How to prevent some logical fallacies

Let's take a look at the assertion:

Isn't this an unbreakable truth that everyone knows? Why take it out for analysis?

If you study logic, it is easy to see the irrationality in it.

Let's try to expand on it in the language of logic, which is actually saying:

If you look at it this way, will you find any clues? You may start to think that this is too absolute.

Let's take a closer look.

This is a logic of causal inference, trying to explain why people become pitiful because they are hateful. Isn't that right?

First, let's look at the definition of "pitiful". Does a person who is poor and hungry due to being lazy and hungry look pitiful? And the same situation, if it happened to a person who had just suffered a major change in the family, would it also make people feel pitiful?

But on the contrary, the person himself may be a hard-working, self-motivated person.

For the former, we can attribute the result of his seemingly pitiful appearance directly to the behavior of "not wanting to make progress". And in the usual sense, when we talk about "hateful", doesn't it mean that he can get a better life by his own efforts, but because of his laziness and lack of progress, he has not achieved the results that people expect? His poverty was caused by his own problems.

But this can only explain the reason why some people are pitiful.

Think about it, for those who have just lost a loved one or suffered a major accident, if they attribute their own problems to themselves, it seems particularly unkind.

What does this sentence actually mean? This reflects the fact that when we evaluate others, we always like to look harshly for subjective or internal causes, and ignore objective or external causes, superstitious that internal causes are the primary causes, external causes are secondary causes, and external causes work through internal causes. In many cases, external factors are the decisive factor.

The poor must have something to hate", which reflects the indifference of human nature.

From this, we know that this sentence logically makes a mistake of "generalizing", and the correct statement is:

End of full text.

Through this, we know that there are two main types of reasoning, one is deductive reasoning and the other is inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is from general to specific reasoning, which is divided into major premises, minor premises, and conclusions. As long as the major premise and the minor premise are true, then the conclusion must be true.

For example, Jubi has to eat if he is a human, and Xiao Ming is a human, so Xiao Ming has to eat.

The second is inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the general, as opposed to deductive reasoning. From the nature of the individual, the nature of the general category is derived.

For example, Xiao Ming is a boy and is very naughty, Xiao Gang is a boy and is very naughty, and Xiaodong is a boy and is very naughty, so all boys are very naughty.

There are 2 types of inductive reasoning, one is complete inductive reasoning and the second is incomplete inductive reasoning. Complete inductive reasoning is for all individuals within the exhaustive category. For example, there are 4 people in my family. Dad, Mom, Sister, I all live in China, so my family lives in China.

The second type is incomplete inductive reasoning. Just a few of the individuals in the category. It is divided into simple enumeration inductive reasoning and scientific inductive reasoning.

Simple enumeration of inductive reasoning, the number of individuals in the categories cited is limited. We are considered to be compliant when the number of satisfied individuals is large enough, the range is wide enough, and there are no counterexamples. Of course, when these two conditions are not met, we assume that the reasoning is guilty of the fallacy of generalization.

Scientific inductive reasoning, in addition to enumerations, also adds conclusions from scientific analysis between objects and attributes.

There is also a probabilistic reasoning of the raider, to be added.

Partial generalizations are all simple inductive enumerations that do not satisfy the conditions of insufficient individual cases, insufficient scope, and counterexamples. That is, the enumeration that is all unqualified in partial generalizations.

For example, if we think about the scene of regional black, each place is labeled. This label does not meet the requirement that there are no counterexamples. Of course, this fallacy is convenient for our lives, but it is also very easy to mislead us in judgment and decision-making.

When we know two foreigners, we assume that all foreigners have the characteristics of both foreigners, which is very arbitrary.

When we have the impression that there are 3 friends who are people of a certain zodiac sign, and they are all optimistic and cheerful, we think that the people of that zodiac sign are optimistic.

Wait a minute... In the future, when we do inductive reasoning, we have to check whether we have violated those two principles, there are no counterexamples, sample size and range.

Process fallacy. 1.Consideration of biased evidence (confirmation bias, falsification bias)2Double standard.

3.Hasty conclusions.

4.Overgeneralization and stereotypes.

5.Oversimplification.

6.The fallacy of post-facto attribution.

The Fallacy of Opinions. 1.Lack of perspective.

2.Unfounded assumptions.

3.Follow.

4.Either or either.

5.Relativism.

6.Absolutism.

7.Biases for or against change.

Expression Fallacy:1Contradictory.

2.Circular argument.

3.Nonsensical descriptions.

4.Misuse of authority.

5.False analogy.

6.Irrational appeals.

Reaction fallacy. 1.Automatic rejection.

2.Change the subject.

3.Shifting the burden of proof.

4.Scarecrow.

5.Attacking critics.

Examples of logical fallacies are as follows:

1. Xiao Ming said that the country should invest more budget to develop the crude nuclear education industry, and Xiao Hong replied: "I can't imagine that you are so unpatriotic, and you actually want to reduce defense spending and give foreign powers a chance." "Little Red is guilty of the scarecrow fallacy.

2. Xiaohong pointed out that the number of pirates in the world has decreased in the past few centuries and the global temperature has increased, so she concludes that the decrease in the number of pirates has caused climate change, and pirates can reduce the global temperature. Red made the mistake of misattribution.

3, Xiaohong saw Xiao Ming eating dog meat in the restaurant, so she stepped forward and reprimanded: "How can you eat dog meat, how cute the puppy is, just like a child, can you bear to hurt the child?"Xiao Hongyan is guilty of appealing to the fallacy of the source of feelings.

4. A person who advocates healthy eating published a very absurd diet theory on TV to promote the concept of healthy eating, Xiaohong felt that healthy eating was a lie, so she began to overeat every day. Red is guilty of fallacy.

5. Xiaohong opposes gay marriage because she thinks that if we allow gay marriage, then there will be people who want to marry a table or chair. Red is guilty of the slippery slope fallacy.

6. When Xiao Ming put forward a very reasonable proposal about infrastructure construction, Xiao Hong said that she didn't believe anything Xiao Ming said, because Xiao Ming was not patriotic, often criticized, and did not know how to be grateful. Red is guilty of the fallacy of personal attacks.

Teacher Li Xiaolai said: Values determine destiny. And values, to put it bluntly, are to know what is good, what is better, and what is best.

Such a definition is easy to understand and makes people suddenly open.

I've always felt like a person who thinks about values, in other words, thinks more. But as for how to describe one's own values, there is no suitable language, and there is no quantitative standard. Every time you have a different point of view and opinion with someone else, use one sentence to dispel it:

We have different values. But not being able to say a more convincing reason often makes the scene awkward for a while, and the two parties break up unhappily, especially when dealing with intimate relationships, especially obviously.

Now with such a clear definition that is easy to understand, I have found the crux of my life. The difference between me and you is that we have different standards for good and bad, and we can use this to have in-depth exchanges and form more consensus.

And how to distinguish the good from the bad is another difficult problem. In reality, many people tend to be self-centered, believing that their own views are the views of the whole world, and finally make wrong choices with partial generalizations.

This is also a mistake that I often make, when I disagree, I always think that I am right and others are wrong. I feel that my cognition is an objective fact, but I don't know that this is a cognitive trap of "generalizing from partiality". Restricted by such a mode of thinking, he can't escape from the narrow cognitive boundary, immersed in a state of self-containment, unable to extricate himself.

Therefore, it is difficult to make correct judgments.

This also tells us that when making decisions, we need to ask ourselves: whether we are generalizing. Try to find a few more angles to think, gradually cultivate your own green light thinking, and find and solve problems with an accepting and curious attitude.

Finally, to summarize our gains: we must clearly define our values, beware of the trap of "generalizing from partiality", make choices after objective and calm consideration, and embark on a bright destiny.