文章ID: 8875

状态: future

分类: uncategorized

逻辑思维能力提升的一个非常重要的标志，是个体可否清晰的辨别出语言中，论题中的逻辑谬误，我们知道国内教学体系中，尤其是语言教学体系中，逻辑是从来不会提及的。

国人失智，集体娱乐至死，诉诸感情，逻辑鬼才，网络喷子，阴阳怪气，祖安全家。

————————————————————————————————

大纲：

逻辑思维及方法

一、逻辑思维的特征与作用

二、逻辑思维的形式

三、逻辑思维的方法

四、逻辑思维的训练

一、逻辑思维的特征与作用

(一)什么是逻辑思维

(二)逻辑思维的特征

(三)逻辑思维的作用

(一)什么是逻辑思维

逻辑思维，就是人在感性认识的基础上，以概念为操作的基本单元，以判断、推理为操.

作的基本形式，以辨证方法为指导，间接地、概括地反映客观事物规律的理性思维过程。

逻辑思维又称抽象思惟，是思维的一一种高级形式。 抽象思维既不同于以动作为支柱的动

作思维，也不同于以表象为凭借的形象思维，它已摆脱了对感性材料的依赖.是以理论为依据，

运用科学的概念、原理、定律、公式等进行判断和推理。

(二)逻辑思维的特征

普遍性、严密性、稳定性、层次性.

(三)逻辑思维的作用

1.逻辑思维对创新 目标的实现有引导和调控作用

2.创新结果的正确与否需要通过逻辑推理检验

3.逻辑 思维可以直接产生创新结果

4.逻辑 思维可以准确表达创新成果进入科学体系

5.创新成果推广应用需要逻辑思维

“西方科学的发展是以两个伟大的成就为基础,那就是:希腊哲学家发明的形式逻辑体系,

以及通过系统的实验判断出因果关系”一爱因 斯坦

“理论物理学的完整体系是由概念、被认为对这些概念是有效的基本定律，以及用逻辑推

理得到的结论这三者所构成的。这些结论必须同我们的各个单独的经验相符合;在任何理论

著作中，导出这些结论的逻辑演绎几乎占据了全部篇幅”一爱 因斯坦

各门独立科学的系统体系都是由逻辑概念、逻辑判断、逻辑推理、逻辑证明建立起来的。

在学术交流、教学实践、认知原理中、在科学家的思考过程中、在阐述各个学科的系统理论

中，不难看出逻辑思维在学习、工作中的重要性和核心地位。

(四)逻辑思维的形式

形式逻辑、数理逻辑、辨证逻辑

1.形式逻辑

抛开具体的思维内容，仅从形式结构上研究概念、判断、推理及其联系的逻辑体系，就

是形式逻辑(又叫普通逻辑，我们平常说的逻辑，一般也指的是形式逻辑)

2.形式逻辑的基本规律

形式逻辑以保持思维的确定性为核心，帮助人们正确地思考问题和表达思想;思维要保

持确定性，就要符合形式逻辑的一般规律即:同一律、矛盾律、排中律、充足理由律。

3.数理逻辑(定量的数理分析)

数理逻辑是在普通逻辑(形式逻辑)基础上发展起来的新的逻辑分支学科。数理逻辑是

在深度和广度上推进了传统逻辑，使它更加精确和严密。由于数理逻辑使用了数学的语言和

符号，揭示了事物和事物之间的数量关系，不仅深化了传统自然科学学科的研究，而且对计

算机科学、控制技术、信息科学、生物科学等学科的发展有重要的意义。

4.辨证逻辑

“不是关于思维的外在形式的学说，而是关于-一切物质的、自然的和精神的事物的发展规

律的学说，即关于世界的全部具体内容及对它的认识的发展规律的学说。”_列宁

辨证逻辑就是按照辨证唯物主义哲学对客观世界的认识方法和思维方式。它的思维原则

主要有:全面性原则、动态性原则、实践性原则、具体性原则。

(五)逻辑思维的方法

演绎推理法、归纳推理法、实验法、比较研究法、证伪法

1.演绎推理法

演绎推理就是由一般性前提到个别性结论的推理。按照- -定的目标，运用演绎推理的思

维方法，取得新颖性结论的过程，就是演绎推理法

例如: -一切化学元素在一-定条件 下发生化学反应。惰性气体是化学元素，所以，惰性气

体在一定条件下确实能够发生化学反应。这里运用的就是演绎推理方法。

演绎推理的主要形式是三段论法。三段论法就是从两个判断中进而得出第三个判断的

种推理方法。上面的例子就是包含着三个判断。第-一个判断是一切化学元素都在一定条件下

发生化学反应"-提供了- -般的原理原则，叫做三段论式的大前提。第二个判断是"惰性气体是

化学元素"- _指出了一-种特殊情况，叫做小前提。联合这两种判断，说明一般原则和特殊情况

间的联系，因而得出第三个判断: "惰性气体在一定条件 下确定能够发生化学反应"- _结论。

只要作为前提的判断是正确的，中间的推理形式是合乎逻辑规则的，那么，必然能够推

出“隐藏”在前提中的知识，这种知识，尽管没有超出前提的范围，但毕竟从后台走到了前台，对我们来说，往往也是新的，而且由于我们常常是为了某种实际需要才做这种推理，其结论

很可能具有应用价值。这样演绎推理的结论就可能既具有新颖性，又具有实用性

2.归纳推理法

1)完全归纳推理

2)不完全归纳推理方法之一

一简单枚举归纳推理

3)不完全归纳推理方法之二

--科学归纳推理

1)完全归纳推理

从一般性较小的知识推出一般性较大的知识的推理，就是归纳推理。在许多情况下，运

用归纳推理可以得到新的知识。按照一定的目标，运用归纳推理的思维方法，取得新颖性结果的过程就是归纳。

2)简单枚举归纳推理

简单枚举归纳推理是列举某类事物中一部分对象的情况，根据没有遇到矛盾的情况，便

做出关于这一类事物的一般性结论的推理。

例如:花开的时间、天鹅的颜色

●简单枚举归纳推理的意义

虽然它的结论是或然的，但不一-定 是错误的，有的是正确的，也就可以提供新的知识

在它的结论的基础上，可以继续研究，如果证明是正确的，就得到了新的知识。即使证

明了是错误的，也从另一.方面给了我们新的知识

3)科学归纳推理

科学归纳推理是列举某类事物-部分的情况，并分析出制约此情况的原因，以此结果为

根据，从而总结出这一类事物的一般性结论的推理方法。

●两种不完全归纳推理的区别:

它们的根据不同，前者只要没有发现矛盾的情况就可以做出结论，后者要根据发现的因.

果之间的必然联系才能下结论

前者的结论是或然性的，后者的结论要可靠的多

提高前者结论的办法是多找事实，提高后者的结论是对事实情况作出科学的分析，找出

因果关系.

●演绎法和归纳法的关系

演绎法和归纳法是人们对客观现实的两种对立的认识方法的总结。两者既是对立的，又

是统一的，缺少任何一面，都无法认识真理。演绎法和归纳法，仿佛是相反的两种方法，实

际上在人们的认识过程中，两者是辩证的统一。

没有归纳就没有演绎，因为演绎的出发点正是归纳的结果。演绎必须以可靠的归纳为基

础。没有演绎同样也没有归纳。因为归纳总是在一-般原理、原则或某种假说、猜想的指导下

进行的.

弗兰西斯培根在>书中也写道: "我们不能像蚂蚁，单只收集，也不可像蜘蛛,

只从肚子中抽丝，而应像蜜蜂，既采集又整理，这样才能酿出香甜的蜂蜜。"培根强调的"既

收集又整理"，指的就是要善于运用纳和演绎的科学思维方法。

3.实验法

实验是为了某一-一目的，人为地安排现象发生的过程，据之研究自然规律的实践活动。实

验的特点是必须能重复，能够在相同条件下重复地做同一-个实验， 并产生相同的结果，这是

一一个实验成功的标志，不能重复的实验就不是成功的实验，其结果就没有可信度，就不能作

为科学依据，这是符合逻辑思维原理的

1)实验法研究的优点

①实验能够纯化研究对象

②实验能够人为地再现自然现象

③实验可改变现象的自然状态

④实验可以加速或延缓对象的变化速度

④实验可以节约费用，减少损失

4.比较研究法

比较研究法，可以简称比较，是通过两个或两个以上对象的同和异来获得新知识的方法。

在比较研究中，主要起作用的还是逻辑思维中的演绎推理、归纳推理和类比推理，所以，

比较研究是运用逻辑思维进行创新的一种方法

1)比较的种类

①空间上的比较(横向比较)

②时间上的比较(纵向比较)

③直接比较

④间接比较

2)比较的作用

鉴定真伪，区分优劣

明察秋毫，解决难题

确定未知，发现新知

取长补短，综合改进

追踪索迹，建立序列

5.证伪法

根据形式逻辑中的矛盾律，在同一时间、同一关系上，不能对同一对象作出不同的断定。

用一个公式来表示，就是: A不能在同一时间、同一关系上是B又不是B

根据形式逻辑中的排中律，在同一时间、同一关系上,对同一 事物是两个相互矛盾的论

断必须作出明确的选择，必须肯定其中的一个。用一-个公式来表示， 就是: A或者B，或者不

是B,二者必居其一，不可能有第三种选择

根据以上两个规律，运用逻辑思维方法，可以在证明- 一个结论是错误的同时，证明另一

个结论是正确的。用这种方法来取得正确答案的方法，就是反证法，或证伪法。证伪法在许

多情况下，可以帮助我们解决疑难问题，取得创新结果。例如:纸上写的是谁的名字。

现举几个例子：我们感受一下我们是如何违反逻辑规律的。（例子1—4 违反同一律）

次元宵灯节，司马光妻子要出去赏灯，本意是想和司马光一起重温旧日时光，可司马光一点儿也不开窍，说：“家里也点了灯，为什么非出去看不成？”妻子说：“外面有灯也有人。”司马光一听大为光火：“要到外面看人，难道我是鬼不成？”又继续埋头做他的学问去了。

1. 郑县有一位姓卜的，一天他的裤子弄破一个洞。他买了新布，回家让妻子为他作一条新裤子。妻子问他如何做，他说“照原样”。于是他妻子把裤子照原来的样式做好后，在裤子原来有洞的地方也剪了一个洞。

1. 有一个旅行者经过长途跋涉，又渴又饥，步履艰难地走进了一家酒店。

“老板，请问夹肉面包多少钱一份？”

“五先令一份，先生！”

“请给我拿两份”老板给了旅行者两份夹肉面包，

旅行者又问：“请问，黑啤酒多少钱一瓶？”

“十先令一瓶，先生！”

“现在我感到渴的比饿厉害，我想用两份夹肉面包换一瓶黑啤酒可以吗？老板”

“当然可以”老板爽快的说。

老板收起了面包，拿来一瓶黑啤酒，旅行者一饮而尽，嘴巴一擦，然后背起背包就要离开。

老板急忙叫住他，客气的说：“先生……”

旅行者打断了老板的话，不耐烦的说：“难道非要我在这里住下？”

“不，先生，您还没有付啤酒钱呢？”

“我不是用夹肉面包换的吗？”

“可是面包您也没付啊，先生！”

“我没有吃你的面包，为什么要我付面包的钱啊？”

“是啊，他没有吃我的面包。”老板想，一时竟找不出对方的差错，听任旅行者扬长而去。

1. 邮局里的营业员把信称了称说：“小姑娘，你的信超重了，请再贴一张贰角的邮票。”小姑娘惊奇地说：“再贴一张贰角的邮票，信不是更重了吗？”

1. A：下周到香山看红叶，你去吗？ B：谁说我不去？

A：你去，请登记吧！ B：我要是去呀，早就登记过了。

A：你到底去不去呀？ B：我已经说得很清楚了。

(违反排中律)

1. 在一次赔偿案件的庭审中，原告绘声绘色地说：“我的肩膀被升降机上掉下来的轴给砸伤了，右臂至今仍抬不起来。”说完，他很是艰难地把右手慢慢地举到耳部的位置。被告代理人很关切地问，“那么你在受伤之前右臂能举多高呢？”原告唯命是从，将“受伤”的右臂毫不犹豫地高高举过了头顶。

（违反矛盾律）

1. 宋玉的《登徒子好色赋》证明了登徒子是好色之徒吗？

(违反充足理由律)

登徒子”这个词其实这是一个人的名字，战国时期楚国人。《登徒子好色赋》是战国时期楚国文学家宋玉的辞赋作品。 大致内容是，登徒子家里的老婆丑，他守着家里的妻子，连丑的女人都喜欢，就说明登徒子很好色。

宋玉论证登徒子好色的理由是“登徒子跟他的丑妻关系很好”，但是这条结论成立的话，还要再加上一个大前提，就是“凡不嫌弃妻子貌丑的人都是好色之徒。”

这个大前提是虚假没有办法成立的，所以以此为前提的理由自然也是错误的。

自从上世纪80年代开始，国内教育就取消了逻辑学的课程，语言中取代逻辑的是举例子，打比方，多修辞，只有初中几何证明题会涉及到逻辑的运用。这样的窘境一直持续的0202年，我的天。

现在的高中生连幼儿园入学逻辑推理测试题目都做不出来，更别提GMAT, GRE，公务员考试的逻辑题目了，现在举3个例子。

例题1：

提示：以上问题，需要运用到分类讨论的思想：

1、英联邦国家——

2、非英联邦国家 ——

例题2：

例题3：

以下分享二十四条 逻辑谬误，配有英文解释与例子

————————————————————————————————————————

第一条：稻草人

1. strawman/straw man

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

第二条：错误归因

2. false cause

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.

Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.

第三条：诉诸感情

3. appeal to emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.

Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all.

第四条：谬误谬误

4. the fallacy fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

第五条：滑坡谬误

5. slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

第六条：人身攻击

6. ad hominem ,personal attack

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird

7. 你还不是一样tuquoque(appeal to hypocrisy)

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation.。

第八条：个人怀疑

8. personal incredulity

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.

Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

第九条：片面谬误

9. special pleading

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.

Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his 'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

第十条：诱导性问题 complex questions

10. loaded question

You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.

Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.

Example: Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a drug habit.

第十一条：举证责任

11. burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

第十二条：语义模糊

12. ambiguity

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

第十三条：赌徒谬误

13. the gambler's fallacy

You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.

This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a 'big run' happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren't influenced by what happened before.

Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.

第十四条：乐队花车

14. bandwagon

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.

Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they're only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.

第十五条：诉诸权威

15. appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).

第十六条：合成谬误

16. composition/division 合成谬误

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.

Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

第十七条：没有真正的苏格兰人

17. no true scotsman

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

第十八条：基因谬误

18. genetic

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

第十九条：非黑即白

19. black-or-white

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens' rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy.

第二十条：窃取论点

20. begging the question

You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

第二十一条：诉诸自然

21. appeal to nature

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.

Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable.

Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of 'artificial' medicines such as antibiotics.

第二十二条：轶事证据

22. anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

第二十三条：德克萨斯神枪手

23. thetexas sharpshooter

You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

This 'false cause' fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he's a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don't necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship.

Example: The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.

第二十四条：中间立场

24. middle ground

You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.

Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.

Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism.

—————————