Everyday reasoning errors - By andru_deep

***Digested from Stephen Law, The Philosophy Gym (London: Review, 2003) with translation from everywhere on www
++Examples inllustrated by andru_deep (Please, if anything found misinterpret by andru_deep, just leave your comment)
#Discussion always welcome. More example will be fantastic.

Introduction

From my everyday experience, I observed that, we frequently making statement with reasoning errors. And in most of the cases, we perceive the statement with reasoning errors as valid. These caused unnessecery arguments & misunderstanding. To the worst - violent conflict arise. Therefore, I will try to promote clear thinking for valuable arguments, avoid misunderstanding, and harmony between people, by explaning the types of fallacy with examples.

In this Everyday reasoning error series, 8 number of fallacies will be discussed. The first fallacy to be discussed is the post hoc fallacy.

#1 The Post Hoc Fallacy (事後歸因謬誤)
This is the fallacy of a statement which usually do not have causal connection in between one events occurs after another. Even if there is a causal connection between two events that occur one after the other, the statement will leap to conclusion from the premise without scrupulous justifications.

Below examples, the clearer view of The Post Hoc Fallacy.

Example:
1. Statistic shows us youngsters abusing drug have an increasing trend. And also, another statistic shows us that number of youngsters loving Techno music is increasing. So Techno music causes drug abuse. Hence, we should not allow youngsters to listen Techno music for reducing youngsters drug abuse.

2. You failed the driving exam is because you did not carry the Car God plate.

#2 Argument from Authority (訴諸權威)
In brief, Argument from Authority simply means argument which appeal to Authority. People belief the authority have our argument explained, thus, no further justification and discussion is required.
Unfortunately, argument raised by authority is in often doubtful due to various reasons. For example, ideologically reasoned or reasoned by interest, etc.
Catastrophically, we quote the argument merely because of the popularity of the authority. Or, the "social position" of one, whom, people belief his / her authority.

Below examples to demonstrate.

Example:
1. "No need to discuss anymore! Woman only aroused by man aged at 35 to 40! Sexologist Dr. Maimu's findings clearly demonstrate this!", Kirin said seriously
2. "I am sure Yebisu beer is tasty then any other beer, because CEO Mr. Utaga who works in Yebisu told me", Andrew said
3. "Our nation is strongest ever = I should be proud, people are getting rich = I am getting rich! Because it is declared by 800 peoples representative Mr. P.K. Tsang delivered on 35th May!", Mr. Lee Jr. said.
...Examples can goes on

#3 Slippery Slope (滑坡謬誤)
Stephen Law explained, "It occurs when someone argues that one thing will inevitably follow from another but without providing any justification for supposing that 'slide' from on this to the other is likely to happen." Stephen Law, The Philosophy Gym (London: Review, 2003) P.269

Example：
1. 如果你偷懶，就會令公司損失，公司賺唔到錢，就要炒人，炒咗嘅人因為無嘢做而無錢，就會去打劫，如果打劫嗰陣遇到反抗，就會殺人，所以你如果偷懶，你就係殺人犯。[Extracted from Wikipedia]

#4 False Dilemma (假兩難推理) [aka Fallacies of Distraction - 分散注意謬誤]
We are familiar with statement like this: Either A or B. Not A. Therefore B.
In some cases, statement compose by this logic are valid. For example, Either you have a phone else you are not able to call in this isolated island. You do not have a phone in this isolated island. Therefore you are not able to call.
This should be valid and clear, we shouldn't have ground to argue, or require further clarification.

However, either A or B. Not A. Therefore B will be unacceptable when, the alternatives presented in the either/or premise could both be false. Or, people who construct argument without registering that there might be other alternatives.

Below examples to demostrate.

1.Alternatives presented in the either/or premise are both false (...and, still go to make conclusion)
- Either dog can fly or cat can fly. Because dog can't fly. Therefore cat can fly.
2.Argument without registering that there might be other alternatives (...sales person favorite)
- Either you get the Civic Type R, or no other sport car in the market can go as fast as Civic Type R. Because you get Civic Type R therefore you get the fastest sport car in the market

#5 Trying only to confirm (只作肯定-Translate by andru_deep)
When one is testing a hypothesis, one just looking for evidence to confirm the hypothesis, on the other hand neglected to look for the evidence we can disconfirm the hypothesis.

1.

#6 The gambler's fallacy (賭徒謬見-Translate by andru_deep)

#7 Circular Justification ("遊花園式"辯解-Translate by andru_deep)

#8 The fallacy of affirming the consequent (肯定後項謬誤)