>(省略) >ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person >does not practise what he preaches. >(省略) 刚在路上看到这个, 再仔细想了一下, 觉得好像应该鸡婆一下... 省略的部份, 大家冷静的时候, 我想应该是显而易见的 只是这一段, 光是从太短的字面上, 我担心容易被误解为, "不能攻击一个人言行不一致" 不是的, 这个 fallacy 的重点在於指出 "不能从一个人言行不一致, 推导出这个人的主张自身有甚麽问题" 这种神推论的拉丁字叫 non sequitur (does not follow). 所有的 ad hominem 谬误应该都落入 "non sequitur", 也就是, 我不对事情本身发言, 却扯来人身八卦, 然後, 从天上突然掉下来一个结论, 要塞到人家的脑袋里, 这种情况下, 我的推论过程是无效的, 是跟主题无关的 (irrelevance). 举个比较有感的例子吧, 我当然可以攻击一个人: "你叫人家签这个公约, 自己却如何如何..." (这无关逻辑谬误) 但是如果我想要进一步再加码说, "...(同上)... 所以你这个公约如何如何..." 这个"所以"根本就没有逻辑效力. 谬误只在於这个"所以", 不管是明讲, 还是暗示, 还是用其它的字眼表达. 让我来抄一段人家的比较完整吧 来源: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque --- The usual structure of the fallacy is: 1. Person A makes claim X about Person B. 2. Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A. 3. Therefore, X is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite. This kind of reasoning is fallacious because criticism or objection to the person making the claim does not apply equally, if at all, to the argument itself. Certainly, if the premises are indeed true then source A is likely a hypocrite and should also be included in the guilty party, but this bears no relevance or relationship to the validity or factual-ness of the claim X. In essence, the claim X is being dismissed on grounds of a criticism of A, which is a non sequitur. --- 好了, 杞人忧天完了! 不然大家可能要靠么说, 那还讨论甚麽... :) --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 59.115.125.103 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/politics/M.1535302607.A.3DE.html