信徒邏輯謬誤
Latin for "to the man". This is attacking the arguer and not the argument. Example: The Reverend is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously. Example 2: That Biblical scholar is saying such and such because he doesn’t know Jesus as his personal savior. Care must be taken to state problems with a person’s argument instead of attacking the person. ————————————————— STRAW MAN Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. Example: Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance. This is putting forward an inaccurate portrayal of the scientific position which is easier to attack than what is really being asserted by science. ————————————————— ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY This is arguing that something is correct simply because someone who is considered an expert said it was, the opposite of Ad Hominem which says that something is wrong because the person saying it is not an expert or is biased, etc… Again, it is the logic and data supporting a position that matters, not the person asserting the position. Arguments that simply state the position of another person without explanation carry little weight. Even experts can be mistaken in their fields of expertise. Example: So and so believes in God and so does so and so. Example 2: So and so has been a leading archeologist for 30 years and he doesn’t think the Exodus happened (No explanation of the reasoning why). ————————————————— ARGUMENT FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES Arguments are not valid based on bad things that would otherwise happen. Example: If God didn’t exist then I wouldn’t want to live. Example 2: God must exist or society would be much more lawless and dangerous. Example 3: He must be found guilty, otherwise it will encourage others to rape women. ————————————————— APPEAL TO IGNORANCE It is invalid to claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true and vice-versa. Example: God exists because it is impossible to prove he doesn’t. Example 2: King Solomon’s temple never existed because no one has found it yet. ————————————————– SPECIAL PLEADING Example: It was ok that God killed scores of innocent people in Old Testament stories, because he works in mysterious ways that we aren’t meant to understand. Who are we to question God? Example 2: Atheists don’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the bible so the bible only appears to have contradictions and errors in it to them. ————————————————— BEGGING THE QUESTION or ASSUMING THE ANSWER Example: We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But has it been established that violent crime is in fact diminished by imposing the death penalty? ————————————————– OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION or COUNTING THE HITS AND IGNORING THE MISSES Example: A politician says he should be reelected because of a, b, c, and d that were accomplished during his administration, but neglects to mention w, x, y, and z which were negative things that also occurred. ————————————————— STATISTICS OF SMALL NUMBERS Example: They say that 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese, but I’ve known hundreds of people and none of them is Chinese. ————————————————— MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF STATISTICS Example: President Eisenhower expressed astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence. ————————————————— INCONSISTENCY Example: The universe had to have had a creator because it is so complex. God however has always existed. This argument breaks it’s own rule. It first asserts that complexity requires a creator. But then it doesn’t require another creator for God which would have to be very complex himself. ————————————————— NON SEQUITUR Latin for "It doesn’t follow". An argument that fails to consider alternative possibilities. Example: Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation asserts this to be true for them. ————————————————— POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by" Example: Before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons. ————————————————— MEANINGLESS QUESTION Example: What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can’t be an immovable object and vice versa. ————————————————— EXCLUDED MIDDLE, OR FALSE DICHOTOMY Considering only two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities. Example: Everyone is either good or evil. ————————————————— SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS Example: Pro-Life person: If we allow abortions in the first three weeks, it will be hard to argue it is wrong for four weeks, then five, and eventually it will be impossible to stop full term abortions. ————————————————— CONFUSION OF CORRELATION AND CAUSATION Example: San Francisco which has a high percentage of gays also has a high percentage of earthquakes, therefore the earthquakes are God’s punishment of the gays. http://www.goatstar.org/false-arguments/ | |||||
AD HOMINEM 大佬,知你英文程度高喇,鬼識睇咩! | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
喂，唔好停喎。 | |||||
louisey大人, 你不要停寫呀! 你的易讀 (明白) 好多. 我時不時翻閱你的傑作, 基人真的如你所言! | |||||
Example: President Eisenhower expressed astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence. --------------------- THe author is committing the fallacy himself. President Eisenhower can rightly be astonished because it is average, not median. It is possible for the median to be above or below the average if the population distribution is not symetric around the average. | |||||
Example: They say that 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese, but I’ve known hundreds of people and none of them is Chinese. ----------------- Really? Suppose it is true that 1/5 is Chinese. Suppose you RANDOMLY select people and test if they are Chinese. What is the probability of not finding even a single Chinese in your sample? Sample size = 1, 80% Sample size = 2, 80% x 80%=64% ... Sample size = 100, 80%^100=0% ----------------- The problem? It is not the size of the sample (the small-ness) but the RANDOM-NESS of the sample. | |||||
STATISTICS OF SMALL NUMBERS How will it look like? (As I understand it) Suppose a person randomly select 3 person in the world and they all happened to be male. He concluded that there is no female in the world. Why is it wrong? Suppose the share of male-female is 50-50. What is the chance the above scenario happening? 50%^3 = 12.5%. Not very unlikely. ------------ Now suppose you randomly select 100 person in the world and they all happened to be male. You concluded that there is no female in the world. Suppose the share of male-female is 50-50. What is the chance the above scenario happening? 50%^100 = 0%. Very unlikely. Suppose the share of male-female is 95-5. What is the chance the above scenario happening? 95%^100 = 0.5%. Very unlikely. Suppose the share of male-female is 99-1. What is the chance the above scenario happening? 99%^100 = 36.6%. Not very unlikely. You can see that the conclusion have some force in this case. That, is the difference. If he wish to give the conclusion a "full force", try randomly select 500 person in the world, see if they are all male. Suppose the share of male-female is 99-1. What is the chance they are all male? 99%^500 = 0.6%. Very unlikely. ------------------ THe validity depends on the size sample as much as the conclusion to be made, as much as the sampling method, as much as the error allowed, etc.. | |||||
| |||||
連結是用不到的..... | |||||
連結轉了：http://www.antichristendom.com/vscfaq/fallacies.htm |