>(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) 剛在路上看到這個, 再仔細想了一下, 覺得好像應該雞婆一下... 省略的部份, 大家冷靜的時候, 我想應該是顯而易見的 只是這一段, 光是從太短的字面上, 我擔心容易被誤解為, "不能攻擊一個人言行不一致" 不是的, 這個 fallacy 的重點在於指出 "不能從一個人言行不一致, 推導出這個人的主張自身有甚麼問題" 這種神推論的拉丁字叫 non sequitur (does not follow). 所有的 ad hominem 謬誤應該都落入 "non sequitur", 也就是, 我不對事情本身發言, 卻扯來人身八卦, 然後, 從天上突然掉下來一個結論, 要塞到人家的腦袋裡, 這種情況下, 我的推論過程是無效的, 是跟主題無關的 (irrelevance). 舉個比較有感的例子吧, 我當然可以攻擊一個人: "你叫人家簽這個公約, 自己卻如何如何..." (這無關邏輯謬誤) 但是如果我想要進一步再加碼說, "...(同上)... 所以你這個公約如何如何..." 這個"所以"根本就沒有邏輯效力. 謬誤只在於這個"所以", 不管是明講, 還是暗示, 還是用其它的字眼表達. 讓我來抄一段人家的比較完整吧 來源: 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, 杞人憂天完了! 不然大家可能要靠么說, 那還討論甚麼... :) --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 59.115.125.103 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/politics/M.1535302607.A.3DE.html