Bashny.Net
15 logical errors in our thinking
Bashny.Net
The false inference - an argument that in an attempt to anybody in anything convincing based on the wrong premise. All of us periodically to prevent similar logical errors, so in our best interest to learn how to recognize them. The site lists the fifteen most common false logic vyvodov.
1. Ad hominem (Latin. "To the person») - a variety of arguments, the main purpose of which is to discredit the opponent, not paying attention to the subject of the discussion.
Example. "Doctors Meydapa caught in adultery, so do not listen to the advice of his medical».
Personal qualities of the person may be referred to in the debate, but only if the discussion is related to them directly.
Ad hominem arguments are always fun to look, as argued, using them like a child irritable.
2. Tu quoque (lat. "And you, too,») - this argument arises when a person tries to protect itself by blaming his accuser.
Example: "I may be a thief, but you - a gambler».
In fact, this particular case the argument ad hominem, and it is based on the principle of moral superiority. It appeals to our sense of decency. Indeed, if our prosecutors have flaws, then why should we believe him?
3. Ad populum (Lat., "To the people») - an appeal to the crowd. The argument based on the fact that if most people believe something, this "something" must be true. And for many, it is very tempting. Because large numbers inspire a sense of security. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the reality - this is not democracy. Even if everyone around believe in unicorns, it is required to present at least one of them, if the result of your dispute depends on the existence of horned horses.
4. The appeal to tradition. If something is very old, it still does not make it "something" is the best.
Example. "Slavery existed for much of human history, so I urgently need to make a few slaves to care for my garden».
High mortality from infectious diseases, too, has long been part of human history. However, we now have antibiotics.
5. Ipse dixit (Lat., "He said,») - an appeal to authority. Useful such appeal may be only when the authoritative personality is directly related to the subject matter of the dispute.
Example. "He has a medical degree, and he recommends taking these drugs." Such an argument is well founded.
But statements like, "He's a doctor, and he says that God exists, because he saw his face in the sky" - it is simply an attempt to give a semblance of respectability is completely groundless statement.
6. A false dichotomy, also known as a false dilemma. This argument is trying to put your opponent in a difficult position, and then to impose deliberately biased selection that will come out of this situation.
Example. "Either you enter a complete ban on pornography, or you want your children it looked».
On the basis of this argument we often hear politicians meet his interviewers: "I reject this statement of your question».
7. Post hoc ergo procter hoc (lat. "Then - then, because of this"). This is a fallacy very tightly ingrained in our brains. All people, as well as many animals, have a strong sense of causality. It's like a form of superstition.
Example. "I was in those pants when taking the exam. I passed the exam in the top five. Consequently, these pants to help me get to the five exams ».
The fact that some thing has got in some sequence of events that may not prove a direct link of this thing with the end result of a sequence.
8. Generalization, as the mental transition from the individual facts or events to their identification.
Example. "Politician deceived us, speaking of spending, therefore, all policies - crooks».
This spread the blame on an entire group of people in a situation where you need to prove the guilt of the individual. Probably do not need to explain why this argument is fallacious. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of racism, suggesting that synthesis, with all its fallibility, can be very effective.
9. "Straw man» - an argument that puts an opponent to a position does not hold water in order to destroy it.
Example: "My opponent wants to send to the scrap submarine" Trident ". He wants to leave us, even without such protection ».
Since very few people are in favor of complete disarmament, your opponent look weak. People like to look at the burning straw man. It's much easier than attacking the real position of the opponent, and besides, it's very funny.
10. False average. If the two arguments presented, we can assume that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes represented.
Example. "Injure someone in the heart - it is always fatal" and "injure someone in the heart - it is virtually safe." The mistake here is to assume that little prick someone's heart - it's perfectly acceptable.
A more sensible example of this approach can be seen, for example, in a televised debate where opponents take diametrically opposed positions, each of which is good in its own way. It makes the audience to believe that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle.
11. Connection. This argument falsely attributing features some of the whole. Example: "Atoms are invisible. The wall is made of atoms - hence, the wall is invisible. " This argument - in fact, a special case of where wine per person can be used to recognize the guilty whole group of people.
12. The difficulty of proof. If someone makes a statement, he must bring evidence to support his statement. This logical error is often takes the form of "Then prove that it does not exist»!
That is debater tries to move to the difficulty of proving himself to his opponent. And his opponent is defeated, because to prove that something does not exist, is practically impossible.
13. Non sequitur (Lat., "Should not be») - this is an argument that logically follows from their own premises. It is often used to smooth out the contentious issues in the debate and put something postoronnee.Primer. "Murder - this is wrong and illegal. Marijuana - is wrong ».
The second statement may be true, only it has nothing to do with the first. Nevertheless, it can be used in that way, if someone who is using it, you want to somehow link the two statements together and at the same time try to get the support for the second statement.
14. "Slippery slope». Another argument summarizing.
Example. "If we allow homosexuals to marry, soon people will marry a toaster and riding».
Error "slippery slope" that arguments to common people often adds his hypothetical fear. And common sense is lost somewhere between these arguments and fear.
15. «Mistake». This can happen if you try to catch the opponent on the use of error.
Example. "You used the wrong information, and then everything that you said after that - not true».
To avoid this, it is necessary to put forward a single argument to each application opponent, and in any case not to generalize these arguments. In making individual judgments on every subject, we focus on the individual as the subject, and this can help to avoid logic errors in the future.
via listverse.com/2012/11/08/15-bad-arguments-we-all-abuse/
1. Ad hominem (Latin. "To the person») - a variety of arguments, the main purpose of which is to discredit the opponent, not paying attention to the subject of the discussion.
Example. "Doctors Meydapa caught in adultery, so do not listen to the advice of his medical».
Personal qualities of the person may be referred to in the debate, but only if the discussion is related to them directly.
Ad hominem arguments are always fun to look, as argued, using them like a child irritable.
2. Tu quoque (lat. "And you, too,») - this argument arises when a person tries to protect itself by blaming his accuser.
Example: "I may be a thief, but you - a gambler».
In fact, this particular case the argument ad hominem, and it is based on the principle of moral superiority. It appeals to our sense of decency. Indeed, if our prosecutors have flaws, then why should we believe him?
3. Ad populum (Lat., "To the people») - an appeal to the crowd. The argument based on the fact that if most people believe something, this "something" must be true. And for many, it is very tempting. Because large numbers inspire a sense of security. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the reality - this is not democracy. Even if everyone around believe in unicorns, it is required to present at least one of them, if the result of your dispute depends on the existence of horned horses.
4. The appeal to tradition. If something is very old, it still does not make it "something" is the best.
Example. "Slavery existed for much of human history, so I urgently need to make a few slaves to care for my garden».
High mortality from infectious diseases, too, has long been part of human history. However, we now have antibiotics.
5. Ipse dixit (Lat., "He said,») - an appeal to authority. Useful such appeal may be only when the authoritative personality is directly related to the subject matter of the dispute.
Example. "He has a medical degree, and he recommends taking these drugs." Such an argument is well founded.
But statements like, "He's a doctor, and he says that God exists, because he saw his face in the sky" - it is simply an attempt to give a semblance of respectability is completely groundless statement.
6. A false dichotomy, also known as a false dilemma. This argument is trying to put your opponent in a difficult position, and then to impose deliberately biased selection that will come out of this situation.
Example. "Either you enter a complete ban on pornography, or you want your children it looked».
On the basis of this argument we often hear politicians meet his interviewers: "I reject this statement of your question».
7. Post hoc ergo procter hoc (lat. "Then - then, because of this"). This is a fallacy very tightly ingrained in our brains. All people, as well as many animals, have a strong sense of causality. It's like a form of superstition.
Example. "I was in those pants when taking the exam. I passed the exam in the top five. Consequently, these pants to help me get to the five exams ».
The fact that some thing has got in some sequence of events that may not prove a direct link of this thing with the end result of a sequence.
8. Generalization, as the mental transition from the individual facts or events to their identification.
Example. "Politician deceived us, speaking of spending, therefore, all policies - crooks».
This spread the blame on an entire group of people in a situation where you need to prove the guilt of the individual. Probably do not need to explain why this argument is fallacious. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of racism, suggesting that synthesis, with all its fallibility, can be very effective.
9. "Straw man» - an argument that puts an opponent to a position does not hold water in order to destroy it.
Example: "My opponent wants to send to the scrap submarine" Trident ". He wants to leave us, even without such protection ».
Since very few people are in favor of complete disarmament, your opponent look weak. People like to look at the burning straw man. It's much easier than attacking the real position of the opponent, and besides, it's very funny.
10. False average. If the two arguments presented, we can assume that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes represented.
Example. "Injure someone in the heart - it is always fatal" and "injure someone in the heart - it is virtually safe." The mistake here is to assume that little prick someone's heart - it's perfectly acceptable.
A more sensible example of this approach can be seen, for example, in a televised debate where opponents take diametrically opposed positions, each of which is good in its own way. It makes the audience to believe that the truth is actually somewhere in the middle.
11. Connection. This argument falsely attributing features some of the whole. Example: "Atoms are invisible. The wall is made of atoms - hence, the wall is invisible. " This argument - in fact, a special case of where wine per person can be used to recognize the guilty whole group of people.
12. The difficulty of proof. If someone makes a statement, he must bring evidence to support his statement. This logical error is often takes the form of "Then prove that it does not exist»!
That is debater tries to move to the difficulty of proving himself to his opponent. And his opponent is defeated, because to prove that something does not exist, is practically impossible.
13. Non sequitur (Lat., "Should not be») - this is an argument that logically follows from their own premises. It is often used to smooth out the contentious issues in the debate and put something postoronnee.Primer. "Murder - this is wrong and illegal. Marijuana - is wrong ».
The second statement may be true, only it has nothing to do with the first. Nevertheless, it can be used in that way, if someone who is using it, you want to somehow link the two statements together and at the same time try to get the support for the second statement.
14. "Slippery slope». Another argument summarizing.
Example. "If we allow homosexuals to marry, soon people will marry a toaster and riding».
Error "slippery slope" that arguments to common people often adds his hypothetical fear. And common sense is lost somewhere between these arguments and fear.
15. «Mistake». This can happen if you try to catch the opponent on the use of error.
Example. "You used the wrong information, and then everything that you said after that - not true».
To avoid this, it is necessary to put forward a single argument to each application opponent, and in any case not to generalize these arguments. In making individual judgments on every subject, we focus on the individual as the subject, and this can help to avoid logic errors in the future.
via listverse.com/2012/11/08/15-bad-arguments-we-all-abuse/
Tags
See also
Why are we afraid of the light positions and honest look at relationships
10 traps of our thinking
8 main logic errors supporters of pseudoscience
Tacit knowledge: why our mental activity is not always clear to us
Women, fire and other dangerous things
Laws productivity
