an unjustified exception, he is committing the fallacy of special pleading.
The special pleading fallacy is a type of red herring. When someone introduces an unjustified exception to an argument, he is avoiding the issue.
如何识别诡辩谬误：
To recognize special pleading, we need to step back and ask ourselves: Why is this exception relevant? Is this distracting us from the issue involved?
Special pleading fallacies often involve fairness.
2.4 人身攻擊
Ad Hominem Attack: 攻擊他人的人格、動機等, 而非反駁他人觀點。
An ad hominem attack is attacking an opponent’s character or his motives for believing something instead of disproving his argument.
下面的是非人身攻擊：
It is not an ad hominem when someone only questions whether someone else is telling the truth.
“I don’t think we can trust Mr. Smith when he says that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. He has been known to lie on many occasions, and he certainly has a motive for not telling the truth here.”
2.5 基因謬誤
基因謬誤是人身攻擊謬誤中的一種。攻擊的是觀點的源頭。
The genetic fallacy is another personal attack fallacy. It is called “genetic” because it addresses the genesis, or beginning, of something. The genetic fallacy is different from ad hominem because it does not attack the person making the argument. It attacks the place where the argument came from.
The genetic fallacy is condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.
2.6 Tu Quoque 你也是
Tu quoque is Latin for “you too.” Tu quoque is dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because he himself is inconsistent in that very thing.
案例：
> FRED: I wouldn’t smoke cigarettes if I were you.
It is a bad habit, and it will bring you all kinds of problems.
> JAKE: Don’t tell me not to smoke. You do it too.
2.7 權威謬誤
Faulty Appeal to Authority: A faulty appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
An authority is someone who has special knowledge on a particular subject.
However, if the person we are appealing to is not actually an authority in the area we are discussing, our appeal is faulty.
明星代言的廣告，利用明星的光環，產品不一定好，這是明星謬誤。
When someone uses an appeal to authority as a way to overawe us and make us reluctant to challenge that authority’s viewpoint, he is committing a faulty appeal to authority. (利用權威讓人無法反駁)
When the topic under discussion is controversial among respected authorities, appealing simply to the opinion of a single authority is a faulty appeal to authority. (当所讨论的话题仍在权威中存在争议时，单纯地引用一个权威的意见是对权威的错误呼吁。)
2.8 他者謬誤
Appeal to the People：
When we claim that our viewpoint is correct because many other people agree with it, we are committing the appeal to the people fallacy.
其他人都做的事情，不一定就是對的。不能用其他人的事物去回避真正的問題。
案例：
“This new book, The Fallacy Detective, must be the best logic book around.
It has been on the best-seller list for months.”
We should all know that the most popular book isn’t necessarily the best book.
This is an appeal to the people.
2.9 Straw Man(稻草人謬誤)
Straw Man: The fallacy of straw man is changing or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute.
案例：
MOTHER: I think you have been playing too many of those video games lately.
SON: Oh, so you think I should just throw away my $1,000 video game collection
and sit up in my room taking practice IQ tests all day?
This is not what the mother said. The son is exaggerating his mother’s viewpoint.
She thought he should play fewer video games – not no video games at all.
The son committed the straw man fallacy.
3 假設
3.1 假设
以一个Aroup的故事引入assumption：
An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.
清楚假设前提，尽量做到客观:（1）聆听（2）检验我们自己的假设（3）检验他人的假设
Here are three suggestions on how to be objective:
1. Listen. Every time we listen to someone else’s viewpoint,
we give ourselves the opportunity to become undeceived.
2. Evaluate our assumptions. It is important to recognize that
everyone has a bias and that we need to understand and to
manage our own biases. We need to be aware of the assumptions
that we are making. Keep asking, “Why do I think this is true?”
There is nothing wrong with having assumptions, just as long as
we have the correct assumptions.
3. Evaluate other people’s assumptions. We should be alert to clues
in what people say which may show their assumptions. This will
give us insight into why they believe what they believe.
3.2 循环论证
Circular Reasoning:
An argument which says “P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true” is using circular reasoning.
其实就是会判断原命题，逆命题，否命题，逆否命题的真伪。
3.3 含糊其辞
equivocation 含糊其辞，偷换概念，偷换词义，往往在一词多义时会出现。
An equivocation changes the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument.
案例：
If the English don’t drive on the right side of the road,
what are they doing on the wrong side?”
Here, “right” changes meaning from right-hand versus left-hand,
to right versus wrong.
“We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
– Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
“Hang” changes meaning here from “keeps close company” to
“being strung at the end of a rope.”
3.4 圈套问题
loaded question:
When someone asks two questions, but one is hidden behind the other, that’s a loaded question.
案例
“Gimme dat.” Four-year-old Bridget grabs a toy shovel from her brother Sam.
“Oughhhhhh!” Sam grabs after the fleet form of Bridget.
“Give me back my shovel … !” He trips, sprawling on the sandy beach.
Scurrying like a crab, she giggles, “I want it.” Running after her,
Sam throws a handful of sand at Bridget, still out of reach.
Bridget stops and hurls the shovel in Sam’s direction, wailing,
“Mawwww, Sam took my shovel and got sand in my eyes. Waaaaahhhhhaaahh.”
Looking up, Mother asks sharply,
“Sam, come here. Why did you take that shovel from your baby sister?”
Mother has asked a loaded question. Her question contained two questions
rolled into one. She should have first asked, “Sam, did you take that
shovel from Bridget?” before she asked, “Why did you take that shovel
from Bridget?” Sam may not have actually taken the shovel from Bridget.
母亲典型的不好好说话系列，一上来直接质问，跳掉第一层提问（是不是），直接质问“为什么？”。
如何避免：(1) 拆解问题；（2）可质疑问题本身有没有问题（存在隐含假设或前提）
When you suspect that someone is asking you a loaded question, then ask yourself how you can split the question. Before answering the question, you need to question the question – be aware of the assumptions behind it.
3.5 滑坡謬誤
Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy assumes that if we take one step, nothing will stop us from taking a series of steps because each step is the same.
這種謬誤假設每一步產生的結果都一樣。
案例：
CAMPER A: Could you change your T-shirt?
You’ve been wearing it all week, and it really smells!
CAMPER B: Why? This shirt was fine on Monday.
You had no complaints on Tuesday. No problem Wednesday.
All of a sudden something’s wrong with it?
“勿以善小而不爲，勿以惡小而爲之”.
3.6 以偏概全谬误
Part-to-Whole:
When someone says that what is true of part of something must also be true of the whole thing, he is using the part-to-whole fallacy.
案例：
CHILD: Mommy, why is this feather pillow so heavy?
It just has feathers in it, and little feathers don’t weigh anything.
典型的：
你怎样，Country就怎样！！！
3.7 以全概偏谬误
whole to part: 以全代普，以全概偏
When someone says that what is true of something as a whole must also be true of each of its parts, then this person is using the whole-to-part fallacy.
当有人说，作为一个整体的东西是真的，它的每一个部分也必须是真的，那么这个人就是在使用整体到部分的谬误。
案例：
SPORTS REPORTER: In this year’s games, Team America has won more medals than any other team
in history. So Jim, who’s on Team America, must be a great athlete.
3.8 非此即彼谬误
Either-Or
When someone asserts that we must choose between two things, when in fact we have more than two alternatives, he is using the either-or fallacy.
案例：
GRUMPY OLD LADY: It must have been raining, snowing, sleeting, or hailing earlier because the streets are wet. It couldn’t be snow or sleet because it’s July. It couldn’t be hail because I haven’t heard any thunderstorms. So it must have rained.
小心：
没有XXX，就没有XXX。
4 統計謬誤
4.1 归纳
We all generalize things. That is, we all make broad comments about a group of people or kind of things.
从特殊—>一般
归纳之要素
A generalization is composed of samples taken from a class.
1 A class is a group of people or things
which all have some common characteristics.
2 When you examine one or more of the people or things
in a class, then you are taking a sample of that class.
3 A generalization takes a sample from a class of things,
then, using the characteristics from that sample,
says something about everything in that class.
将特殊的样本特征，归纳得到一类群体中所有样本特征。比如：A男人不是个好东西，B男人不是个好东西。所以，所有男人都不是好东西。
除非我们知道自己在做什么，否则取样和归纳可能是一件危险的事情。当我们的取样和归纳没有正确进行时，它们被称为草率的归纳。
归纳的特征：
- 归纳无真假，有强弱。There is nothing absolutely certain about generalizations – instead, a generalization is either strong or weak. (A generalization cannot be true or false; it can be only strong or weak. A strong generalization is one which is more likely to be correct.)
- 归纳依赖采样。A generalization relies upon samples of a class. It does not rely upon a study of every single member of the class.
- 有反例，则需调整归纳或放弃。Any generalization must be either adjusted or overthrown by a single contrary case.
- 样本变大或更具代表性，归纳性则变强。A generalization becomes stronger as the sample grows larger and more representative.
采样要均匀，样本涉及到各个方面。
4.2 草率归纳
hasty generalization：草率归纳，不当归纳
A hasty generalization is generalizing about a class based upon a small or poor sample.
案例：
小明只有一只脚
小明是人
因此，人只有一只脚
人们容易草率归纳的原因：
- Too small of a sample 样本数量太少
- Not a representive sample 样本不具普适性
4.3 类比
Analogy:
We are reasoning by analogy when we compare two items with each other.
We are reasoning by analogy when we compare two or more items with each other. We notice that these items are the same in one or more ways and conclude that they will be the same in other ways also.
Analogies – like generalizations – are either strong or weak.
类比没有真假，只有强弱，但强弱也只是程度而已。
When examining an analogy, we must not only think of areas where the two items are the same. We must also think of areas where the two items are different.
检查类比时，要更多关注事物之间的差异之处。类比与归纳好区分。
4.4 弱类比
弱类比：The fallacy of weak analogy claims that some items with only minor similarities are the same in almost everything else.
类比没有真假，只有强弱程度。如何判断：
- If the similarities between the items being compared are major and the differences only minor, then that analogy is a strong analogy. (相似点多，并占主导，则强类比)
- If the differences between the items being compared are major and the similarities minor, then we call that analogy a weak analogy. （差异点多，并占主导，则弱类比）
案例：
CLYDE: Our new car is a blue Ford.
It has a fifteen-gallon gas tank, five cup holders,
and a sun roof. It sure drives fast!
BERT: Hey! Our car has all of those things. I’ll bet it drives fast too.
分析：车的颜色、水箱大小、杯架、天窗都不是影响汽车速度的主要因素。上面的类比就是弱类比。发动机才是影响汽车驾驶速度的关键因素之一。
4.5 事后归因谬误
事后归因谬误：Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 谬误：事件 A 发生在事件 B 之前，就认为一定事件 A 导致 事件 B 发生。如果没有足够的证据，我们就不能直接判断A导致B发生。归根结底还是因为事件发生的根本原因没有找对。
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is concluding that since A happened before B, A must have caused B.
案例：
Does failing to brush your teeth encourage you to murder? A recent study, conducted over the past fifty years, has revealed a relationship between toothbrush sales and crime rates. Whenever toothbrush sales in the United States drop, the crime rate climbs. Also, when people start to buy more toothbrushes, there are fewer crimes.
“This is astounding,” says the president of Colgate. “We have always recommended that people brush their teeth, but we never thought it was this important.”– another thing Hans made up
犯罪率真假背后真正的原因并非刷牙的问题，而是背后经济状况差的问题。没钱买牙刷，经济状况差，犯罪率增加。
4.6 诉诸无知谬误
诉诸无知：Proof by Lack of Evidence: 由于一件事未被证明是假的，因此它是真的。或者，由于一件事未被证明是真的，因此它是假的。
The proof by lack of evidence fallacy is claiming something is true simply because nobody has yet given any evidence to the contrary.
这里就设计到举证责任，谁主张谁举证。无证据，不成真。
When someone makes an assertion – “you are guilty of this crime” – that person is the one who is obliged to back it up with evidence – “you are guilty of this crime because I saw you do it.” Saying “you are guilty because you haven’t shown me you aren’t” would be very lazy reasoning. It shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, when the accuser should have the burden of proving his accusation.
5 宣傳與鼓吹(Propaganda)
5.1 操纵性宣传
Propaganda
Propaganda is any strategy for spreading our beliefs or ideas.
并非所有宣传都不好，只有诚实的宣传是好的。
操纵性宣传
Manipulative propaganda is used when someone plays with our emotions in a way designed to make us agree with them without thinking through the matter carefully.
Manipulative propaganda is like a red herring fallacy: it avoids the important issues that should be addressed; it distracts us. When we think we are being manipulated by propaganda, it is useful to ask ourselves: is this person actually proving what he is saying? Or is he merely giving me the impression that he has proven it to me? Is what he is saying relevant?
5.2 “恐吓”操纵
Appeal to fear is a propaganda technique.
Appeal to fear is used when someone makes you fear the consequences of not doing what he wants.**
Appeal to fear 不适用于威胁但是不是为了改变你的想法。
An appeal to fear is not being used when somebody threatens us but doesn’t try to change our opinion.
比如下面的抢劫犯恐吓不是改变你的想法，而是给出他的观念，你不交钱，就杀了你。
BANK ROBBER: If you don’t transfer all of the money into my account, I will give you a bad case of lead poisoning with this gun here.
an appeal to fear is trying to change someone’s opinion out of fear of something.
5.3 利用同情心
Appeal to Pity 利用同情心改变你的想法或行为
When someone tries to make us do something only because we pity him or we pity something associated with him, he is using the propaganda technique called appeal to pity.
5.4 利用从众心理
Bandwagon：利用从众心理操控，随波逐流。要看所做事件是否正确。其他人都这么做，你想也不想这件事对错与否也去做，这就是随大流。
When advertisements and articles encourage us to “join the millions,” the propaganda technique of bandwagon is being used.
The bandwagon technique invites us to jump on the bandwagon and do what everybody else is doing. This technique pressures us to do something just because many other people like us are doing it.
5.5 按”紧急”状况做决定
根据时间多少去做决定，其实双11，618大促就是使用这种操纵伎俩。
An exigency is an urgent need which demands immediate action. The exigency technique encourages us to “hurry up and agree, because we are running out of time.”
Exigency is being used when nothing more than a time limit is given as a reason for us to do what someone wants.
5.6 重复重复再重复
Repetition is repeating a message loudly and very often in the hope that we will believe it.
TC喊口号就如此，不断Brainwahsing. 广告的狂轰乱炸就是如此，就如脑白金的广告。
5.7 移情操控
移情操控：把我们的感情与不相关的事物联系起来。
Transfer is getting us to transfer our good or bad feelings about one thing to another unrelated thing.
如果一个专业人士代言宣传产品，就不是移情操控。
Transfer is not being used when the famous person promoting a product is actually an authority on products of that kind.
5.8 “与众不同”的操控
Snob appeal is used when someone tries to persuade us to think his product would make us better than or make us stand out from everyone else.
利用购买或使用某些物品，你就怎样怎样与他人不同，这类就是”Snob Appeal” 与众不同的操控。
“Harrow Boarding School. Improving education for the brightest minds.”
5.9 偏向传统
An appeal to tradition occurs when someone encourages us to buy some product or to take some action because it is associated with things of the past.
这种在广告中很常见，尤其在国内大学创立年限上，比如：
“Established in 1919.”
“We’ve been in business for over 100 years.”
5.10 偏向”Hi-tech”
In an appeal to hi-tech, we are encouraged to buy something because it is the “latest thing” – not necessarily because it is the best thing.
高科技、最前沿的事物不一定是最好的事物，也不一定是最适合你的事物。
结语
The Fallacy Detective 以38小课的内容介绍了一些谬误，包括逃避问题、假设错误、统计谬误以及宣传上常见的一些谬误。读者可以根据这些扩展，形成自己的谬误栅格。
AJ1604
@JeremyAnifacc
人生苦短, 为欢几何.
