诉诸(诉诸权威)奔走相告

短平快学逻辑（四）| 不相干诉诸|诉诸传统、诉诸权威....

 

From: 心理探寻 Psychology心理探寻 1 week agoIrrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, and each is a different type of fallacy of relevance.

不相关诉诸，是指使用虽然有说服力，但却实际上与论题无关的信息试图影响听众。有多种不同类型的不相关诉诸，每一种都属于不同类型的相关性谬误。

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition|诉诸古老/传统Explanation|解说An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

诉诸古老与诉诸新颖恰好相反诉诸古老是指认为越老的观点越对，认为该观点既然已经存在了这么久，那就意味着它是对的但事实并非如此老观点也可能是错误的，因此我们不能通过观点的新旧来判断它的对错 Example|示例。

(1) Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent development).

Therefore:(2) Some form of religion is true.（1）宗教可溯源至数千年之前（而无神论则是相对近期产物）因此（2）一些宗教形式是对的This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favour of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar system.。

该论证就是在诉诸古老，因为它给出的唯一论据就是宗教的古老性当然，有很多众所周知的传统观点都是错误的：如地球是平的，或地球是太阳系的静止中心It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that no religion is true).。

因此也完全可能前提为真（宗教比无神论古老）但结论为假（没有宗教是对的）We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious.。

如果想要证明宗教是对的，那么，相对于它的古老性，我们尚需要远远更多的证据（或其他理论）才能证明因此诉诸古老，是错误的Appeal to Authority|诉诸权威Explanation|解说An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.。

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

诉诸权威，是指因一个被判断为权威的人肯定了某主张，就认为该主张是对的从演绎论证角度而言，诉诸权威始终都是一种谬误即使一个权威对自身专业领域内问题发表看法，也可能会是错的，因此任何权威人士的佐证都不能确保就完全正确。

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

但从非形式谬误的角度而言，只有当下述情形之一发生时，才算是一种谬误：（a）被引用的权威并非权威，或（b）被引用的权威并非当前论题领域的权威如果一个人本身根本就不是什么权威，或者根本不是当前探讨话题领域的权威，那么他们的佐证价值就要大打折扣。

Example|示例(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

Therefore:(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.（1）玛丽莲·沃斯·莎凡特说还没有哲学家成功解决“罪恶问题”（关于罪恶问题以及其他，见文末延伸阅读）

因此（2）还没有哲学家成功解决“罪恶问题” *玛丽莲·沃斯·莎凡特，（Marilyn vos Savant，1946年8月11日－）是截至目前（2008年）为止吉尼斯世界纪录所认定拥有最高智商（IQ）的人类及女性。

This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.

这一论证之所以是错误的，是因为玛丽莲虽然是一位权威人士，但却不是宗教哲学领域的权威因此她的判断就几乎无证据力如果世界上某个地方有位哲学家解决了“罪恶问题”，那么很可能玛丽莲根本不知道因此，她的佐证是不足以证明示例中的结论的。

Appeal to Consequences|诉诸后果Explanation|解说An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force.

诉诸后果，是指试图通过诉诸相信某观点之后的美好后果、或不相信某观点之后的不良后果来宣传某观点有时还可能会同时诉诸武力Examples|示例Appeal to Good Consequences:(1) If believe in God then you’ll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you’ve never felt before.。

Therefore:(2) God exists.诉诸良好后果（1）如果相信上帝，你就会获得人生中前所未有的一种充实感因此（2）上帝是存在的Appeal to Bad Consequences:(1) If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life doesn’t have any meaning.。

Therefore:(2) God exists.诉诸不良后果（1）如果你不相信上帝，那么你就会很可怜，觉得人生毫无意义因此（2）上帝是存在的Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited as evidence that God exists.。

上述两个论证都是错误的，因为它们没有为结论提供任何论据它们只是诉诸了相信或不相信上帝的后果 Real-World Examples|实例Each of the arguments above features in real-world discussions of God’s existence. In fact, they have been developed into an argument called Pascal’s Wager, which openly advocates belief in God based on its good consequences, rather than on evidence that it is true.。

上面的每个论证都出现在对上帝是否存在这一话题的真实讨论中实际上，它们已经被用于一个关于上帝是否存在的“帕斯卡的赌注”论证中“帕斯卡的赌注”以信奉上帝所带来的种种益处为理由，宣扬信奉上帝，而非通过提供切实证据。

帕斯卡的赌注：17世纪的哲学家布莱兹·帕斯卡(Blaise Pascal)因帕斯卡的赌注而闻名，它第一个正式利用决策论，辩称信上帝是最实际的决定(#帕斯卡的赌注即我不知道上帝是否存在，如果他不存在，作为无神论者没有任何好处，但是如果他存在，作为无神论者我将有很大的坏处。

所以，宁愿相信上帝存在) Another example occurs in the film The Matrix. There Neo is asked whether he believes in fate; he says that he doesn’t. He is then asked why, and replies, “I don’t like the thought that I’m not in control.” This is not an appeal to evidence, but to the unpleasantness of believing in fate: Fate would imply that the world is a way that I don’t want it to be, therefore there is no such thing.

另一个例子是在电影《黑客帝国》中当Neo被问及他是否相信命运时，他说他不相信被问为什么，他回答：我不喜欢自己不处于控制地位的感觉这并非诉诸证据，而是诉诸“相信命运”所带来的不悦后果：命运会意味着这个世界并非是我想要的样子，因此不存在命运。

Appeal to Force|诉诸势力Explanation|解说An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name, “argumentum ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a cudgel”. Disbelief, such arguments go, will be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore, you’d better believe.

诉诸势力是指通过威胁的方式试图说服别人其拉丁文名称“argumentum ad baculum”意为“用短棒辩论“在这种论证中，如果不相信，就会面临惩罚，可能会是肢体暴力因此你最好相信Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences, where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the arguer.。

因此，诉诸势力也是一种尤为不近人情的“诉诸后果”论证，只是在“诉诸势力”论证中，如果不相信论点，所带来的不悦后果是由论证者刻意施加的Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious.。

当然，不相信，就会遭受惩罚，这只是给相信该论点提供了一个现实的理由它并不能证明该论点就是正确的因此诉诸势力是一种论证谬误Example|示例(1) If you don’t accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around, then you’ll be excommunicated from the Church.。

Therefore:(2) The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.（1）如果你不接受太阳围着地球转，而非地球围着太阳转，那么你就会被从教堂中开除教籍。

因此（2）太阳围着地球转，而非地球围着太阳转This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no attempt to provide evidence for its conclusion; whether or not you’ll be excommunicated for disbelieving the geocentric model has no bearing on whether the geocentric model is true. The argument therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy.

这一论证，如果还能称它是一个论证的话，根本没有为自己的结论提供证据至于不相信地心说是否会被从教堂开除教籍，这对地心说是否正确毫无影响因此该论证就犯了“诉诸势力”谬误Appeal to Novelty|诉诸新颖。

Explanation|解说An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus also related to the bandwagon fallacy.

That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely go the same way.

诉诸新颖与诉诸古老/传统恰好相反它认为一个观点的新颖性证明了它的正确性因此它也与“花车谬误”相关一个观点是新的，当然无法证明它就是对的正如历史所展示，很多新出现的观点本身根本毫无价值每个观点，也包括那些与我们现在觉得荒唐到匪夷所思的一些观点，都曾经在某个时间点是新潮的。

因此，一些现在很新潮的观点，将来肯定也会让我们觉得荒唐到匪夷所思Examples|示例(1) String theory is the most recent development in physics.

Therefore:(2) String theory is true.(1) Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development.

Therefore:(2) Atheism is true.（1）弦理论是物理学中的最新进展因此（2）弦理论是对的（1）宗教过时了，无神论相对来说要新很多因此（2）无神论是对的 Appeal to Pity|诉诸怜悯

Explanation|解说An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

诉诸怜悯，试图用情感——具体来说，同情心——来说服别人，而非用证据利用一个人对某个个体或集体的怜悯之心，肯定会影响该人的想法这是一种高度有效，非常普遍的逻辑谬误This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.。

这种论证方式之所以是错误的，是因为我们的情绪反应并非总是良好的真理向导情绪可能会复杂化问题，而非使问题明朗如果我们想要持有正确信念，我们应将自己的信念基于理性之上，而非基于情绪之上Examples|示例。

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

反堕胎者们最近采取了一种新的战略，即诉诸怜悯通过展示被流出的胚胎图片，他们希望以此让人们感到厌恶，从而让人们转而反对堕胎Appeal to Popularity|诉诸流行Explanation|解说Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.

诉诸流行是指仅仅因为某观点被广泛认可，就意味着该观点是对的这之所以是谬误，是因为流行的观点可能会是，也很经常是错误的纵观历史，不乏此类例子：有段时间大家都认为地球是宇宙中心、有段时间大家也都普遍认为疾病是由恶魔导致的。

尽管它们很流行，但都是错的Example|示例(1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.Therefore:(2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

（1）大多数人都相信有神灵或“更高的力量”因此（2）神，或至少一种更高的力量，肯定存在 Appeal to Poverty|诉诸贫穷Explanation|解说The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position is correct because it is held by the poor. The opposite of the appeal to poverty is the appeal to wealth.。

诉诸贫穷，是指认为某立场持有者很贫穷，所以该立场就是对的与此相反的是“诉诸财富”There is sometimes a temptation to contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality of the rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of the poor. This can give rise to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy.。

有时候人们会易于将富人的放肆、贪婪和不道德与贫穷者的简单、美德和谦卑进行对比这就可能会催生诉诸贫穷谬误 Example|示例(1) The working classes respect family and community ties.。

Therefore:(2) Respect for family and community ties is virtuous.（1）劳动阶级尊重家庭和社群关系 因此 （2）尊重家庭和社群关系是种美德This argument is an appeal to poverty because it takes the association between a position and poverty as evidence of the goodness of that position. There is, however, no necessary connection between a position being associated with poverty and its being true, and so the argument is fallacious.

这一论证之所以是诉诸贫穷谬误，是因为它将贫穷与某立场之间的联系，作为该立场是美德的证据但一个立场和贫穷相关，与该立场的正误并无必然联系，因此该论证是错误的Appeal to Wealth|诉诸财富Explanation|解说

The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.

因某人更富有，所以他/她就更好因某物更贵，所以它就更好该谬误与“诉诸贫穷”相反In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.。

在一个人们通常追求财富的社会，很容易会认为与财富相关的一切都是好的人们会觉得富人比穷人更值得尊重；价格高的物品要比价格稍低的物品好This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be associated with all that is good, and all that is good need not be associated with wealth.。

这是一种谬误财富和好坏之间并无必然联系Examples|示例(1) My computer cost more than yours.Therefore:(2) My computer is better than yours.。

(1) Warren is richer than Wayne.Therefore:(2) Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne.（1）我的电脑比你的贵

因此（2）我的电脑比你的好（1）Warren 比 Wayne 有钱因此（2）作为晚宴宾客，Warren 会比 Wayne 表现更好Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of superiority. They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy.。

上述论证都将金钱视为优越的标志因此都犯了诉诸财富谬论延伸阅读*Leibniz对罪恶问题的看法 &“最好的世界”论证 & 充足理由律：The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" was coined by the German polymath - Gottfried Leibniz Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de lhomme et lorigine du mal (Essays of Theodicy on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibnizs theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.。

“所有可能世界中最好的”这一理论由德国博学家Gottfried Leibniz 在他1710年的著作Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de lhomme et lorigine du mal（关于上帝的美好、人的自由和邪恶起源的神正论短文）中提出。

“我们所处的现实世界是所有可能存在的世界中最好的一个”，这是 Leibniz 神正论，即他对“罪恶问题”看法的核心论据 Among his many philosophical interests and concerns, Leibniz took on this question of theodicy: If Godis omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, how do we account for the suffering and injustice that exists in the world? Historically, attempts to answer the question have been made using various arguments, for example, by explaining away evil or reconciling evil with good.。

Leibniz outlined his perfect world theory in his work The Monadology, stating the argument in five statements:

在其探讨的众多哲学问题中，Leibniz也探讨了神正论问题（“罪恶问题”）：如果上帝是博爱的、无所不能的、无所不知的，那么我们怎么解释世界上存在的痛苦和不公正呢？历史上，很多人曾尝试以不同的论证来回答这一问题，例如，通过解释说邪恶其实不存在，或让善恶共存等方式。

Leibniz在他的著作《单子论》中分5部分陈述了其论证：God has the idea of infinitely many universes.Only one of these universes can actually exist.

Gods choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason（The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.）, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another.

God is good.Therefore, the universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds. 上帝有关于无穷多的宇宙的想法

其中只有一个能真实存在上帝的抉择受制于“充足理由律”（每件事物都有它存在的理由或起因）这一原则，即，上帝有理由选择这个或其他上帝是好的因此，上帝所选择的是所有可能存在的世界中最好的一个世界（Wikipedia） 。

*充足理由律（Principle of sufficient reason）充足理由律通常也被逻辑学家认为是逻辑基本规律之一，充足理由律的提法源于17世纪末、18世纪初的德国哲学家、逻辑学家Leibniz，这条规律简单表述就是：

任何判断必须有(充足)理由常言道：言之有理、持之有故、以理服人就是充足理由律在现实生活中的体现凭着这个原则﹐我们认为﹕任何一件事如果是真实的﹐或实在的﹐任何一个陈述如果是真的﹐就必须有一个为什么这样而不那样的充足理由﹐虽然这些理由常常总是不能为我们所知道的”。

不过﹐莱布尼茨本人并未把充足理由原则当作逻辑规律“充足理由律”包含有两方面意思：第一，一切事物都有一个成因，这个成因决定了这个事物为什么会存在，为什么它是真实的，为什么它是这个样子而不是另外的样子人们认识了这个成因，也就认识了这个事物，也就可以改变这个事物。

正如莱布尼兹所说的：“如果不具有充足的理由，或者没有确定的理由，就什么也不能达到”第二，事物的感性存在，直观存在并不重要，只有事物背后的成因才是最为重要的，最真实的应该说，“充足理由律”在科学的领域里是无可非议的，它对人们从科学的角度了解和研究自然有着独到的贡献。

然随着科学技术占居统治地位，“充足理由律”亦成为所有领域的第一原则，并且成为形而上学意义上的真实性原则18世纪德国哲学家高特雪特就说过：“如果充足理由原则不能被当成试金石所接受的话，人们就会发现他们无法把真理同梦幻区别开来。

在梦幻中所出现的一切都没有充足的理由在梦里，人们一会儿在这里，一会儿又到了那里，他们弄不清这到底是怎么回事，他是怎样到这里，又是如何离开的清醒时或现实中，一切都有自己的起因，比如谁来了，他来这里干什么（他为何来）等等，这些问题都是明明白白，所以有关理由的原则是真理的可靠特征”（维基百科、百度百科）。