The Absence of Logical Education in the Celestial Empire#
Most ordinary people learn, from childhood to adulthood, particularly in terms of textual logical reasoning, which may only involve content like "metaphorical argumentation" and "parallel argumentation" in language, and thus believe that these are the ways of textual argumentation. However, in reality, these are not correct argumentative logics and do not have logical necessity.
In daily life, we only need to understand a few common logical fallacies to reduce being misled by others and to avoid making errors in our own logical reasoning.
-
Straw Man Fallacy
Misrepresenting the opponent's viewpoint and attacking a distorted version rather than the actual argument.
Example: Misinterpreting "reducing carbon emissions" as "demanding everyone stop using cars."
Note: This type of fallacy is often used by argumentative individuals during disputes; you say A, they say B. To deal with such fallacies, clarify the subject of the argument with the other party. Generally, once clarified, the fallacy will disappear. If you find the other party still being obstinate, it proves they are either pretending to be foolish or genuinely foolish. -
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Assuming that a certain action will lead to a series of extreme consequences without sufficient evidence.
Example: "If same-sex marriage is allowed, next people will marry animals."
Note: The difference between logical reasoning and slippery slope fallacy lies in the presence of sufficient evidence. If the facts are correct and the reasoning is correct, then the conclusion is correct. -
Appeal to Emotion
Replacing logical argumentation with emotional expressions, such as using fear or pity.
Example: "Those who do not support this policy simply do not care about the lives of the poor!"
Note: Maintain rationality, even when the matter truly relates to your interests. Try to minimize your subjective feelings and focus solely on the correctness of the logic to arrive at the correct conclusion, which will also help you face the conclusion better and make the right choice. Conclusions do not change due to personal emotions, but actions taken based on conclusions are determined by you. -
Appeal to Authority
Using authority as the sole argument while ignoring substantial evidence.
Example: "An expert said this medicine is effective, so it must be effective."
Note: Authority itself is merely a premise that increases the credibility of the argument. When we lack the energy to find the chain of argumentation, appealing to authority is a lazy way to quickly find the most credible conclusion. However, no matter how authoritative, if there is no correct argumentative evidence, authority is merely illusory and should not be blindly trusted, especially when truth and falsehood are mixed; one must be cautious in discernment. -
False Attribution
Attributing causality to unrelated factors.
Example: "I got better after eating a certain fruit, so that fruit can cure colds."
Note: The method of controlling variables is still one of the best ways to test false attribution, but it is difficult to implement in daily life. I believe that modern medicine's double-blind trials are the maximum feasible way to reduce false attribution, especially in methods involving human subjective factors."Double-blind trials are typically used when the subjects are humans, aiming to avoid subjective biases from either the subjects or the personnel conducting the trial affecting the results. Generally, results from double-blind trials are more rigorous. In a double-blind trial, neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects belong to the control group and which belong to the experimental group. Only after all data has been collected and analyzed do researchers learn the group to which the experimental subjects belong, i.e., unblinding." — Wikipedia
-
Black-or-White Fallacy (False Dilemma)
Simplifying complex issues into only two opposing options.
Example: "Not buying domestic products is unpatriotic!"
Note: In real life, it is rare to encounter moments where there are only a few options like in multiple-choice questions; be wary of oversimplifying complex issues. -
Circular Reasoning
The argument and evidence are mutually causal, forming a closed loop.
Example: "The Bible is true because it says it is a revelation from God."
Note: This error is generally only made by fools; if it occurs, simply block them. -
Appeal to Ignorance
Assuming something exists because it cannot be proven to not exist (and vice versa).
Example: "There is no evidence proving aliens do not exist, so aliens must exist."
Note: Use this logic to counter them; for example, in the above case, directly respond, "There is no evidence proving aliens exist, so aliens must not exist." This is not to argue but to cause their brain to crash. If they say your logic is wrong, congratulations, you have evolved a monkey into a human. -
Ad Hominem
Attacking the opponent's character or background rather than the argument itself.
Example: "You have a low education level, so you are not qualified to discuss this issue."
Note: There is nothing to say to those who resort to personal attacks; just retort and block them. -
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a universal conclusion based on a limited sample.
Example: "All three doctors I know accept bribes, so all doctors are corrupt."
Note: Before drawing conclusions, please confirm whether the sample size is large enough; conclusions drawn from small samples have very low credibility. -
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention.
Example: "You say the government is corrupt? But corruption is worse in other countries!"
Note: The difference between red herring and straw man fallacy is that the former shifts from one topic to two topics, forcibly inserting a third party, while the latter distorts one side's argument within the same topic to achieve its own purpose. Simply put, if there is a comparison, it is a red herring; if not, it is a straw man. The method of handling is the same as with the straw man; ensure both parties are discussing the same matter. -
Composition Fallacy/Division Fallacy
Erroneously believing that the attributes of the whole must be the same as those of its parts.
Example: "Every player on this team is excellent, so the team must win the game."
Note: This error is particularly easy to make regarding people we admire; no one can be without flaws, and in this complex world, there will not be a perfect benevolent figure. If there is, it means you have been deceived. Similarly, a villain may also exhibit some benevolent actions; we should just address the matter at hand. -
Affirming the Consequent
Incorrect logical structure: If A then B, now B is true, therefore A is true.
Example: "If it rains, the ground will be wet; now the ground is wet, so it must have rained." (ignoring other causes of wet ground)
Note: As long as one has completed high school mathematics and learned about necessary and sufficient conditions, they will know that only the contrapositive is equivalent to the original proposition.
These are the common logical errors encountered in daily life. Multiple logical fallacies can appear simultaneously in a single statement; we must identify the logical issues present in the discourse and then carefully examine the statement.
May the logos be with you.