fallacies

简明释义

英[ˈfæləsiːz]美[ˈfæləsiz]

n. 错误，谬论（fallacy 的复数形式）

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Though I find these fallacies to be laughable, I also find them rather frightening.

虽然我觉得这些谬误很可笑，我也觉得它们相当可怕。

2.Or we fall for the fallacies that other people offer us.

或者我们陷入其他人提供的谬论。

3.And there are I think four pages of fallacies or something and they are all in.

我想有四页的谬误，他们都在里面。

4.Most of the fallacies were started in the fifties by a Rennes innkeeper who wanted to generate business.

所有的谬说都在五十年代由里奈的一个旅店老板传播，希望能催生更多生意。

5.This article complements Dominique Vauquier's article (" The 6 Fallacies of Business Process Improvement ").

这篇文章对Dominique Vauquier的文章(“业务过程改进的6个谬误”)进行了补充。

6.Fallacies that you can just identify and explain they are fallacies why they look as if they are good arguments and they are not.

谬论是你们可以认出并解释，他们是谬论为什么看起来，是好论点但实际上不是。

7.Learning to recognize two commonly used fallacies can help you separate fact from fiction.

了解这两种常用的谬误可以在去伪存真的路上对你有所帮助。

8.And finally we're going to look at fallacies of clarity and I want to leave some time for questions.

我们最后来看看清晰性谬论，我想留点时间让大家提问。

9.We are going to look at fallacies.

我们要看看逻辑谬论。

10.Many arguments are based on logical fallacies 谬论 that can easily mislead people.

许多论点基于逻辑谬论 谬论，这很容易误导人们。

11.In debates, it's important to identify fallacies 谬论 to strengthen your position.

在辩论中，识别谬论 谬论对加强你的立场非常重要。

12.The politician's speech was filled with emotional fallacies 谬论 that appealed to the audience's feelings.

这位政治家的演讲充满了情感上的谬论 谬论，吸引了观众的情感。

13.Understanding common fallacies 谬论 can help you become a better critical thinker.

理解常见的谬论 谬论可以帮助你成为一个更好的批判性思考者。

14.Avoiding fallacies 谬论 in your writing will make your arguments more convincing.

避免在写作中使用谬论 谬论将使你的论点更具说服力。

作文

In today's world, where information is abundant and easily accessible, the ability to think critically is more important than ever. One of the key aspects of critical thinking is recognizing and understanding logical reasoning. However, even the most astute individuals can fall prey to common errors in reasoning, known as fallacies（谬误）. These fallacies（谬误） can undermine arguments and lead to incorrect conclusions, making it essential to identify them in both our own reasoning and that of others. A fallacy（谬误） is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. There are many types of fallacies（谬误）, but some of the most prevalent include ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and slippery slope reasoning. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character or motive of a person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. For instance, if someone argues for environmental protection and another person responds by criticizing their lifestyle choices, they are committing an ad hominem fallacy（谬误）. This tactic distracts from the actual issue at hand and does not contribute to a constructive debate. Straw man arguments represent another common type of fallacy（谬误）. In this scenario, one party misrepresents the other party's argument to make it easier to attack. For example, if one person advocates for a modest increase in taxes to fund public services and their opponent claims that they want to impose exorbitant taxes on everyone, they are creating a straw man fallacy（谬误）. This not only distorts the original argument but also prevents meaningful discussion about the actual proposal. Slippery slope fallacies（谬误） occur when an argument asserts that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant (and often negative) effect. For instance, claiming that allowing students to redo tests will eventually lead to a complete breakdown of academic standards is an example of a slippery slope fallacy（谬误）. While it is possible that changes can lead to unforeseen consequences, it is not logically sound to assume that one event will necessarily lead to another without evidence. Recognizing these fallacies（谬误） is crucial for effective communication and debate. By identifying these errors in reasoning, we can engage in more productive discussions and avoid being misled by faulty arguments. Furthermore, understanding fallacies（谬误） helps us to strengthen our own arguments by ensuring that they are based on sound logic and evidence. In conclusion, fallacies（谬误） are common errors in reasoning that can significantly impact the quality of discussions and debates. By familiarizing ourselves with various types of fallacies（谬误） such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and slippery slope reasoning, we can enhance our critical thinking skills. This awareness not only aids in our personal growth as thinkers but also contributes to a more informed and rational society. Therefore, it is imperative to cultivate the ability to spot fallacies（谬误） in everyday discourse, enabling us to engage in meaningful and constructive conversations.

在当今这个信息丰富且易于获取的世界中，批判性思维能力比以往任何时候都更加重要。批判性思维的一个关键方面是识别和理解逻辑推理。然而，即使是最敏锐的人也可能会受到常见推理错误的影响，这些错误被称为fallacies（谬误）。这些fallacies（谬误）可能会破坏论点并导致不正确的结论，因此识别它们在我们自己的推理和他人的推理中至关重要。 fallacy（谬误）是指推理中的一种错误，这种错误使得论证无效。有许多类型的fallacies（谬误），但一些最常见的包括人身攻击、稻草人论证和滑坡推理。人身攻击的fallacy（谬误）发生在攻击提出论点的人的性格或动机，而不是针对论点本身。例如，如果有人主张保护环境而另一个人回应说批评他们的生活方式，他们就是在进行人身攻击的fallacy（谬误）。这种策略分散了注意力，没有对实际问题做出建设性的辩论。 稻草人论证代表了另一种常见的fallacy（谬误）。在这种情况下，一方歪曲了另一方的论点，以便更容易地进行攻击。例如，如果一个人主张适度增税以资助公共服务，而他们的对手声称他们希望对所有人征收高额税收，他们就是在制造一个稻草人fallacy（谬误）。这不仅扭曲了原始论点，而且还阻碍了对实际提案的有意义讨论。 滑坡fallacies（谬误）发生在一个论点声称相对小的第一步将不可避免地导致一系列相关事件，最终导致显著（通常是负面的）后果。例如，声称允许学生重考将最终导致学术标准的完全崩溃就是滑坡fallacy（谬误）的一个例子。虽然变化可能导致无法预见的后果，但没有证据证明一个事件必然会导致另一个事件，这是逻辑上不合理的。 识别这些fallacies（谬误）对于有效的沟通和辩论至关重要。通过识别推理中的这些错误，我们可以进行更具建设性的讨论，避免被错误的论点所误导。此外，理解fallacies（谬误）有助于我们通过确保我们的论点基于可靠的逻辑和证据来增强自己的论点。 总之，fallacies（谬误）是推理中的常见错误，这些错误可能会显著影响讨论和辩论的质量。通过熟悉各种类型的fallacies（谬误），如人身攻击、稻草人论证和滑坡推理，我们可以提高我们的批判性思维能力。这种意识不仅有助于我们作为思考者的个人成长，还促进了一个更加知情和理性的社会。因此，培养识别日常话语中fallacies（谬误）的能力至关重要，使我们能够参与有意义和建设性的对话。