未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

批判性思维谬误:分割谬误

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Fallacy of Division

Hello! I am Paul Henne,
大家好
and I’m a philosophy graduate student at Duke university
我是杜克大学哲学系研究生Paul Henne
And in this video I’m gonna talk to you about informal fallacy
接下来 我将和你们聊聊“分割谬误“
called the “fallacy of division”
这是一种非形式谬误
And I’m also going to discuss why it’s wrong to conclude
并分析把“水分子是湿润的”作为结论
that water molecules are wet
为什么是不正确的
The fallacy of division is a defect in reasoning
分割谬误是一种论证过程中的的缺陷
that arises when someone infers that what is true of something
当某人推断说 适用于某物整体的事实
must also be true of that thing’s parts
必然适用于该物的各部分
So the fallacy is kind of like saying that
这是一个犯了此谬误的论证:
because a university has some qualities
因为某所大学具有一些品质
then all of that university’s departments must also have those qualities
那么那所大学的所有学院必然也有那些品质
And that’s a fallacy
这是一个谬论
because even if a university is good all around
因为 即使一所大学在各个方面都很优秀
it doesn’t necessarily mean
这并不一定意味着
that the university has a good taxidermy program, for instance
此大学会有一个很好的动物标本剥制项目
So sounds problematic right?
听上去就有点问题 对吗?
But let’s represent the logical error more formally
我们来更规范地演示一遍这个逻辑谬误吧
The reasoning is something like this
论证过程大概是这样的
Premise 1: Whole A has properties A B and C
前提一:整体A具有特性A B和C
Premise 2: P is a part of A
前提二:P是A的一部分
Conclusion:Therefore P must have properties A B and C
结论:因此P一定具有特性A B和C
The argument seems attractive
这个论证看起来很有吸引力
but the style of argument will not always lead to true conclusions
但这种论证并不总能得出正确的结论
For it might not be the case that the parts and the whole have the same qualities
因为这可能是部分和整体不具备同一特性的情况
You may now be able to see what’s going wrong with this line of reasoning
现在 您应该可以看到此条推理出了什么问题
So let’s look at a few examples
那么 我们来看一些实例吧
Suppose that I have a car
假设我有一辆车
and I made this argument about my car
并且我这么作出关于我的车的论证:
Premise 1: My car is red and it goes really fast
前提一:我的车是红色的 并且它的速度很快
Premise 2: The muffler is a part of my car
前提二:消音器是我的车的一部分
Conclusion:
结论:
Therefore my car’s muffler is red
因此 我的汽车的消声器不仅是红色的
and goes really fast
而且还跑得快
Okay that was an easy one
好了 这是个很简单的例子
Of course no one would make this argument
当然 没有人会作出这种论证
or assume that I own a car
或者假设自己有一辆车
but it demonstrates where is the style of argument fails
但是 它展现了这类论证的错误之处
clearly the muffler doesn’t have the same properties as the car
显然 消声器与整辆车并不具备同一特性
So let’s try another more familiar example
那么 我们来看看另一个更常见的例子吧
Suppose that your friend made this agrument:
假设你的朋友作了如下论证:
The computer is indestructible
(前提一)电脑是坚不可摧的
The hard drive is a part of the computer
(前提二)硬盘驱动器是电脑的一部分
Therefore, the hard drive is indestructible.
因此 硬盘驱动器是坚不可摧的
Now suppose your friend’s premises are ture
现在 假定你朋友的论证前提都是正确的
the conclusion can still be false
这个结论仍然可能是错误的
Maybe your friend was making this argument
也许 你的朋友之所以作此论证
in order to transfer the hard drive of the indestructible computer
是为了把这台坚不可摧的电脑的硬盘
to a different computer
转移到另一台电脑上
So it would be unfortunate for her to find out
所以 她可能会不幸地发现
that the hard drive is only indestructible when it connected
硬盘只有在一种情况下才不会损坏:
to the other components of the original computer
与原电脑的其他部件相连接时
So the hard drive itself isn’t indestructible
所以硬盘本身并不像整个电脑那样
like the whole computer
坚不可摧
Your friend committed a fallacy of division
你的朋友犯了分割谬误
That is, to be precise
准确来说 是这样的
she hastily assumed
她草率地假定
the hard drive the part
作为部分的硬盘驱动器
is indestructible like the whole computer
与电脑整体一样坚不可摧
so we just learn about the fallacy of division
我们刚才学习了分割谬误
or the error reasoning that comes about
即当一个人推断说
when a person infers that what is true of sth
适用于某物的事理一定也适用于它的各部分时
must also be true of its parts
所产生的错误推理
it is important however to know
然而 重要的是 我们要知道
that this fallacious reasoning
这些错误的推理过程
doesn’t awalys lead to a false conclusion
并不总会导出错误的结论
I for instance might argue the following

例如 我可能会作出以下论证
Premise 1: The house is pink
前提一:这房子是粉色的
Premise 2: The front door is part of the house
前提二:前门是该房子的一部分
Conclusion:
结论:
therefore the front door is also pink
因此前门也是粉色的
and in this case
在这个事例中
my argument leads to a true conclusion
我的论证得出了一个正确的结论
For I’ve for whatever reason
因为 不论出于什么原因
painted every part of my house pink
我将房子的每一部分都涂成了粉色
Simply because there is fallacious reasoning
仅仅是论证过程中存在错误
doesn’t neccessary mean
并不一定意味着
that the conclusion will be false
结论也会是错误的
It’s interesting to know
有趣的是
that this fallacy is also the converse of the fallacy of composition
这个分裂谬误同时也是逆向的合成谬误
which says that it is fallacious to infer
组成谬误指的是这种论证:
that what is true of the part of sth
如果某事实适用于某物的某部分
is also true of the whole those parts compose
那么它对该物的所有部分来说都是适用的
These fallacy are quite similar
这些谬误彼此非常相似
so you might want to check out that video as well
所以 说不定你还想看看那个视频呢
Anyway, watch out for this fallacy,
总之 我们应当注意这些谬误
and remember that just because water is wet
同时 请记住 仅仅由“水是湿润的”
doesn’t mean that you can conclude that water molecules are wet too.
并不一定能得出“水分子也是湿润的”这一结论
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
字幕由Amara.org社区提供

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

用实例让你秒懂分裂谬误论 适用于整体的事实不一定适用于各个部分

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

Clio

审核员

审核员MS

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEhRqiSA4ko

相关推荐