Fallacies謬誤分析2019版教學(xué)PPT

ChinaDebateEducationNetwork

TheQualityofArguments:

Fallacies

論點(diǎn)的品質(zhì)：謬誤9/12/2023Criteriafor

LogicalAssessmentofArgumentsStandardofAcceptability可接受性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)StandardofRelevance關(guān)聯(lián)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)StandardofSufficiency充分性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)評(píng)價(jià)論點(diǎn)邏輯性的基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)RSATriangleRSA三角ThisentireapproachtofallaciesisborrowedfromRalphH.JohnsonandJ.AnthonyBlair.LogicalSelfDefense.本內(nèi)容引自《邏輯的自衛(wèi)》一書可接受性關(guān)聯(lián)性充分性RAS三角：良好論點(diǎn)所應(yīng)符合的特征StandardofAcceptabilityThisstandardappliestotheevidenceonwhichtheargumentisconstructed.Istheevidenceacceptabletotheaudience?ThreecriteriaforacceptabilityIstheevidencecommonknowledge?Istheevidencesupportedelsewhere?Inanacceptablesource?Fromaqualifiedauthority?Istheevidencesupportedbyacogentsub-argument?9/12/2023可接受性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)針對(duì)用以支撐論點(diǎn)的論據(jù)論據(jù)對(duì)觀眾而言是可接受的嗎？

可接受性的三個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)這個(gè)論據(jù)屬于常識(shí)嗎？

這個(gè)論據(jù)本身有其他證據(jù)支撐嗎？

來源可靠嗎?是來源于權(quán)威出處嗎?這個(gè)論據(jù)是由某個(gè)有說服力的子論點(diǎn)支撐的嗎？StandardofRelevanceThisstandardappliestothelinksdrawnbetweentheevidenceandclaim.Doesthelinkhaveanyrelationshiptheevidenceandtheclaim.Inotherwords,doesthelink,toanydegree,assistthearguerintransferringtheacceptabilityoftheevidencetotheclaim?Thisisaminimalstandardofthequalityofthelinkbetweenevidenceandclaim.StandardofSufficiencySometimesevidenceisrelevanttotheclaimbutstillnotsufficient.Istherelationshipbetweenevidenceandclaimstrongenoughtoconvinceareasonableaudience?Doesthelinkfullytransfertheacceptabilityoftheevidencetotheclaim?Sufficiencyvariesfromsituationtosituation.充分性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有時(shí)論據(jù)確實(shí)與論斷相關(guān)聯(lián)，但卻并不充分。

論據(jù)和論斷間的邏輯聯(lián)系是否足夠堅(jiān)實(shí)以至于可以說服一個(gè)理性的觀眾?邏輯鏈?zhǔn)欠裢耆氐貙⒄摀?jù)的可接受性轉(zhuǎn)化為論斷的可接受性？充分性需要具體問題具體分析。

RSAasRelatedtotheStructureofArgumentRSA與論點(diǎn)結(jié)構(gòu)相結(jié)合可接受性?關(guān)聯(lián)性？充分性？論據(jù)論斷邏輯鏈邏輯恰當(dāng)ThreeBasicFallacies基本謬誤Problematicpremise:argumentsthatforanyreasonfailtofulfilltheacceptabilityrequirements.前提謬誤：論點(diǎn)不滿足可接受性要求Irrelevantreason:anargumentfailstominimallysatisfythecriteriaofrelevance.推理謬誤：論點(diǎn)不滿足對(duì)關(guān)聯(lián)性的最低要求。Hastyconclusions:allevidenceandlinkstakentogetherfailtomeetthetestofsufficiency.結(jié)論謬誤：所有的論據(jù)和邏輯鏈加起來都不能滿足充分性的要求。BasicFallacy#1:ProblematicPremise

基本謬誤1：前提謬誤Beggingthequestion乞題（同意反復(fù)、循環(huán)論證）Fallacyofincompatibility

自相矛盾ProblematicPremise前提謬誤

BeggingtheQuestion乞題Whenanarguerintroducesevidencethatisessentiallythesameastheclaim.

論辯者所引用的證據(jù)本質(zhì)上和論斷是同意反復(fù)。Freespeechisgoodforthesocietybecauseitisconducivetotheinterestsofthecommunity.

言論自由對(duì)社會(huì)是好的，因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)公共利益是有積極意義的。

ProblematicPremise

FallacyofIncompatibilityFallacythatoccurswhenAnarguermakesastatementthatisatoddstoanotherstatementmadebythearguer.Anarguer’sstatementisincompatiblewithsomeactionthatthearguerasperformedExamplesAnarguersaysatonetime(inBeijing)thatapolicyisgoodatanothertime(inXi’an)saysthepolicyisbadRadiotalkshowhostRushLimbaughsaid“Ifpeopleareviolatingthelawbydoingdrugstheyshouldbeconvicted”andpunished.”YetLimbaughadmittedtobeingaddictedtoprescriptiondrugsobtainedthroughmultipledoctors.前提謬誤

自相矛盾此種謬誤主要出現(xiàn)在

論辯者的一段言論和他自己的另一言論矛盾。（自相矛盾）論辯者的一段言論和他已經(jīng)陳述的要采取的行動(dòng)矛盾。（言行不一）舉例一位論辯者先前說某政策是好的，而后又說是壞的。電臺(tái)脫口秀主持人RushLimbaugh曾說“如果有人違法濫用藥物，他們就應(yīng)該被定罪和懲罰?！钡约簠s從多名醫(yī)生處獲取并濫用處方藥。BasicFallacy#2:IrrelevantReason

基本謬誤2：推理謬誤Argumentadhominem人身攻擊Strawpersonfallacy偷換概念Redherring轉(zhuǎn)移視線Poisoningthewell污名、扣帽子Guiltbyassociation連坐定罪Appealtofear訴諸恐懼Appealtopopularity訴諸從眾Appealtotradition訴諸傳統(tǒng)IrrelevantReason

AdHominemWhenadebaterattacksthepersonratherthanhisorherargument.NotallattacksonthepersonareirrelevantandthusarenotfallaciousExamplesFallacious:AttackingacandidateforPresidentofthedebateclubforfailingamathexamination.Notfallacious:AttackingacandidatefortheMinistryofHealthforcheatingonmedicalexams.推理謬誤：人身攻擊攻擊一個(gè)人的人品而不是他的論點(diǎn)。

并非所有針對(duì)人品的攻擊都是推理不當(dāng)，因而也不是謬誤。舉例：謬誤:以一次數(shù)學(xué)考試不及格來攻擊一位辯論協(xié)會(huì)會(huì)長候選人。非謬誤:以在某次醫(yī)學(xué)考試中作弊來攻擊一位衛(wèi)生部長候選人。

IrrelevantReason

StrawPersonAdebaterconstruesanargumenttobeotherthanwhatitisthenattacksthismisconstruedversionoftheargumentratherthantherealversion.Example:Someoneopposingthedeathpenaltyarguesthatthedeathpenaltyrisksexecutinganinnocentperson.Thestrawpersonresponsemightbe:“you’resuggestingweopenthedoorsofourprisonsandleteveryoneouttoavoidwrongfullyconvictinganyone.”論辯者把真正應(yīng)該討論的對(duì)象偷換或扭曲成自創(chuàng)的一個(gè)對(duì)象，然后對(duì)這個(gè)自創(chuàng)的對(duì)象進(jìn)行攻擊。舉例:有反對(duì)死刑者認(rèn)為，死刑存在將無辜者處死的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。偷換概念式的回應(yīng)可能是：“你這是主張，為了避免讓任何人蒙冤入獄，我們應(yīng)該敞開監(jiān)獄大門把所有人都放出來?！蓖评碇囌`：偷換概念I(lǐng)rrelevantReason

RedHerringAnargumentthatattemptstoshiftthefocusofdiscussiontoadifferentandirrelevantargument.Inotherwords,ittriestosidesteptheissue.Theissueofgaymarriagewasintroducedpriortothe2004U.S.presidentialelectiontotakethefocusoffoftheU.S.economyandthewarinIraq.將討論的焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移至一個(gè)不同且無關(guān)的話題上去。換言之，就是將本該討論的話題挪到一邊擱置起來。

在2004年美國總統(tǒng)辯論中，同性戀婚姻問題就被引入并突出，以轉(zhuǎn)移公眾對(duì)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)和伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的注意力。

推理謬誤：轉(zhuǎn)移視線IrrelevantReason

AdditionalFallaciesPoisoningthewell:discreditapersoninadvanceoftheirargument.“Dr.SummersisaRepublican.WecanonlyexpecthertobeagainstAffirmativeAction.”GuiltbyAssociation:Aperson’sargumentisattackednotdirectly,butonthebasisofpeoplewithwhomthepersonisassociated.“HowcanyoupossiblysupportMs.Yang.Afterall,sheisseeninthecompanyofgaypeople.”污名化:在討論他人論點(diǎn)前先把他的名聲搞臭。“薩默博士是一名共和黨人。因此我們唯一能確信的是她會(huì)反對(duì)一切好的動(dòng)議。”連坐定罪:不是直接攻擊,而是根據(jù)被攻擊者和什么人相關(guān)聯(lián)來攻擊他?！澳阍趺纯赡軙?huì)支持楊女士？不管怎么說，她可總是被看見和一幫同性戀混在一起?！蓖评碇囌`：更多的IrrelevantReason

AdditionalFallaciesAppealtofear:attemptingtotakethefocusofftheargumentbyshiftingthefocussolelyonthebasisoffear.“Ifyouvoteformyopponent,weshouldallbuildbombsheltersbecausewewillbeattacked.”Appealtopopularity:Usingthepopularityofsomeoneorsomethingtojustifyafavorableevaluation.“MostSerbssupportPresidentBorisTadic.Soshouldyou.”訴諸恐懼:試圖利用簡(jiǎn)單的恐嚇來轉(zhuǎn)移辯論的焦點(diǎn)?！叭绻銈兺镀苯o我的對(duì)手,那我們所有人就應(yīng)該去建防空洞，因?yàn)槲覀円欢〞?huì)被襲擊的。”訴諸從眾:利用某人或某事龐大的粉絲量去證明它的優(yōu)越性。“大多數(shù)塞爾維亞人都支持鮑里斯·塔迪奇總統(tǒng)。所以你也必須這樣。”推理謬誤：更多的Appealtotradition:anattempttoargueforanactiononthegroundsoftraditionratherthanontheactualmeritsofthataction.“TheU.S.hasallowedcitizenstopossessgunsforthepast200yearssoweshouldcontinuetodosoforthenext200years.訴諸傳統(tǒng)：試圖通過說明某事物悠久的傳統(tǒng)來證明其正確性，而不是論證其本身的優(yōu)劣。在過去兩百年里，美國一直允許公民持槍，所以我們應(yīng)該在接下來的兩百年里繼續(xù)這樣做。推理謬誤：更多的BasicFallacy#3HastyConclusion

基本謬誤3：結(jié)論謬誤Hastygeneralization草率歸納Fallaciousslipperyslopearguments滑坡論證Twowrongsfallacy雙重錯(cuò)誤Improperappealtopractice盲目從眾Fallacyofcomposition以點(diǎn)概面Fallacyofdivision錯(cuò)誤類推Posthocfallacy虛假因果Faultyanalogy不當(dāng)類比HastyConclusions：HastyGeneralization

結(jié)論謬誤：草率歸納Afallacyofreasoningbyexamplethatoccurswhentheexamplesselectedareeitherinsufficientinnumberorarenotrepresentative.使用例證不當(dāng)造成的謬誤。常常是案例數(shù)量不足或者代表性不好。IhavefivestudentsinmyclassfromHarbinandtheyareallfailing.IsupposeHarbindoesnotproducegoodstudents.我班里有五位來自哈爾濱的學(xué)生，他們?nèi)紱]及格。所以我認(rèn)為哈爾濱培養(yǎng)不出好學(xué)生。HastyConclusions

FallaciousSlipperySlopeArgumentsAdebatertriestoconnectaseriesofeventsinacausalchainthatendsincalamity.Theargumentisfallaciousonlyifthecausalchainisimproperlysupported.Thus,notallslipperyslopeargumentsarefallacies.“Ifwerestrictownershipofsemiautomaticweapons,politicianswillthenthinkaboutbanninghandguns,thenshortlyallfirearmsincludinghuntingriflesandguncollectionswillbebanned.”結(jié)論謬誤：滑坡論證論辯者試圖將一系列事件串聯(lián)成一個(gè)連鎖反應(yīng)式的因果鏈，最后推出一個(gè)災(zāi)難性后果。

只有當(dāng)連鎖反應(yīng)因果鏈存在邏輯問題時(shí)，滑坡論證才是一個(gè)謬誤。因此，并不是所有的滑坡論證都是謬誤。“如果我們限制了半自動(dòng)武器的持有權(quán)，接下來政客們就會(huì)考慮禁止手槍,緊接著所有的槍支包括獵槍和收藏槍支都將被禁止。”HastyConclusions：TwoWrongsFallacy

結(jié)論謬誤：雙重錯(cuò)誤Thetwowrongfallacyisamisplacedappealtoconsistency.論據(jù)和論斷雖然看似連貫統(tǒng)一，但它們各自都是錯(cuò)的?！癟wowrongsdon’tmakearight.”雙重錯(cuò)誤不能推導(dǎo)出正確Howcanthestatejustifycapitalpunishmentwhentheactofcapitalpunishmentisthesameasmurder.死刑本身就是謀殺，此時(shí)國家還怎么能將死刑合理化。HastyConclusions

AdditionalFallaciesImproperappealtopractice:Thisargumentassumesapersonisjustifiedindoingsomethingthatiscommonpracticeevenifthatpracticeisclearlywrong.“WhyshouldIpaywomenequalwages?Otherbusinessespaymenmorethanwomen.”Fallacyofcomposition:theevidenceisdrawnfromapartofawholebuttheconclusionisaboutthewhole.“TimHoward,thekeeperforManchesterUnited,isasuperbkeeper.Therefore,ManchesterUnitedisoneofthebestfootballteamsinEurope.”HastyConclusions

AdditionalFallaciesFallacyofdivision:Theevidenceisdrawnfromthewhole,buttheconclusionisaboutthepart.“Harvardisanexcellentuniversity,thereforeLawProfessorLawrenceTribemustbeanexcellentProfessor.”Posthocfallacy:theassumptionthatbecauseonethingprecedesanother,thefirstmusthavecausedthefirst.“AfterBarakObamawaselected,theU.S.economywentintorecession.ThereforeObamawasthecauseoftherecessi