to make sense, but at the same time you felt like there was something wrong in this argument

有道理的論點難住了，但同時又覺得這個論點有問題

that you could not point your finger at?

，卻又無法指出？

More often than not, this is due to the argument being riddled with what are known as "logical

通常，這是因為該論證充滿了所謂的

fallacies."

「邏輯謬誤」。

These are misleading tactics in reasoning that may appear convincing but crumble under

這些都是誤導的推理策略，看似令人信服，但經過

careful analysis.

仔細分析就會崩潰。

Such fallacies present a façade of logic, yet they do not withstand rigorous examination,

這些謬論呈現出邏輯的表面，但它們經不起嚴格的檢驗，

leading to conclusions that may seem sound but are, in fact, fundamentally flawed.

導致看似合理但實際上存在根本缺陷的結論。

So today we are going to delve into 7 logical fallacies with PAA.

那麼今天我們將深入探討 PAA 的 7 個邏輯謬誤。

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to what people also ask, where I answered some of the most

大家好，我是 Shao Chieh Lo，歡迎大家提問，我

Googled questions with even more Googling.

用更多的谷歌搜尋回答了一些最常被谷歌搜尋的問題。

Today we will talk about logical fallacies, specifically 7 Fallacies of Relevance, which

今天我們將討論邏輯謬誤，特別是七大相關謬誤，這

is a group of Fallacies that involve arguments where the premises are not logically relevant

是一組涉及前提與結論在邏輯上不相關的論證的謬誤

to the conclusion.

。

These fallacies distract from the core issue, often appealing to emotions, authority, or

這些謬論分散了核心問題的注意力，常常訴諸情感、權威或

personal attacks rather than providing sound evidence.

人身攻擊，而不是提供可靠的證據。

So let's start with the first one

那麼讓我們從第一個開始

What is Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense)

什麼是懷疑論證（訴諸常識）

The argument from incredulity, also known as appeal to common sense, is a logical fallacy

懷疑論證，也稱為訴諸常識，是一種邏輯謬誤，

where one asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal

人們斷言一個命題一定是錯誤的，因為它與一個人的個人

beliefs or intuition, or seems difficult to understand.

信念 相矛盾。 或者直覺，或者似乎難以理解。

Instead of presenting evidence, the person relies on a lack of imagination or personal

該人不提供證據，而是依靠缺乏想像力或個人的

incredulity as 'proof' that the argument is invalid.

懷疑作為論證無效的「證據」。

Everyday Example: A person is presented with the concept of quantum entanglement, where

日常範例：人們了解了量子糾纏的概念，其中

two particles can instantaneously affect each other's state, no matter how far apart they

兩個粒子可以立即影響彼此的狀態，無論它們相距多遠

are.

。

They respond, "That's impossible; I can't see how it would work.

他們回答說：“那是不可能的；我看不出它是如何運作的。

Therefore, it cannot be true."

因此，這不可能是真的。”

This person is dismissing well-documented scientific evidence based on their own inability

此人之所以駁回有據可查的科學證據，是因為他們自己無法

to comprehend the concept, rather than on any logical refutation or contradictory evidence.

理解這個概念，而不是任何邏輯反駁或矛盾的證據。

Historical example:

歷史例子：

The development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century challenged the classical

20世紀初量子力學的發展對

physics of the time, which was largely deterministic.

當時很大程度上是確定的經典物理學提出了挑戰。

Quantum mechanics introduced inherent probabilities into the fundamental nature of the physical

量子力學將固有機率引入物理

world, which was a significant departure from the previously understood mechanics.

世界的基本性質中，這與先前理解的力學有很大的不同。

Albert Einstein, one of the most respected physicists of his time, found the probabilistic

阿爾伯特·愛因斯坦，他那個時代最受尊敬的物理學家之一，發現

interpretations of quantum mechanics difficult to reconcile with his views on causality in

量子力學的機率解釋很難與他對

the universe

宇宙因果關係的看法相一致 。

His statement "God does not play dice with the universe" has become emblematic of his

他的「上帝不會與宇宙玩骰子」的說法已經成為他對量子力學感到

discomfort with the idea that events at the quantum level could occur without deterministic

不安的象徵。量子層級上的事件可能在沒有確定性定律的情況下

laws.

發生的想法。

Despite his contributions to quantum theory, including the photoelectric effect, which

儘管愛因斯坦對量子理論做出了貢獻，包括

earned him the Nobel Prize, Einstein spent much of his later life attempting to find

為他贏得了諾貝爾獎的 光電效應，但

a unified field theory that would provide a deterministic explanation for the phenomena

他晚年的大部分時間都在試圖尋找一個統一的場論，為

described by quantum mechanics.

量子力學描述的

Another example is when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912, he

現象提供確定性的解釋 。 另一個例子是阿爾弗雷德·韋格納在1912年提出大陸漂移說時，

was met with widespread skepticism from the geological community.

遭到了地質界的普遍懷疑。

Many geologists were adamantly opposed to Wegener's theory, not because of sound scientific

許多地質學家堅決反對韋格納的理論，不是因為科學上有合理的

counterarguments, but because it went against the then-accepted beliefs about stationary

反駁，而是因為它違背了當時公認的關於靜止

continents.

大陸的信念。

This dismissal persisted despite Wegener's substantial evidence, and the theory was not

儘管韋格納有大量證據，但這種駁斥仍然存在，

widely accepted until the concept of plate tectonics emerged in the 1960s.

直到 20 世紀 60 年代板塊構造概念出現， 理論才被

What is Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) ?

廣泛接受。 什麼是無知無知（頑強的論證）？

Invincible ignorance, or argument by pigheadedness, refers to fallacious reasoning where an individual

不可戰勝的無知，或頑固的論證，是指錯誤的推理，即個人

insists on their viewpoint despite being confronted with actual, incontrovertible evidence to

堅持自己的觀點，儘管面對實際的、無可爭議的相反證據

the contrary.

。

This stubbornness is not due to the lack of understanding but rather a willful refusal

這種固執並不是因為缺乏理解，而是因為故意拒絕

to accept any evidence that might contradict their preconceived beliefs or claims.

接受任何可能與他們先入為主的信念或主張相矛盾的證據。

Everyday Example:

日常範例：

A sports fan is adamant that a famous athlete never lost a game in their entire career.

一位體育迷堅信一位著名運動員在其整個職業生涯中從未輸過一場比賽。

When presented with official game records and historical footage showing that the athlete

當官方比賽記錄和歷史鏡頭顯示運動員

did indeed experience several defeats, the fan dismisses all this documentation as errors

確實經歷了幾次失敗時，球迷將所有這些文件視為錯誤

or fabrications.

或捏造。

They maintain their belief solely based on personal admiration, irrespective of the irrefutable

他們僅出於個人崇拜而堅持自己的信仰，而不顧無可辯駁的

historical evidence.

歷史證據。

Historical example:

歷史例子：

In 1994, executives from the seven biggest American tobacco companies, including R.J.

1994年，包括RJ

Reynolds, testified before Congress and infamously declared that they did not believe nicotine

雷諾茲在內的美國七家最大菸草公司的高階主管在國會作證，臭名昭著地宣稱他們不相信尼古丁

was addictive.

會讓人上癮。

This testimony occurred despite a substantial body of scientific evidence indicating the

儘管有大量科學證據表明

health risks of smoking and the addictive nature of nicotine, some of which was known

吸煙的健康風險和尼古丁的成癮性，其中一些

internally within these companies.

在這些公司內部是眾所周知的，但這份證詞還是出現了。

This event is often cited as a clear example of the tobacco industry's attempts to mislead

這一事件經常被認為是菸草業試圖誤導

the public and policymakers about the dangers of their products.

公眾和政策制定者關於其產品危險性的明顯例子。

What is The argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) ?

什麼是無知論證（訴諸無知，argumentum ad ignorantiam）？

The argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam,

無知論證，也稱為訴諸無知或argumentum ad ignorantiam，

is a fallacy that occurs when something is claimed to be true simply because it has not

是一種謬誤，當某件事僅僅因為尚未被證明是錯誤的而被聲稱是正確的時，就會發生這種謬誤，反之亦然

been proven false, or vice versa.

。

This fallacy asserts that a lack of evidence against a position is evidence for it, or

這種謬論聲稱，缺乏反對某個立場的證據就是支持該立場的證據，或者

that an argument is necessarily false because it has not been proven true.

某個論點必然是錯誤的，因為它尚未被證明是正確的。

Everyday Example:

日常例子：

An individual claims that there must be life on other planets because no one has been able

某人聲稱其他行星上一定有生命，因為沒有人能夠

to prove definitively that there isn't.

明確證明不存在生命。

In this instance, the person is basing their belief on the absence of evidence to the contrary

在這種情況下，人們的信念是基於缺乏相反的證據，

rather than on positive evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrial life.

而不是基於支持外星生命存在的積極證據。

This argument assumes that the lack of disproof is equivalent to proof, which is a logical

這種論證假設缺乏反證就等於證明

fallacy.

這是一個邏輯謬誤。

Historical example:

歷史實例：

The Roman Catholic Inquisition, which began in the 12th century and lasted into the early

羅馬天主教宗教裁判所始於12世紀，一直持續到

modern period, was a significant effort by the Church to locate and punish heresy among

近代早期，是教會為查明和懲罰

Christians.

基督徒中的異端而做出的重大努力。

During this time, the Inquisitional courts developed a system where the burden of proof

在此期間，宗教裁判所製定了一種制度，其中舉證責任

was often on the accused, a stark contrast to modern legal principles.

往往由被告承擔，這與現代法律原則形成鮮明對比。

The process was secretive, and the identity of accusers could be withheld.

整個過程是秘密的，指控者的身分可能被隱藏。

The argument from ignorance was a pervasive element of the Inquisition's method: if the

無知論點是宗教裁判所方法的一個普遍要素：如果被告

accused could not affirmatively disprove the charges of heresy, this lack of disproof was

不能肯定地反駁異端指控，則這種缺乏反駁的行為將被視為

taken as proof of guilt.

有罪的證據。

This presumption meant that simply being accused could be perilous.

這項推定意味著僅僅被指控就可能是危險的。

Possession of prohibited texts, association with convicted heretics, or uttering statements

擁有違禁文本、與被定罪的異端分子有聯繫，或發表

that could be interpreted as heretical were enough to incur suspicion and potential conviction.

可能被解釋為異端的言論，都足以引起懷疑和潛在的定罪。

The Inquisition did not always require concrete evidence that the accused had committed an

宗教裁判所並不總是需要具體證據證明被告犯有

act of heresy; circumstantial evidence or even public rumor could be sufficient.

異端行為；間接證據甚至公開謠言就夠了。

The practices of the Inquisition reflected broader medieval and early modern judicial

宗教裁判所的做法反映了更廣泛的中世紀和早期現代司法

processes that often did not distinguish between an accusation and evidence of guilt.

程序，這些程序往往不區分指控和有罪證據。

The argument from ignorance was thus not only a logical fallacy but also a tool of institutional

因此，基於無知的論證不僅是邏輯謬誤，也是製度權力的工具

power, with the Inquisition serving as a stark example of its potential consequences.

，宗教裁判所就是其潛在後果的鮮明例子。

What is The argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)?

什麼是沉默論證（argumentum exsilentio）？

The argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) is a logical fallacy where one infers a conclusion

來自沉默的論證（argumentum exsilentio）是一種邏輯謬誤，人們

based on the absence of statements or evidence rather than on presence.

根據陳述或證據的缺乏而不是根據陳述或證據的存在來 推斷結論

It assumes that someone's silence on a matter is proof of ignorance or an implicit agreement

。 它假設某人對某件事保持沉默是無知的證明或對某些立場的默示同意

with some position, which is not a valid assumption since silence can be due to many other reasons.

，這不是一個有效的假設，因為沉默可能是由於許多其他原因造成的。

Everyday Example:

日常範例：

A teacher asks the class whether anyone disagrees with the proposed solution to a math problem.

老師詢問全班是否有人不同意數學問題的提議解決方案。

No one speaks up.

沒有人說話。

The teacher then concludes, "Since no one has said anything, everyone must understand

老師最後總結道：“既然沒有人說什麼，那麼每個人都必須理解

and agree with the solution."

並同意這個解決方案。”

In this case, the teacher's conclusion is based on the students' silence.

在這種情況下，老師的結論是建立在學生的沉默的基礎上的。

However, the silence may not indicate agreement or understanding; it could be due to other

然而，沉默並不表示同意或理解；這可能是由於其他

factors such as intimidation, apathy, or even the students' desire to avoid a longer discussion.

因素，例如恐嚇、冷漠，甚至學生希望避免長時間的討論。

Silence is not a reliable indicator of consent or concurrence, and assuming it is can be

沉默並不是表示同意或贊同的可靠指標，假設是這樣

fallacious.

，則可以謬誤的。

Historical example:

歷史例子：

The term "Dark Ages" historically refers to the Early Middle Ages in Europe, a time thought

「黑暗時代」一詞在歷史上指的是歐洲的中世紀早期，人們認為這段時期

to have had a paucity of cultural and scientific achievements, particularly when compared to

文化和科學成就匱乏，特別是與

the periods before and after it.

之前和之後的時期相比。

The term came about partly due to the perceived lack of written records, documents, and literary

這個術語的出現部分是由於當時缺乏書面記錄、文件和文學

works from the time, which created significant gaps in the historical record.

作品，這在歷史記錄中造成了巨大的空白。

The argument that the scarcity of written records implies a regression or stagnation

認為書面記錄的稀缺意味著

in culture and science is an example of the argument from silence.

文化和科學的倒退或停滯的論點就是來自沉默的論點的一個例子。

This line of reasoning assumes that if something is not recorded, it did not happen, which

這種推理假設如果某件事沒有被記錄，那麼它就沒有發生，這

is a logical fallacy.

是一個邏輯謬誤。

However, archaeological evidence and more recent historical analyses have challenged

然而，考古證據和最近的歷史分析對這一觀點提出了挑戰

this view, indicating that while written documentation might be lacking, there were indeed regions

，表明雖然可能缺乏書面文獻， 但在所謂的黑暗時代

and periods of progress and development during what has been termed the Dark Ages.

確實存在進步和發展的地區 和時期。

What is Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point)?

什麼是 Ignoratio elenchi（無關緊要的結論，沒有抓到重點）？

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or missing the point, is a logical

Ignoratio elenchi，也稱為不相關的結論或遺漏要點，是一種邏輯

fallacy where an argument that is supposed to address a particular question or issue,

謬誤，本應解決特定問題或議題的論點，

instead, presents an argument for or against a different question.

卻提出了支持或反對不同問題的論點。

This diversion tactic leads to a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises or

這種轉移策略得出的結論與

arguments provided and is not relevant to the issue at hand.

所提供的前提或論點不相符，與當前的問題無關。

Everyday Example:

日常範例：

A town hall meeting is discussing the introduction of a new public health measure.

市政廳會議正在討論引入一項新的公共衛生措施。

When someone raises a concern about the measure's cost-effectiveness, the response from a panelist

當有人對該措施的成本效益提出擔憂時，小組成員的回應

is a detailed explanation of the importance of health itself, rather than addressing the

是對健康本身重要性的詳細解釋，而不是解決

specific issue of the measure's economic impact.

該措施的經濟影響的具體問題。

The response, emphasizing the value of health, is not relevant to the initial concern about

這種回應強調健康的價值，與最初對成本的擔憂無關

cost.

。

Historical example:

歷史例子：

During the early 1950s, in a period known as the Red Scare, McCarthy became infamous

1950年代初，在一個被稱為「紅色恐慌」的時期，麥卡錫因在

for making unsubstantiated accusations of subversion or treason without providing proper

沒有提供適當證據的情況下提出未經證實的顛覆或叛國指控而

evidence.

聲名狼藉 。

The tactics he used came to be known as "McCarthyism."

他所使用的策略被稱為「麥卡錫主義」。

One of the most famous examples of McCarthy's tactics was during the Army-McCarthy hearings

麥卡錫策略最著名的例子之一是

in 1954.

1954 年的

When the Army's lawyer, Joseph Welch, challenged McCarthy to provide a shred of evidence for

陸軍-麥卡錫聽證會 。當陸軍律師約瑟夫·韋爾奇要求麥卡錫為他的主張提供一點證據時

his claims, McCarthy responded by making a new accusation.

，麥卡錫做出了回應，提出了一項新的指控。

He attacked a young lawyer in Welch's law firm, Fred Fisher, claiming without proof

他攻擊了韋爾奇律師事務所的年輕律師弗雷德費雪，在沒有證據的情況下聲稱

that Fisher had been a long-time member of an organization that was a legal arm of the

費雪是 共產黨 合法機構組織的長期成員 。這種轉移是典型的麥卡錫策略：

Communist Party.

他

This deflection was a typical McCarthy tactic: rather than substantiating his original claims,

沒有證實他最初的主張，而是

he attempted to redirect the conversation by making additional accusations.

試圖透過提出額外的指控來改變談話方向。

This tactic exemplifies ignoratio elenchi because McCarthy's response did not address

這種策略體現了忽視事實，因為麥卡錫的回應沒有解決

the challenge to substantiate his original claims but instead introduced an irrelevant

證實他最初主張的挑戰，而是引入了無關緊要的

accusation, thus sidestepping the demand for evidence and diverting the discussion away

指控，從而迴避了對證據的要求，並將討論

from the issue at hand.

從當前問題上轉移開。

What is Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum)?

什麼是重複論證（argumentum ad nausem 或 argumentum ad infinitum）？

The argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) is a logical

重複論證（argumentum ad nausem 或argumentum ad infinitum）是一種邏輯

fallacy that occurs when someone repeatedly asserts a point, irrespective of contradiction

謬誤，當有人一再斷言某個觀點，無論是否矛盾

or lack of supporting evidence, in the belief that the repetition will make the argument

或缺乏支持證據，相信重複將使論證

more persuasive or true.

更有說服力或更真實時，就會發生這種邏輯謬誤。

This fallacy is based on the idea that a statement becomes true, or at least more believable,

這種謬論基於這樣一種觀點：一個陳述被

the more it is repeated.

重複得越多，就會變得真實，或至少更可信。

Everyday Example: A company claims that its juice cleanse is a "miracle detoxifier."

日常範例：一家公司聲稱其排毒果汁是「奇蹟解毒劑」。

Despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting detox claims, the company's advertisements

儘管缺乏支持排毒主張的科學證據，該公司的廣告

repeat the assertion incessantly across various media platforms.

在各種媒體平台上不斷重複這項主張。

The repetition is used as a strategy to embed the idea in the consciousness of the public,

重複是一種將這個想法植入公眾意識的策略，

hoping that consumers will accept the claim as true simply because it has been stated

希望消費者能夠接受這一說法，因為它被

so frequently and confidently, not because any substantive evidence has been provided.

如此頻繁地、自信地陳述過，而不是因為提供了任何實質證據。

Historical example:

歷史例子：

Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany, is often associated with

約瑟夫·戈培爾（Joseph Goebbels），納粹德國的帝國宣傳部長，經常與

the concept of the "Big Lie," a propaganda technique predicated on the belief that a

「彌天大謊」的概念是一種宣傳技巧，其基礎是相信

boldfaced untruth, if repeated frequently and with conviction, can be accepted by the

大膽的謊言如果經常且堅定地重複，就可以被群眾接受

masses as truth.

為真理。

Although the exact phrase associated with him "if you tell a lie big enough and keep

儘管在他的 演講或著作 中找不到

repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" is not found in his documented

與他相關的確切短語“如果你說一個足夠大的謊言並不斷

speeches or writings, it accurately reflects the propagandistic methods he championed.

重複它，人們最終會相信它” ，但這準確地反映了他所倡導的宣傳方法。

Goebbels masterfully engineered a relentless stream of Nazi propaganda that painted Jews,

戈培爾巧妙地策劃了一系列無情的納粹宣傳，將猶太人、

communists, and other targeted groups as existential threats to German society.

共產主義者和其他目標群體描繪成對德國社會的生存威脅。

He leveraged media, film, and public events to embed these lies into the fabric of everyday

他利用媒體、電影和公共活動將這些謊言融入日常生活中

life, thus normalizing hatred and prejudice.

，使仇恨和偏見正常化。

Through the constant barrage of Nazi ideology, many German citizens came to accept these

在納粹意識形態的持續攻擊下，許多德國公民開始接受這些

falsehoods, contributing to one of the most devastating periods of the 20th century.

謊言，導致了 20 世紀最具破壞性的時期之一。

What is Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem)?

什麼是對石頭的吸引力（argumentum ad lapidem）？

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses

訴諸石頭（argumentum ad lapidem）是一種邏輯謬誤，即有人將

an argument or claim as absurd without providing evidence or reasoning to support the dismissal.

某個論點或主張視為荒謬而駁回，而沒有提供證據或推理來支持駁回。

It avoids debate by simply rejecting the claim as unworthy of serious consideration.

它透過簡單地拒絕這一主張來避免爭論，因為該主張不值得認真考慮。

Every day Example: Imagine a situation in a school where a student

每天 範例：想像一下在學校中的情況，學生

proposes a new method for organizing the library books by color to make it more visually appealing

提出了一種按顏色組織圖書館書籍的新方法，以使其更具視覺吸引力

and possibly easier for young students to find books.

，並且可能更容易讓年輕學生找到書籍。

The librarian, without considering the potential benefits or logistics of the idea, dismissively

圖書館員沒有考慮這個想法的潛在好處或後勤工作，輕蔑地