Does the so called logical fallacy make sense in everyday life?

The normative nature of logic does not mean that logic guarantees the correctness of thinking, but that we need logic as a criterion when we talk about the correctness of thinking. It's like when I'm playing a game (like chess), it's not that I can't pick up my elephant and walk for a day or pick up the cart and walk around the field – it's just that I'm wrong to do it, and the wrong criterion is given by this chess game, and maybe I'm right in another chess game. And mastering this rule doesn't mean you can't break it, it's because you can:

The rules themselves are made for those situations that can be violated. Anything that violates the laws of physics is not written into the rules, for example, when playing chess, there is no rule that says that you can't move a piece faster than the speed of light - because this is an unbreakable law of physics, so there is no point in stipulating this.

Cognitively correct is only one aspect of being right, and a person can have all the right knowledge, say something (semantically) right, but not be appropriate, or behave badly. The simplest example is that it is useless to write a bunch of correct mathematical and physical propositions while writing an essay. Whether it's language or logic, if you don't look at it under a way of life, and simply take it out, it's useless.

Maybe they're more regular and easier to describe, but that doesn't mean they're more important.

"Logical fallacy" and "correct" are not at the same semantic level, and the word "forever" is used strangely, because the premise does not seem to involve a question of time. The logic of this sentence seems to be fine, but it is still not correct, because the premise that "I have mastered all the logical fallacies" is problematic. The total number of logical fallacies may not be limited, and even then, humanity has not yet mastered all the logical fallacies in the universe.

So when you say "all the logical fallacies", you're already wrong.

Cognition as I understand it is like this: in the beginning, when people enter the stage where they can talk about cognition (the reason why I mention this here is because I don't know if babies have cognitive barriers), everyone's cognition seems to me to be a tube, and everyone is peeping at the leopard in the tube. The difference may be that over time, the tube is slowly getting bigger, and the tube is not the same thickness for everyone.

But the essence is the same: people tend to look at things that fit their own cognition, and take everything that doesn't fit their cognition.

What if the act of "you have all the logical errors" is a mistake? The antonym of "fallacy" is not "correct", it is "common sense", not all "common sense" will be "forever", because "forever" is a curse, "always correct" cannot exist, one "all logical mistakes" you can't grasp, and two does not exist "always correct".

Learning logic is not going to make you use it like this. I think that studying logic can make A know that B's "this is not in line with our culture" is not a sufficient reason. So A was able to put forward his point of view and discuss it with B.

Who said that there must be no loopholes before you can put forward your own opinions, if anyone's views have no loopholes, there is no need to discuss with others at all, just educate others to know.

Participate in a few debate tournaments and you'll find that one of the hallmarks of real life is complexity. A problem assumes that there are five explanations, and often all five of them are logically unprovable.

There are many logical fallacies.

Logical fallacy values are not based on logical arguments, especially inferences that do not conform to logic in an argument. Logical fallacies are divided into formal logic fallacies and non-formal logic fallacies. The fallacy of non-formal logic is, in essence, the fallacy of false premises.

Fallacy of Formal Logic:

Formal logic fallacy refers to logical fallacies that result from reasoning, deduction, and argumentation that do not follow the rules of formal logical reasoning

1. Deny the fallacy of the antecedent.

Typical form: "If a then b; Non-a; Therefore it is not b. ”

Example: "If it's a bird, it will die; Man is not a bird; The deceased does not die. This is a misuse of the blunt syllogism. The correct form of a blunt syllogism should be: "If a then b; a；Therefore b. ”

2. Affirm the fallacy of the latter.

Typical form: "If a then b; c is b; Therefore c is a; ”

Example: "If it's a fritter, it's delicious; Bread is delicious; So bread is fritters. Again, this is a misuse of the blunt syllogism.

3. False dilemma reasoning.

Typical forms: "A or B or C; Non-a; Therefore b. ”

This is a misuse of the syllogism. The form of the selected syllogism: "A or B; Non-a; Therefore b. , which is the cascade in this form: "p1 or p2 or p3......or PN; Non-P2 and non-P3 ......and non-PN; Hence p1. In the words of Sherlock Holmes: . .

When all other possibilities are ruled out and there is one left, it is the truth, no matter how impossible it may seem. ”

This fallacy is called false dilemma reasoning because sophists often state it in this form: "For sweets or for salty; You don't support sweets; That's why you support salty food. The sophists deliberately conceal the option of "neutrality" in their formulations, creating the illusion of a syllogism.

It is worth noting that some people tend to classify false dilemma reasoning as a fallacy of non-formal logic.

I often hear the older generation say that the body will be healthier if you eat more meat, and meat can indeed supplement many elements, but eating too much, big fish and meat every day, will cause a burden on the stomach, easy to be obese, three highs, and induce more diseases, so you still need to have your own ability to read.

I don't know when nosebleeds have become a misleading common sense to mislead the public. In fact, raising the head not only cannot stop the bleeding, but may also cause blood to flow into the throat or esophagus, causing nausea, vomiting, etc., and even choking into the trachea and suffocation in severe cases. The scientific way is:

Pressure can be used to stop bleeding by holding the head upright or leaning forward slightly, pressing the base of the alar with your hand or filling the nose with gauze moistened with cold water.

If you look closely at other people's nose blowing, you will find that many people are pinching both sides of their nose to blow their nose. Many parents think that this is the right way to blow their nose and tell their children to do the same, but many children suffer from otitis media as a result. This is because the nasal cavity of the human body communicates with the middle ear, and pinching the nose can easily cause the nasal contents to flow backwards into the middle ear, thus causing otitis media.

The correct way to do this is to press on one side of the nose with your hand and blow your nose out of the other side.

When I was a child, whenever I felt that I had swallowed a fish bone, I would take a few sips of vinegar, but did this work? Vinegar is a weak acid, stomach acid is a strong acid, and the fish bones that are swallowed have stomach acid to dissolve, so what is the use of drinking vinegar? As for the fish bones stuck in the throat, drinking vinegar will only burn the throat but cannot soften the fish bones, the correct way is to go to the otolaryngology department in time to remove them through a laryngoscope.

Nowadays, people are under a lot of work pressure, and there are many people who work overtime, so many people wash their hair at night, and the older generation says that this is not good, and they will know the consequences when they are old. In fact, after we wash our hair, try to blow dry our hair, don't let our hair sleep wet, and work overtime when wet, so that it will not affect our health.

The black-and-white fallacy: Reduces the problem to only two extremes and ignores the possibility of the middle.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy: Based on a small change or event, mistakenly creating a huge chain reaction.

Resorting to the fallacy of personal aggression: shifting the focus of the argument to the other person's personal characteristics or behavior, rather than discussing the issue itself.

Appealing to the Fallacy of Authority: Relying on sound evidence and logic to base an argument on the opinions or opinions of an authority person without examining the superior.

There are many logical fallacies, and these are just a few of them.

Here are some common logical fallacies:

The straw man fallacy: Oversimplifying or distorting an opponent's point of view to make it easier to attack.

The slippery slope: The belief that an event or action will lead to unavoidable catastrophic consequences.

The fallacy of causal confusion (correlation = causation).: Just because two events occur at the same time, one of them is thought to have caused the other, when in fact there may be other factors influencing both events.

Appeal to the emotional fallacy (ad hominem).: Attacking an individual's character, emotion, or position without logically arguing their point of view.

Fallacy of denying the antecedent: Refute the other person's argument by arguing that if a condition is true, then its antecedent must be true.

Appeal to the authority fallacy (ad verecundiam).: Relying too much on the opinions or experiences of an individual or group without adequate logical analysis and reasoning.

False dichotomy: Compares a sockbridge view or action to all other possible views or actions, ignoring other possible options.

Survivorship bias: Ignores the failed or missing parts of an event and focuses only on the successful or surviving parts.

fallacy of the collection size: Thinks that because there are many elements in a set, the set itself is better or more correct.

Fallacy of misplaced concreteness