# Summarizing the logic fallacy

Article 1: Scarecrow You have distorted the opinions of others, making it easier for you to attack others. You exaggerate, distort, and even create other people’s views out of thin air, to make your own point of view more reasonable. This is an extremely dishonest act that affects not only the rational discussion but also the credibility of your own point of view. Because if you can negatively distort others’ opinions, you may be able to distort your point of view from the front. Example: Xiao Ming said that the country should invest more budget to develop the education industry. Xiaohong replied: “I don’t think you are so patriotic, actually want to reduce defense spending, so that foreign powers can take advantage of it.” Xiaohong made a scarecrow fallacy.

Article 2: Error attributions You may have a correlation from two things, and you conclude that one thing is the cause of another. You see that two things exist at the same time, and you feel that one of them is the cause of the other. Your mistake is that two things that exist at the same time do not necessarily have a causal relationship. Maybe these two things have a common cause, or two things have no causal relationship at all. Their direct coexistence is just a coincidence. One thing is the same as the other, and it cannot be said that there is definitely a causality between two things. Example: Xiao Hong pointed out that the number of pirates in the world has decreased in the past few centuries, and the global temperature is rising. It is concluded that the reduction in the number of pirates has caused climate change, and pirates can reduce global temperatures. Xiaohong made a mistake in the attribution of mistakes.

Article 3: Recourse to feelings You are trying to replace a powerful statement by manipulating the feelings of others. The feelings you operate may include fear, jealousy, compassion, pride, and so on. A logically rigorous statement may provoke emotional fluctuations in others, but if you only use emotional operations and do not use logical arguments, then you make mistakes in appealing to feelings. Every mentally healthy person is affected by emotions, so this fallacy is effective, but it is also why this fallacy is a low-level and dishonest means. Example: Xiaohong saw Xiaoming eating dog meat at the restaurant, so he reprimanded: “How can you eat dog meat, how cute the puppy is, like a child, do you have the heart to hurt the children?” Xiaohong made a fallacy in appealing to feelings. .

Article 4: Fallacy If you see someone else’s level of discourse is low, or if someone else’s argument is flawed, then the other’s point of view must be wrong. Many times, the winner of the debate wins not because the point of view is correct, but because the debate skills are better. As a rational person, you can’t think that others’ opinions must be wrong because of any fallacies or mistakes in other people’s arguments. Example: A person who advocates a healthy diet published a very absurd diet theory on TV to promote the concept of healthy eating. After Xiaohong saw that healthy eating was a lie, she began to overeating every day. Xiaohong made a mistake.

Article 5: The landslide is delayed. It seems that if A happens, then Z will definitely happen, to indicate that A should not happen. Instead of discussing the current things (A), you shift the focus of discussion to the extremes of obscenity (Z). Because you have not been able to give any evidence to prove that the occurrence of A must cause the occurrence of extreme things Z, so this is a fallacy of resorting to fear, but also affects the objectivity when people discuss A. Example: Xiaohong opposes gay marriage because she believes that if we allow gay marriage, then someone will want to marry a table or chair. Xiaohong made a sloppy paradox.

Article 6: Personal attacks on your personality, motivation, attitude, status, class or situation, etc., are attacked or commented on, and used as arguments to refute the arguments of the other party or to support your arguments. Personal attacks do not necessarily involve direct attacks, or they may cause doubts about the other person’s personality by means of knives behind them, suggestive listeners, and so on. You are trying to replace a powerful statement with your attack on someone else’s personality. More about personal attacks. Example: When Xiao Ming put forward a very reasonable proposal for infrastructure construction, Xiao Hong said that she does not believe any Xiao Ming said, because Xiao Ming is not patriotic, often criticizes the government and does not know how to be grateful. Xiaohong committed the fallacy of personal attacks.

Article 7: Recourse to Hypocrisy You don’t respond positively to other people’s criticisms of you, but criticize others as your reply – “You have never been…..” You want to respond to criticism by using criticism. , to waive your responsibility to defend yourself. You use this method to imply that the other person is a hypocritical person, but whether others are hypocritical or not, you are just avoiding criticism from others. Example: Xiao Ming argued with Xiaohong that Xiaohong made a logical fallacy. Xiaohong did not defend himself positively. Instead, he responded: “You have also made a logical fallacy before.” Xiaohong made a false fallacy here.

Article 8: Individuals suspect that you may be false because you do not understand or have insufficient knowledge. Some very complex concepts, such as biological evolution, require some basic understanding and knowledge. Some people think that these things are wrong because they don’t understand these complicated concepts. Example: Xiaohong pointed to the stone and said: “You said that evolution is true, then you let this stone evolution person show me.” Xiaohong made a personal suspicion.

Article 9: One-sided fallacy When your point of view proves to be wrong, you use special cases to excuse yourself. Humans don’t like to be proven wrong, so when they prove to be wrong, they always find ways to excuse themselves. People always feel that they have to think that the right thing must be correct, so always find a reason to let yourself know. Only honest and brave people can face their mistakes and admit that they have made mistakes. Example: Xiaohong said that he has a special function. He can use the tarot card to calculate the gender of an unborn child, but after the child was born, he found that he had guessed wrong, so she said that the fortune-telling person lacks faith. Xiaohong made a one-sided fallacy.

Article 10: Inductive Problems When you ask a question, you add the ingredients of the inducement so that the other party can only answer according to your meaning. You try to use the inductive question to force the other party to answer your low-level questions, thus undermining the rational discussion. Example: Xiaohong suspects that his husband Sun Yue has an affair. In order to find out, he asked him: “Is there a birthmark on Chen Xuan’s ass?” Xiaohong used the inductive problem.

Article 11: The burden of proof You believe that the burden of proof is not the person who made the point of view, but the person who questioned the point of view. When someone raises a point of view and is questioned, you think that the burden of proof is not the person who made the point, but the questioner. Failure to falsify a thing, or to give a counterexample, does not prove the rationality of this thing. Of course, if it is just because there is not enough evidence to show that a thing is reasonable and it is not certain that it is unreasonable. Example: Xiaohong said that he believes that the universe was created by a omnipotent Almighty God called KengDie, because no one can prove that KengDie does not exist, so KengDie exists. Xiaohong made a mistake in the burden of proof.

Article 12: Semantic Ambiguity You use a pun or a language with ambiguity to distort the facts. You use puns or ambiguous language, and when you are criticized by others, use these ambiguous words as your shield. Example: A monkey on the ground, a monkey on the tree, a total of several monkeys?

Article 13: The gambler delays the fact that you think that the occurrence of random things is related to what happened before. When someone sees an independent random event (such as a coin toss), they always feel that they are related to the previous things (the front is connected with five positives, the next one must be the opposite.)

Article 14: Band floats You try to explain that because many people are doing the same thing / believing the same thing, this thing is right. The prevalence of a thing/view is not related to its reasonableness. The earth is spherical. The earth is also spherical when people believe that the earth is flat. The earth does not believe it or not. Example: Seeing how the “Monetary War” is so popular, Xiaohong believes that Rothschild and the Freemasonry will manipulate the whole world behind the scenes. Xiaohong made a mistake in the band float.

Article 15: Recourse to authority You use a point of view of an authoritative person/institution to replace a powerful statement. To prove a point of view, it is not enough to extract the opinions of others. At the very least, you must know why the mentioned authority has such an opinion. Because authoritative figures/institutions also make mistakes, they cannot be unreasonably assumed to be reasonable. Of course, the views of authoritative figures/institutions may be correct, so it cannot be assumed that this view is definitely wrong only because the other party used the fallacy of resorting to authority. Example: Xiaohong does not know how to refute the theory of evolution, so he said: “My husband Sun Yue is a big scientist. He thinks that evolution is wrong.” Xiao Hong made a mistake in appealing to authority.

Article 16: Synthetic Fallacy You think that the characteristics of an overall component are universal for the rest of the population. In many cases, things that are reasonable in one component are not reasonable for other components. We can often observe the consistency between things, so when consistency does not exist, it will also be biased to think that there is consistency. Example: Xiaohong bought a bicycle. When she saw that the bicycle seat was artificial leather, she felt that the other parts of the bicycle were also artificial leather.

Article 17: There is no real Scotsman who put forward a point of view and received criticism from others. You tried to defend your point of view by means of “respecting purity”. You try to maintain your flawed point of view by post-mortem and by modifying the standard.

Article 18: The gene delays you to judge its good or bad by the origin of a thing. You try to escape the positive discussion and turn to the source of things. This approach is similar to the sixth article “personal attack” in this article. They all want to try to attack each other from the side through the existing negative impressions, but they cannot respond positively to each other’s arguments. Example:
Xiao Ming: “Sun Yue does not like to drink Hu spicy soup.”
Xiaohong: “Sun Yue is Dutch, how can you not like to drink Hu spicy soup?”

Article 19: Non-black or white You have black and white as the only possibility, but ignore the existence of other possibilities. You use a simple and rude fake dichotomy to cover up the existence of other possibilities. You want to mislead the discussion through non-black and white choices and undermine the constructiveness of the debate. Example: When talking about the war on terrorism, the president said that if you do not support the war on terror, you are supporting terrorists. The president made a black and white fallacy here.

Article 20: Stealing Arguments You use a circular argument to prove a point of being included in the premise. This is a fallacy in the logic of bankruptcy, because you default your assumptions to true, and then use circular arguments to prove it. Example: The things in KengDie’s verse “KengDie Sutra” are all truths, because in the second paragraph of the first chapter of KengDie Sutra, “KengDie is all true.”

Article 21: Recourse to Nature You think that a thing is “natural”, so it is reasonable, inevitable, and better. It is better that a thing is natural and does not necessarily represent it. Killing each other is a common phenomenon in nature, but most people think that we should not kill each other. Example: Xiaohong believes that eating herbs is definitely more effective than eating artificially made medicines because herbs are more “natural.” Xiaohong made a fallacy in resorting to nature

Article 22: Anecdotal Evidence You attempt to replace logical arguments or strong evidence with personal experience or individual instances. Anecdotal evidence is easier to obtain than complex and conclusive evidence, but it is much more crude. In the vast majority of cases, quantitatively measured scientific data/conclusive evidence is more credible than personal experience/anecdotes. Example: Grandpa Xiaohong is a 30-year-old smoker. Now his body is still very healthy in his 80s. Xiaohong concludes that smoking is harmless to the body. Xiaohong made a mistake in the evidence of anecdotes.

Article 23: The Texas Sharpshooter carefully selects evidence that is good for your opinion in a large amount of data/evidence, rather than using data/evidence that is not good for you. You fired a shot first, then painted the bullseye in the place where the bullet hit, making yourself a sharpshooter. You decide your position first, then you start to look for evidence, and you only find that you are good for yourself, and you are neglected for those who are not good for yourself. Example: The red X character will prove that he has fulfilled his duties, and promoted the charity of XXXX everywhere, but he did not mention the extravagance of his public money consumption. Red X will make a “Texas sharpshooter” fallacy

Article 24: Intermediate Position You feel that the compromise of the two extreme views, or the intermediate position, is definitely correct. Although most of the time, truth does exist in the middle of two extremes, you can’t easily think that the idea of ​​being in the middle position must be correct. The middle ground of lies and truth is still a lie. Example: Xiaohong believes that the vaccine will cause autism in children. Sun Yue concluded from the conclusion of scientific research that the vaccine will not cause autism in children. Xiao Ming believes that the compromise between the two viewpoints – the vaccine will cause autism in children But not all children with autism – is correct. Xiao Ming made a fallacy in the middle position.