溪予十四宗罪中2.1到2.4的区别是什么呢，求指教

add1 · 发表于 2011-8-12 09:48:11

想问一下溪予总结的argument十四宗罪中，这几条的区别。我理解都是错误因果，因为不明白是否有细微差别，不知道怎么用，谢谢大家！！

2.1 Casual Oversimplification

No evidence has been offered to support the assumption that

A is all that required for B/the reason…was…. While A is an important contributing factor to B, it is hardly the only one. Many other reasons---…---could just as likely account for B. The author’s failure to consider and eliminate other possible explanations for B renders the conclusion highly suspect.

2.2/2.3 post hoc, ergo propter hoc/cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

This argument commits a fallacy of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc/cum hoc, ergo propter hoc”. The mere fact that A preceded/coincided with B is insufficient to establish a casual relationship between these two events. Many other reasons---…---could just as likely account for A. The author’s failure to consider and eliminate other possible explanations for B renders the conclusion highly suspect.
2.4 Correlation to Causation

The argument relies on an unproven cause-and-effect relationship between A and B. In fact, many other reasons---…----could just as likely account for B. If it turns out that A has nothing to do with B, then simply do something will not solve the problem.

vurtnze · 发表于 2011-8-29 16:10:56

主要的攻击点就是无因果联系呀~他的十四宗罪和七宗罪的攻击点是一样的，只不过换了个说法。并且有几条表达的是相通的意思。总结起来其实还是七宗罪……Have a nice day~

wilincl9321 · 发表于 2012-5-4 12:45:45

这个“溪予十四宗罪”在哪有下载呢？CD上没找到

那位好心人能提供一下链接？谢谢！

溪予十四宗罪中2.1到2.4的区别是什么呢，求指教

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()