此文为笔者的上篇文章《谬误 Fallacies （一）》的续译
循环论证（circular argument）：和 回避问题 一样
“你可以相信WARP新闻，
因为他们总是在广播里说 ‘我们只说实话’，
所以他们说的一定也是实话”
现实中的循环论证通常是在绕一个大圈子，虽然辩论者希望他们到正确的结论，但是他们总是回到他们开始的地方。
（评：感觉像是自圆其说，没有事实能够支撑论点）
复杂问题（complex question）： 提出一个让别人不能同意或者不同意的问题，因为回答这样的问题会让他们陷入你的设的前提陷阱。一个简单的例子：
“你是不是和以前一样以自我为中心？”
不论是回答是或者不是都会导致你同意自己以前是以自我为中心这个观点。还有一个更加细微的例子：
“你会非常善良地把心爱的书捐出去吗？”
如果说“不”，那么不管真正的不捐书的原因是什么，都会给人一种负罪感
如果说“是”，那么就会给人一种非常高尚的感觉
所以说，你要是想要人捐助，直接说就行了，别整这些花里胡哨的。
（评：不论说是或者不是都会陷入的前提陷阱，实际上是做了一个跟问题本身无关的联系）
否定前提(denying the antecedent）： 一个推导形式的错误
“如果p，则q
没有p
所以没有q”
请记住，表述“如果p则q，”，p叫做“前提”，q叫做”结论“。否定前提（p），会产生一个不同并且无效的形式。即使前提是正确的，仍然不能保证会得到正确的结论。例如：
“当路结冰的时候，邮件会晚点
现在路上没有结冰，
所以，邮件不会晚点”
尽管邮件会因为路上结冰而晚点，但是同样也会因为其他原因晚点。这个结论同样忽略了其他可能性。
（评：这个例子当中两个条件都是正确的，但是还是得到了错误的结论，俗话说“想当然”）
偷换概念（equivocation） ： 在论证的过程中把一个术语的意思变成另外一个意思
“男人和女人在生理和心理上是不平等的。所以性别是不“平等”的，所以，男女在法律上也应当不平等”
在前提和结论之间偷换了“平等”的概念。当提到生理和心理上的“平等”指的是“完全相同的”。然而法律层面上的平等，并不是指“生理和心理的相同”，而是“享有同样的权利和机会”。所以把上面这句话按照正确的理解重新复述一遍：
”男人和女人在心理上不是完全相同的，所以，男人和女人不应该享有同样的权利和机会“。
当偷换概念的把戏被拆穿之后，很显然前提并不能得到结论。同样也没有任何什么事实能够表明生理和心理上的不同会导致获得不同的权利和机会。
Original：
circular argument: same as begging the question.
“You can count on WARP News for the facts, because they constantly say on
the air that “we just give you the facts,” so that must be a fact too!”
Real-life circular arguments often follow a bigger circle, but they all
eventually end up starting in the same place they want to end.
complex question: posing a question in such a way that people cannot agree
or disagree with you without committing themselves to some other claim you
wish to promote. A simple example: “Are you still as selfcentered as you
used to be?” Answering either “yes” or “no” commits you to agreeing that
you used to be self-centered. A more subtle example: “Will you follow your
conscience instead of your pocketbook and donate to the cause?” Saying
“no,” regardless of their real reasons for not donating, makes people feel
guilty. Saying “yes,” regardless of their real reasons for donating, makes
them noble. If you want a donation, just ask for it.
denying the antecedent: a deductive mistake of the form
“ If p then q.
Not-p.
Therefore, not-q.”
Remember that, in the statement “If p then q,” p is called the “antecedent”
and q the “consequent.” The second premise of a modus tollens—a valid
form—denies the consequent, q (go back to Rule 23 and check). Denying the
antecedent (p), though, yields quite a different—and invalid— form. A true
conclusion is not guaranteed even if the premises are true. For example:
When the roads are icy, the mail is late.
The roads are not icy.
Therefore, the mail is not late.
Although the mail would be late if the roads were icy, it may be late for other
reasons too. This argument overlooks alternatives.
equivocation: sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of
an argument.
Women and men are physically and emotionally different. The sexes are not
“equal,” then, and therefore the law should not pretend that we are.
Between premise and conclusion this argument shifts the meaning of the term
“equal.” The sexes are not physically and emotionally “equal” in the sense in
which “equal” means simply “identical.” Equality before the law, however,
does not mean “physically and emotionally identical” but “entitled to the
same rights and opportunities.” Rephrased with the two different senses of
“equal” made clear, the argument goes:
Women and men are not physically and emotionally identical. Therefore,
women and men are not entitled to the same rights and opportunities.
Once the equivocation is removed, it is clear that the argument’s conclusion
is neither supported by nor even related to the premise. No reason is offered
to show that physical and emotional differences imply different rights and
opportunities.
网友评论