Contempt for the laws of thinking
The law of thinking is the reflection of the law of the objective world in people's consciousness, and it is the reproduction of the essential connection and inevitable trend of development in the process of development of things. The basic laws of thinking are the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of exclusion, and the law of sufficient reason. In the entire process of human thought, anyone must abide by the basic laws of thinking, and if it is violated, it can lead to fallacies and even sophistry. And one of the great characteristics of sophistry is that some people deliberately violate the laws of thinking in order to achieve their goal of quibbling for fallacies.
Blasphemy against the law of the same
The law of identity is one of the most basic laws of human thinking. The law of identity means that in a thought process, our thoughts must be certain and consistent from beginning to end, and their meaning cannot be changed at will. In the same way, in the course of a debate, our thinking must be certain and cannot be changed at will. And one of the great characteristics of sophistry is that it ignores the certainty of thinking.
I didn't eat the fried noodles and gave me any money?Conceptual sophistry is a sophistry to steal the meaning of a concept in an argument. In Song Xiaobao's sketch "Sea Cucumber Fried Noodles", Song Xiaobao first ordered a sea cucumber fried noodles, felt fooled, and then changed to a noodle soup. When he finished the noodle soup and was about to leave, a strange scene occurred. Waiter: "Brother, you haven't paid yet!."Song Xiaobao: "What money?."Waiter: "Soup and noodle money!."Song Xiaobao: "What kind of money do you give for fried noodles for soup noodles?"Waiter: "You didn't pay for the fried noodles!."”
Song Xiaobao: "I didn't eat fried noodles, what money did I give?"Song Xiaobao in the sketch violated the law of sameness and was playing trickery with the concept of sophistry. Song Xiaobao exchanged the fried noodles that he didn't pay for the soup noodles that he didn't pay, which is still equivalent to not paying for the soup noodles, but Song Xiaobao deliberately secretly changed the meaning between the soup noodles that he didn't pay for and the soup noodles that he paid, to mess around. Conceptual sophistry is a very clumsy trick of sophistry that we must not take lightly in debate. If we lack the ability to analyze this rationally, sometimes it will form a dilemma transformation, and the righteous side will secretly hold its breath, and the party that talks nonsense will be arrogant. Another example: A man goes to a newly opened cloth shop and asks for two pieces of cloth, and after picking them up, he asks how much it will cost. The shopkeeper said, "I'm happy to open and I'm only charging half price today." So the man gave the shopkeeper a piece of cloth, picked up the other and left. The shopkeeper hurriedly said, "Mr. hasn't paid yet?"But the man said, "Didn't I give it to you?"The shopkeeper said inexplicably, "No!."”
The man was furious: "What a profiteer, I bought you two pieces of cloth, and you said that you would only charge half the price." I've already given you half the price of a piece of cloth, why do you still need money?In the sophistry that "half the price of two pieces of cloth is equal to one piece of cloth", this cloth buyer deliberately confuses the two different concepts of "cloth" and "cloth price", one cloth is half of two pieces of cloth, but not half of the price of two pieces of cloth.
The debunking of conceptual sophistry: Accurately distinguish the subtleties of the meaning of concepts used by the sophist before and after, and use the law of identity as a tool to firmly clamp it and not allow arbitrary changes. In Plato's dialogue, Eudemus, a debate between Dionysus and Kertesipus in ancient Greece is described. Dion: You said you had a dog, didn't you?
Kerter: Yes, a fierce dog. Dion: It has puppies, right?Kerter: yes, they all look a lot like it. Dion: That dog is their father?Kerter: yes, I saw it with the puppy's mother. Dion: Isn't it yours?
Kerter: It's mine, indeed. Dion: So, it's daddy and yours again. So it's your dad, and the puppy is your brother. In this debate, Dionythordulus is sophistry. The phrase "it's daddy" means "it's the puppy's daddy" and "it's yours" means "it's your dog", but Dionythordus steals the meaning and comes to the absurd conclusion that "it's your daddy", using the sophistry of stealing concepts.
The sophistry of the son of the unscrupulous one
Either in order to cover up their grievances, or to avoid sharp contradictions, or to fish in troubled waters, the sophists deliberately change the meaning of the debate topic and quietly change the debate topic to be debated with another debate topic, which is the sophistry of secretly changing the debate topic. For example, once in a history class, the teacher finished the section "Zheng Chenggong recovered Taiwan" and began to ask questions. The teacher called up a student who was deserting and asked, "Tell me, who is Zheng Chenggong?"The student touched his scalp and couldn't answer, and after a while he said in a slurred voice
I don't know who Zheng Chenggong is, but I know his mother. The whole class looked at him in amazement. Even the teacher wondered: "Do you know his mother?".Yes, his mother called failure, and failure is the mother of success!This student was sophistry, he didn't listen to the lecture because of his wandering thoughts, and he couldn't answer the question of "who is Zheng Chenggong", so he replaced it with the question of "who is Zheng Chenggong's mother", and used a common saying "Failure is the mother of success" to deal with it, which is called secretly changing the topic of sophistry. Another example: Dad: "Son, why did you get this little score?".Look at the neighbor's Xiao Wang, who scored 98 points in the test!You've only got an 89!Child: "Dad, why don't you compare yourself with Xiao Wang's father?"His dad is rich!Whatever he wants, his dad will buy him anything!”
The father and the son were discussing why the test scores were not as good as the neighbor's Xiao Wang, but the son was talking about who was richer between his father and the neighbor Xiao Wang's father, and secretly replaced the debate question. In the "Ancient and Modern Tan Overview" compiled by the Ming scholar Feng Menglong, the father of the cabinet scholar of Buxiao Zizhi is also similar: In the Ming Dynasty, there was a cabinet scholar surnamed Jin, his father was not very famous, and his son was very unsuccessful, but his grandson was admitted to the Jinshi. The cabinet scholar often scolded his son, calling him an unscrupulous son and an unsuccessful thing. Later, this unscrupulous son couldn't stand the scolding, so he got into a fight with the cabinet minister: "Your father is not as good as my father, and your son is not as good as my son, what is wrong with me?When the cabinet scholar heard this, he laughed out loud and stopped blaming his son. Under the circumstances, what this unscrupulous son wanted to argue about was whether he was successful or not, but he deliberately changed the debate question to how your son compares to my son, and how your father compares to my father, which happened to avoid the original debate. The rejection of the sophistry of the polemic: In the process of debate, if there is no unified topic, the debate cannot proceed normally. For the sophist who aims to steal the topic in order to succeed in the conspiracy, if we want to ** him, we must expose the other party's attempt to change the topic and clamp it tightly like pincers!
Red herring has the ability to lay a good egg yourself
"Red herring" refers to a smoked reddish-brown salted herring, fishy, smelly, and very pungent, but it is a delicious side dish that Europeans used to eat, similar to Chinese stinky tofu and Guangxi snail noodles. The strong smell of red herring is also extremely powerful for dogs and is used as a training method for hunting dogs. In the UK, there is a tradition of fox hunting, and hunting dogs are indispensable for fox hunting. The dog trainer drags the pungent red herring along the forest path until the puppy learns to follow the scent. Later, when the hound is trained to follow the faint smell of a fox or badger, the dog trainer will drag a red herring on a path with animal tracks from time to time to confuse the hound. Eventually, this hound learns to follow the scent of its prey rather than the stronger smell of red herring. Logicians also use the "red herring" technique of interfering with hunting dogs in people's thinking training, using the red herring as a metaphor for the fallacy of distorting the topic and avoiding the topic, that is, the so-called "red herring" fallacy. The sophistry of the red herring is a trick used by the sophist to shift the focus of the debate and thus win the polemic. For example, a young kindergarten teacher is teaching arithmetic. She asked a classmate, "Jiajia, you have an apple in your hand now, and your sister gave you another apple." How many apples do you have now?But I don't have any apples in my hands right nowJiajia asked curiously. "I'm just using analogies. Suppose you have an apple in your hand now—".
"But I really don't have any apples in my hands!Jiajia said aggrievedly. "Listen, I'm just making analogies right now. "The teacher was a little angry. She continued: "You now have an apple in your hand, and your sister gave you another apple ......"She won't give me apples at all, she wants to ask me for them!Jiajia's tone rushed to answer in the affirmative.
"Okay. The helpless teacher changed his words: "You now have an apple in your hand, your sister also has an apple in your hand, and now you both have a total of apples in your hands?"a. So where did the other apple go?My sister ate it. She's always been like this, and last time she had a piece of cake ......”
The young teacher didn't wait to finish listening, and was already too angry to speak. The child had to answer the question "What is the result of the math calculation", but she transformed it into the question "Do you really have an apple in your hand?" again and again. Arguments that seem to be related but in fact have deviated from the topic and distracted the debater's attention are called "red herrings". For example:
1) Grandson: "Grandpa, why did that person turn one eye open and one eye closed when he shot a gun?"”
Grandpa: "Because if he closes both eyes, he won't be able to see the target." ”
This grandfather's answer has actually deviated from the thesis. Another example:
2) A: The eggs you bought are not good.
B: You have the ability to lay a good egg yourself.
In this example, B secretly replaced the debate question "Are eggs good" with "Can you lay eggs?"
3) An elderly man was eating in a restaurant, and he complained to the waiter, "Why does your roast chicken only have skin and head?"”
Waiter: "Do you want me to bring out the chicken feathers too?"”
The waiter secretly replaced the question "why is there no chicken" with "why is there no chicken feathers".
4) A: "I'm taller than you." ”
B: "No matter how high you are, can you have Yao Minggao?"Obviously, A and B were comparing their heights, but B shifted the topic to A and Yao Ming.
5) Patient: "Doctor, you said I had cancer, but nothing ...... after the operation”
Doctor: "Isn't it better to have none?"Do you want to have cancer?”
Originally, the doctor wanted to answer the question of "why was there a misdiagnosis of cancer", but he secretly replaced it with the question of "is it good to have no cancer", and he also arrogantly beat a rake.
The refutation of the red herring-style sophistry: the essence of this kind of sophistry is to violate the law of sameness, the topic does not remain the same, if we want to ** him, we must stick to the topic and do not allow the other party to change secretly. 4 Scarecrows Turn Opponents into Vulnerable Scarecrows Farmers erect scarecrows in the field to defend themselves against sparrows. In arguments, sophists also use the straw man method. In order to refute the other party's point of view, the sophist first distorts the other party's point of view into a view that is more beneficial to himself or more unfavorable to the other party, replaces the opponent's original claim, and then launches a fierce offensive and knocks it down, just like a scarecrow, because the scarecrow is not a real person, it is more vulnerable to attack than a real person, this is scarecrow sophistry. For example: There is a place called Zhaojiazhuang, and there is a landlord in Zhaojiazhuang called Zhao Yuanwai. He is not very kind, and he always likes to collect more rent. Zhang San was a representative of the villagers, representing the villagers to negotiate with Zhao Yuanwai. Zhang San said: "Zhao Yuanwai, your rent has been collected too much, okay, this year's harvest is not good, can you collect less?"Everyone is a villager, don't be too dark. Zhao Yuanwai said: "Don't forget, the bridge in the township was broken last year, or I paid for it to repair it, why is my heart black?"You can't discredit my good deeds of building bridges like this. ”
At that time, what was going to be discussed was the topic of collecting too much rent, but Zhao Yuanwai insisted that Zhang San criticized his good deeds of repairing the bridge, which was equivalent to setting up a "scarecrow": "Come and see, Zhang San even has to worry about repairing the bridge!."This also diverts attention from the fact that he has overcharged rent this year, which is typical of scarecrow sophistry. A common form of setting up a "scarecrow" is to use the infamous formula: "So, you're just talking ......?."Converting the opponent's argument into an obviously ridiculous argument and then refuting this false argument is called "knocking down the scarecrow", thus creating the illusion of completely defeating the opponent. For example: A: I don't think children should run around the streets.
B: So, you're just saying that it's stupid to lock up kids and not let them get a breath of fresh air. "Children should not run on the streets" is undoubtedly true, because it is not safe to have a lot of cars on the streets. But B shifts this view to "keep the children locked up and don't let them get a breath of fresh air." In fact, there are many ways to keep children from running around the streets, but they can move well. B's argument that "children should be locked up" is not made by A, nor can it be inferred from A's argument, but is just a "scarecrow" that has nothing to do with A's real argument. Another example: A: I think **, obesity is not good for the body. B: So, you're saying that all fat people are physically unhealthy!
and because of the bindiscriminate use of scarecrow sophistry, a became the public enemy of all fat men. The rejection of scarecrow sophistry: The essence of this kind of sophistry is also a violation of the law of sameness, the sophist secretly changes the topic of the debate to other topics, and the debate must be closely related to the topic of the debate, and the other party is not allowed to change it at will. Both the red herring fallacy and the scarecrow fallacy are sophistries that change the debate style, with the red herring fallacy shifting the focus of the debate and the scarecrow fallacy completely changing the debate to the scarecrow fallacy. 5 The standards are not the same, clean or dirty, who will go to the bath?In the course of their arguments, some sophists do not maintain the same standards, violate the same law, change their thinking at will, and do not have certainty and consistency from beginning to end. In philosophy class, students asked Socrates, "Teacher, can you give an example of what sophistry is?"Socrates thought for a moment, and then said, "Two men came to me, one clean and the other dirty. I ask these two people to take a bath, and you think, which of the two of them will go to the bath first?Needless to say, of course it's the dirty man. One student blurted out. "No, it's a clean person. Socrates retorted, "Because the clean man has the habit of bathing, the dirty man thinks that there is nothing to wash." Think about it, who will take a shower first?It's clean people. The students continued. "No, it's a dirty person. Because a dirty person needs a bath more than a clean person. Socrates retorted. Then Socrates asked again, "Which of the two guests, then, will go to the bath first?""Dirty people!The students shouted and repeated their first answer. "Wrong again. Of course, both were washed. Socrates said, "A clean man has a bathing habit, while a dirty man needs to take a bath." Well, who will take a shower first?”
It seems that both of them have washed it. The students replied hesitantly. "No, neither of them washed. Socrates explained, "Because a dirty person has no habit of bathing, while a clean person does not need to bathe." The teacher has a point, but how do we understand it?The students complained, "What you say is different every time, but it's always right!"Socrates said, "Exactly." You see, it seems that it is a correct means of reasoning on the outside, but in fact it violates the laws of logic and makes a plausible conclusion, which is sophistry!The reason why this argument exemplified by Socrates is sophistry is that there is no certainty in thought, and the criteria for whether or not to bathe are changed at will, sometimes based on physical needs, sometimes on mental habits, and sometimes on both at the same time, because the standards are not the same, violating the same law, and thus leading to nonsense and nonsense. Confucius, our ancient Oriental scholar, also encountered similar brain-burning debates. Confucius traveled to the East. On the way, I saw two children arguing.
A child said, "When the sun first comes out, it is far away." Another child said, "No!."It should be far away from people when it first comes out, and close to people at noon!You're wrong, you don't see, when the sun comes out, it's as big as an umbrella, but at noon, it's only as small as a vegetable plate”
"You're wrong!Another child interrupted him and said, "In the morning, when the sun first comes out, the weather is cold, but at noon it is as hot as in a soup pot." Tell you, this is the truth of near hot and far cold!Neither of the two children could convince anyone, so they asked Confucius to be the referee. Confucius scratched the back of his head for a long time, but he couldn't answer. The two children clapped their hands and laughed and said, "Who said you were knowledgeable?"”
These two children have different criteria for judging things. One is based on subjective vision, the other is based on individual touch, this kind of argument according to the standards of different subjective perceptions, sometimes even makes things difficult to distinguish between right and wrong, and the argument is difficult to solve, the result is that each word seems to be reasonable, and even the "great sage" Confucius could not make a judgment. The rejection of the sophistry of the standard is not the same: the other party must abide by the same law, the standard must be the same, maintain the certainty and consistency of thought, and cannot be changed at will.
Appeal to purity. There are no real Scots
Resorting to pure sophistry, also known as the fallacy of "there is no real Scotsman", refers to the sophistry in which the sophist makes a general assertion and proposes an ideal, pure standard to defend himself when the opponent raises a counterexample to refute it.
For example: "No Scotsman adds sugar to their porridge." ”
B: "I'm Scottish, so I'll add sugar to my porridge." ”
A: "You're not really Scotsman, and real Scots don't add sugar to porridge." ”
When A puts forward the universal assertion that "no Scots will add sugar to porridge", that is, "all Scots people do not add sugar to porridge", B puts forward a counterexample, "I am Scottish, I will add sugar to porridge", so A changes the standard and puts forward an ideal, pure standard "real Scots people do not add sugar to porridge" to defend his view, which is to resort to pure sophistry. Resorting to pure sophistry is common in our lives, and it is also very deceptive, and many people use it to the point of perfection. For example:
A: "Sichuan people love spicy food. ”
B: "I'm from Sichuan, but I never eat chili peppers, it's spicy and it's not delicious." ”
A: "You are not a real Sichuan person, real Sichuan people love spicy food. You must have encountered this kind of argument in your life. Another example:
A: "Hard work will definitely succeed." ”
B: "I tried hard, but I didn't succeed!”
A: "You're not really trying, or you're not trying hard enough." ”
Refuge by resorting to pure sophistry: The absurdity of this type of sophistry lies in the fact that it violates the law of sameness and arbitrarily changes the subject of the argument, and the topic of the argument does not remain the same. In the debate, it is necessary to stick closely to the topic of the debate and not allow the other party to change it at will. In life, when others say "real ......It is likely that he used pure sophistry, and you must be vigilant.
Resorting to hypocrisy
You haven't run a red light?
Resorting to hypocritical sophistry, also known as "so do you", is an attempt by a sophist to divert the discussion from topic by pointing out the hypocrisy of an opponent. For example:
A: "You are not running a red light right, you should obey the traffic rules." ”
B: "Didn't you run a red light?"What qualifications do you have to say about me?”
A criticizes B for not running a red light and obeying traffic rules. However, instead of answering whether the red light was correct and whether he should obey the traffic rules, B accuses A of also running the red light, "You are the same", which deviates from the subject of the argument and resorts to hypocritical sophistry. The use of hypocritical sophistry is not uncommon in life.
For example: (1) a: "We should use the genuine copy, not the pirated copy." B: "You haven't used piracy?".So I am not qualified to say that people who use piracy. ”
2) Environmentalists: "We should insist on green travel, cycling or taking public transport, and don't drive ourselves." "Won't you environmentalists drive your own cars?”
3) Feminist: "The best woman in fashion today. ”
But the feminists themselves wear high heels. ”
(4) Dog lovers: "Dogs are also life, we should not kill dogs and eat dog meat." ”
"You don't eat pork, beef, chicken, duck, fish?People kill pigs, cows, chickens, ducks, and fish, so why don't you allow others to kill dogs and eat dog meat?These are all resorts to hypocritical sophistry. Sophists often divert the subject by resorting to hypocrisy, which can divert attention from defending one's argument and diverting attention to those who criticize it. This approach does not solve the problem and does not prove one's point, because even hypocrites may be telling the truth. Refuting by resorting to hypocritical sophistry: The key to this kind of sophistry is to divert the topic, and we must stick to the topic and not allow the other party to change it.
Resorting to the worst
I just stole and didn't hurt anyone
It is common to hear such discussions: Father: "Why did you only score 50 points in mathematics and fail the test?"”
Son: "Xiao Wang only scored 10 points, what do I have to score 50 points?"”
Because there are those who are worse than himself, he seems to think that it doesn't matter if he fails the exam.
A: "Why are you touching the food on the counter with your hands?"It's unhygienic. ”
B: "The dirtiest thing is not the hands, but the money, which is ten or a hundred times dirtier than the hands." ”
In B's opinion, hands are not the dirtiest, money is the dirtiest, so it doesn't matter if he touches the food on the counter with his hands. Another example: A: "Why did you steal from other people's things again?"B: "I just stole from other people, and I didn't kill people and set fires, what's it?"According to their sophistic logic, their actions are not the worst, there are worse cases, so they can be ignored and forgiven, which is to resort to the worst form of sophistry. Many sophists resort to the worst on the grounds that "what I have done is not a great sin, so it is negligible, so I am not guilty." A: "It's cruel that you kill small animals indiscriminately." B: "What is this, I killed cats and dogs, not giant pandas, what's the fuss." Here, B is justifying his own actions, and his reason is that "killing cats and dogs is not the worst, so you can do whatever you want." It is obviously absurd to resort to the worst form of sophistry because: First, not being guilty of great sin does not mean that there is no evil. To do or not to do is a fundamental issue, and the degree of the crime is a matter of degree, just like 50 steps and 100 steps. Second, resorting to the worst form of sophistry is an absurd comparison, a bizarre remark.
A: "You actually take bear bile, you are breaking the law and committing a crime." ”
B: "I take bear bile, not human bile, what do you shout about!."This is a strange remark: I take bear bile, and taking bear bile will not cause the same evil consequences as taking human bile, so it should not be hindered and condemned, and it is a typical resort to the worst sophistry.
Third, if everything is sophistry based on "I am not the worst," then all the actions in the world can be compared to a worse one. The thief said, "I just stole and didn't kill people and set fires";The murderer and arsonist said, "I only killed people and set fires, and I did not destroy the country";The destroyer of the nation says, "I am only destroying the country, but not the earth," ......If sophistry continues, won't all evil deeds become forgivable and forgivable at the worst?
Recourse to the worst form of sophistry to denounce: what mistakes are made, there is responsibility;Whoever commits a crime will be held responsible. There is no room for sophists to deny.
Personal attacks
Use the negation of the person to negate the point of view
Personal attack sophistry, also known as appealing to the person, refers to the sophist deliberately avoiding the topic that should be proved or refuted, chasing after the wind, fabricating facts, spreading rumors and slander, and attacking the other party's character, identity, history, and physiology, so as to arouse the audience's disgust with the other party, induce the audience to hate the other party, and then achieve the purpose of sophistry. Similar arguments are often seen on the web:
A: "All cats are mammals, dogs are not cats, so dogs are not mammals." Is this reasoning correct?”
B: "You stupid brain, it's a good thing, but unfortunately you don't." Originally, the discussion was about the question of "whether this reasoning is correct", but B put aside this question and attacked the other person for having no brains, which is a personal attack sophistry. Take a look at this slice of life: A path that can accommodate one person, if two people are sideways, they can barely pass. At noon, a delicately dressed woman with eyebrows and eyes was coming from the end of the path. Coincidentally, there was also a guy riding an electric car and wearing a takeaway vest on the other end. The two sides do not give in to each other. "This road is so narrow, is this where you have ridden through?The woman said. "I'm going to get over it from here, I'm going to see who dares to stop me from it. You've passed, you've passed, you have the ability to roll over me. Hurry up, I'm in a hurry to deliver takeaways, let me go quickly. Why don't you leave, I still pick up my son from school, delaying my son to go home to do his homework, you can be responsible!After arguing for two or three minutes, the woman finally let the takeaway guy go first. "Menopausal women, I can't afford to mess with. The little brother added another sentence after he passed. This sentence ignited the fire that the woman had just pressed down, and she immediately raised her voice: "Who is menopause?Who is menopause!I said no wonder you deliver takeaways, you are so unqualified, you don't deserve to deliver takeaways!The little brother was also on fire, and just like that, the two of them said a word to me, and they quarreled with each other. Like "menopausal woman", "so unqualified, you don't deserve to deliver food", etc., using some insulting words to attack others is a typical personal attack. Personal attack sophistry is an extremely bad sophistry technique, in the process of argumentation, by attacking the opponent's character, situation or behavior, etc., instead of resorting to strong reasons to deny the opponent's claim, it often corrupts normal arguments, and we must not underestimate its attacking power. Because a person's character, situation, or behavior and other factors have an important impact on the audience's psychological stereotype, it can make the other party fall into the dilemma of being ashamed of themselves and losing the ability to fight back. The rejection of personal attack sophistry: The key point of personal attack sophistry is to secretly change the topic and use the negation of people to deny the point of view, so it is necessary to take the same law as the first and closely focus on the debate topic to be debated, and the sophists must not be allowed to change at will.