Section outline

  • General

    Collapse all Expand all

  • 内容误差

    Consider the following statements:
    ::审议以下声明:

    “Hitler was a bad person, and he had a mustache, so mustaches are bad”.
    ::“希特勒是一个坏人,他有胡子,所以胡子是坏人”。

    “She thinks that movie was great, but she is stupid, so the movie must be bad”.
    ::“她认为这部电影很棒, 但她很愚蠢,

    “He thinks that skiing is fun, but he believes in UFO’s, so skiing must be boring”.
    ::“他觉得滑雪很有趣, 但他相信UFO, 所以滑雪一定很无聊”。

    lesson content

    All three of these arguments exemplify the same form of logical content fallacy. What fallacy is at play here, and how can it be avoided?
    ::所有这些论点都体现了逻辑内容谬误的同样形式。 这里的谬误是什么? 如何避免呢?

    See the end of the lesson for the answer.
    ::答案见课的结尾。

    Content Fallacies 
    ::内容误差

    There are two broad classifications of logical fallacy: fallacies of structure and fallacies of content. In this lesson, we will consider content fallacies , also known as informal fallacies .
    ::逻辑谬误分为两大类:结构谬误和内容谬误。 在这个教训中,我们将考虑内容谬误,也称为非正式谬误。

    A content fallacy is a logical fallacy that is not due to the way the argument is stated, but rather due to what the argument actually says. Although there are effectively infinite ways to devalue an argument by using faulty content of one sort or another, there are some types of content fallacies that are common enough to warrant particular consideration. Learning to recognize the more common types of content fallacies can greatly simplify the process of identifying faulty arguments.
    ::内容谬误是一种逻辑谬误,不是因为争论的表述方式,而是因为争论的实际内容。 尽管实际上有无限的方法通过使用某种内容的错误来贬低争论的价值,但有些类型的内容谬误非常常见,值得特别考虑。 学会承认更常见的各类内容谬误可以大大简化辨别错误论点的过程。

    Common Content Fallacies:
    ::共同内容误判:

    • Ad Hominem : This fallacy is committed when an argument is based on the perceived failings of an adversary.
      • My sister likes that book, and she is annoying. The book must be bad.
        ::我姐姐喜欢那本书,她很烦人 这本书一定很糟糕

      ::阿德·霍明姆:这种谬论是依据一个对手的缺点而争论的。我的姐姐喜欢那本书,她很烦人。那本书一定是坏的。
    • Bandwagon : This is an argument based on the concept that the majority is always right.
      • That video has 100,000 hits, it must be really good!
        ::那段视频有十万次点击 一定很棒吧!

      ::Bandwagon:这是一个基于多数人总是对的理念的争论。这段视频有十万次点击,
    • Begging the Question (circular argument) : An argument that assumes the truth of its conclusion.
      • Executions are moral because we must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime.
        ::处决是道德的,因为我们必须有死刑来阻止暴力犯罪。

      ::质疑问题(循环论 ): 假设其结论属实的论据。 处决是道德的,因为我们必须有死刑来阻止暴力犯罪。
    • False Dilemma : An argument which over simplifies a complex situation into only two possible alternatives.
      • Bad people make bad decisions, good people good ones. I lied once, so I must be a bad person.
        ::坏人做坏决定,好人做坏人 我骗过人,所以我一定是坏人

      ::虚伪困境: 将复杂局势简化为两种可能选择的论据。 坏人做出错误的决定,好人做坏人。 我骗过一次,所以我必须是一个坏人。
    • Non-Sequitur : An argument where the conclusion is not based on the premises.
      • I am a math teacher, so I know all about fashion.
        ::我是个数学老师 所以我对时尚很了解

      ::非Sequitur:一个结论并非基于前提的论点。 我是个数学老师,所以我对时尚很了解。
    • Straw Man : An argument based on misrepresenting the opponent’s argument so it may be easily defeated.
      • “Straw man has always been a stock-in-trade of advertisers.... A Post Office commercial once pictured competitors trying to deliver packages with rickety old planes that fell apart on camera.” (H. Kahane and N. Cavender, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Wordsworth, 1998)
        ::“拖网人一向是广告商的股本......邮局的一个商业广告曾经想象到竞争者试图用机型坚硬的旧飞机提供包裹,这些飞机在摄像机上破裂。” (H.Kahane和N.Cavender,Locic和当代Rhetoric,Wordsworth,1998年)。

      ::斯特劳曼:基于歪曲对手论点的论据,这样它很容易被击败。 “拖夫一直是广告商的股本交易。 ......邮局的一个商业广告曾经想象过竞争者试图用机上破碎的、坚硬的老飞机提供包裹。” (H.Kahane和N.Cavender,Logic和当代Rhetoric,Wordsworth,1998年)。

    Determining Content that a Fallacy Represents 
    ::确定误差所代表内容

    1. Consider the following argument, what content fallacy does it represent?
    ::1. 考虑以下论点,它代表的内容谬误是什么?

    “He thinks Ferraris are the best cars, but he likes VW Bugs, so what does he know”?
    ::“他觉得法拉利是最好的车, 但他喜欢VW虫,

    Begin by breaking down the argument and rewriting it in a standard form:
    ::开始先打破争论,重写标准格式:

    • Premise 1: He thinks Ferraris are the best sports cars
      ::假设1: 他认为法拉利是最好的运动车
    • Premise 2: He likes VW Bugs
      ::预言2:他喜欢VW虫虫
    • (assumed premise): VW Bugs are obviously bad cars, anyone who likes them must not know anything about nice sports cars.
      ::VW Bugs显然是坏车, 任何喜欢这些车的人, 一定对运动车一无所知。
    • Conclusion: Ferraris must not be good cars.
      ::结论:法拉利一定不是好车。

    The conclusion that Ferraris are not good is based on the premise that “He” is a bad judge of cars so any car he likes can’t possibly be any good. This is a clear example of Ad Hominem , since the premise is a character attack and the conclusion has no basis in any evidence about the product in question.
    ::法拉利不善的结论是基于“他”对汽车判断不当的前提,因此他喜欢的任何汽车都不可能是好车。 这是阿德·霍明尼姆的明显例子,因为这一前提是性格攻击,结论没有任何关于有关产品的证据依据。

    2. Consider the following argument, what content fallacy does it exemplify?
    ::2. 考虑以下论点,它能说明什么内容谬误?

    “The last three days I walked to school and it rained, so we deserve a longer lunch break”
    ::“过去三天,我走到学校,下雨,因此,我们应该得到一个更长的午餐休息时间”。

    Break the argument down into a standard form:
    ::将争论细分为标准格式 :

    • Premise 1: I walked to school the last three days
      ::预言1:过去三天我走去上学
    • Premise 2: It rained the last three days
      ::预言2:过去三天下雨
    • Conclusion: We deserve a longer lunch break
      ::结论:我们应该得到一个更长的午餐休息时间

    The conclusion is based on the false assumption that there is some connection between walking to school in the rain and the length of a lunch break. Since there is no apparent connection, this is an example of a non-sequitur .
    ::这一结论基于一种错误的假设,即在雨中步行上学与午餐休息时间长短之间有某种联系,因为没有明显的联系,这是非戒备性的例子。

    3. Consider the following argument, what content fallacy does it exemplify?
    ::3. 考虑以下论点,它能说明什么内容谬误?

    “Mom, why can’t I have a slice of my birthday cake”?
    ::妈妈, 为什么我不能吃生日蛋糕呢?

    “You can’t eat nothing but sugar all the time, it is unhealthy”.
    ::“除了糖之外,你什么都吃不了,这是不健康的”。

    This is an example of a Straw Man . Mom cleverly avoided answering the initial question by setting up the argument that an all sugar diet is unhealthy - she knows that is an easy argument to win.
    ::这是草人的例子。妈妈巧妙地避免回答最初的问题,她提出一个论点,认为所有食糖都不健康,她知道这很容易赢得。

    Earlier Problem Revisited
    ::重审先前的问题

    “Hitler was a bad person, and he had a mustache, so mustaches are bad”.
    ::“希特勒是一个坏人,他有胡子,所以胡子是坏人”。

    “She thinks that movie was great, but she is stupid, so the movie must be bad”.
    ::“她认为这部电影很棒, 但她很愚蠢,

    “He thinks that skiing is fun, but he believes in UFO’s, so skiing must be boring”.
    ::“他觉得滑雪很有趣, 但他相信UFO, 所以滑雪一定很无聊”。

    All three of these arguments exemplify the same form of logical content fallacy. What fallacy is at play here, and how can it be avoided?
    ::所有这些论点都体现了逻辑内容谬误的同样形式。 这里的谬误是什么? 如何避免呢?

    All three arguments above are examples of Ad Hominem , which means they are based in a personal attack on a person. This fallacy is easily avoided by not basing an argument on a perceived flaw in an opponent.
    ::上述所有三个论点都是Ad Hominem的例子,这意味着这些论点是基于对一个人的人身攻击,这种谬误很容易避免,因为没有以对对手的明显缺陷作为论据。

    Examples 
    ::实例

    Examples 1-4 refer to the following:
    ::例1-4提到以下各点:

    “You are either a winner or a loser. Winners eat Yummy-O’s cereal! Are you a winner”?
    ::“你要么是赢家,要么是输家。 赢家吃优美的麦片! 你是赢家吗?”

    Example 1
    ::例1

    What are the premises of this argument?
    ::这一论点的根据是什么?

    Premise 1: You are a winner or a loser
    ::假设1:你是一个赢家或输家

    Premise 2: Winners eat Yummy-O’s cereal
    ::预言2:赢家吃Yummi-O的谷类

    Hidden premise: It is good to be a winner
    ::隐藏的前提:成功是好事

    Example 2
    ::例2

    What is the conclusion?
    ::结论是什么?

    You are a loser if you don’t eat Yummy-o’s
    ::若不吃甜食, 你是一个失败者。

    Example 3
    ::例3

    What fallacy is represented?
    ::何为谬误?

    This is a false dilemma , by making it look as if there are only two types of people, winners that eat Yummy-O’s and losers that don’t, you are set up to believe the conclusion that you must eat the cereal to be a winner. The other possibilities, that you might be a winner that does not eat Yummy-O’s, or a loser that does, are not represented.
    ::这是一个虚假的两难困境,因为看起来只有两种人,一种是吃优食的赢家,另一种是没有吃优食的输家,一种是不相信你必须吃谷类才能赢家的结论。 另一种可能性是,你可能是不吃优食的赢家,另一种可能是不吃优食的输家,另一种可能性是没有代表的。

    Review 
    ::回顾

    Questions 1-4 refer to the following:
    ::问题1-4如下:

    “Bob says that we should not fund the proposed laser defense program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that”.
    ::“鲍勃说,我们不应该资助拟议的激光防御计划,我完全不同意,我不明白他为什么想让我们如此无自卫力”。

    1. What are the premises to the argument?
    ::1. 论点的根据是什么?

    2. What is the conclusion?
    ::2. 结论是什么?

    3. Is the argument valid?
    ::3. 论点是否有效?

    4. What fallacy, if any, is demonstrated?
    ::4. 如果有任何谬误,说明什么是谬误?

    Questions 5-8 refer to the following:
    ::问题5-8涉及以下方面:

    “I am the best player in school because no one is better than I am”.
    ::“我是学校里最优秀的选手,因为没有人比我好”。

    5. What are the premises to the argument?
    ::5. 论点的前提是什么?

    6. What is the conclusion?
    ::6. 结论是什么?

    7. Is the argument valid?
    ::7. 论点是否有效?

    8. What fallacy, if any, is demonstrated?
    ::8. 如果有任何谬误,说明什么是谬误?

    Questions 9-12 refer to the following:
    ::问题9-12涉及以下方面:

    “Karen says that being a vegetarian is great, but she is crazy anyway”.
    ::“Karen说做素食主义者很好,

    9. What are the premises to the argument?
    ::9. 论点的前提是什么?

    10. What is the conclusion?
    ::10. 结论是什么?

    11. Is the argument valid?
    ::11. 论点是否有效?

    12. What fallacy, if any, is demonstrated?
    ::12. 如果有任何谬误,说明什么是谬误?

    Questions 13-16 refer to the following:
    ::问题13-16涉及以下方面:

    “Reading encourages you to use your imagination more than TV, so there should be more comic-book stores in town”.
    ::“阅读鼓励你比电视更多地利用想象力,因此在城里应该有更多的漫画店”。

    13. What are the premises to the argument?
    ::13. 论点的前提是什么?

    14. What is the conclusion?
    ::14. 结论是什么?

    15. Is the argument valid?
    ::15. 这一论点是否有效?

    16. What fallacy, if any, is demonstrated?
    ::16. 如果有任何谬误,说明什么是谬误?

    Review (Answers)
    ::回顾(答复)

    Click to see the answer key or go to the Table of Contents and click on the Answer Key under the 'Other Versions' option.
    ::单击可查看答题键, 或转到目录中, 单击“ 其他版本” 选项下的答题键 。