You are a soldier. The company commander mobilized before the war and said, "As long as you run fast, you won't get hurt." You rushed out with all your strength and were carried back bloody. When you questioned the company commander, the company commander replied, "That's because you didn't rush fast enough, otherwise you wouldn't get hurt." With a mouthful of blood, you gradually understand that the mobilization of the company commander has not been proved wrong. To put it simply, there is no "falsification", and the right to interpret lies entirely with him. This is a lie that is always correct. If the mobilization is changed to "as long as the charge speed reaches 5 meters per second, you won't get hurt", it is "fraud". As long as someone is injured when the charge speed exceeds 5 meters per second, it can prove that the company commander's mobilization is wrong.
When choosing a topic for debate, the first thing to check is whether this question is "falsified". For example, if someone comes up with "harmony between man and nature" to argue with you, you don't have to pay attention to it, because this issue cannot be falsified. How is it legal? It depends on each other's two mouths. You call it "three talents and heaven and earth, why are they only in harmony with heaven and man, and why do they stay here?" People can say, "The land is too low for you." You can't prove him wrong. Therefore, in the process of debate, the first thing is to test the "falsifiability" of the other side's point of view, and it is meaningless to say that it cannot be falsified.
2. "Nothing" needs no proof.
You said that the "wishful golden hoop" exists, I said it doesn't exist, and you asked me to prove it doesn't exist. Then I really can't prove it. Even if I can't find it by digging three feet, it doesn't rule out the possibility that I can find it by digging four feet. Even if I sweat all over the earth, then you say, "Will it be on Mars?"
Unlike mathematical problems with clear boundaries, nothingness in real life cannot be proved and needs no proof. The party who holds the nihilistic view can do nothing until the party who holds the existential view proves it, and it is the correct party by default. You said that cell phone radiation has the risk of brain tumor and leukemia, but I said it doesn't exist. At this time, it is up to you to prove it. The global scientific community has done hundreds of studies on the correlation between cell phone radiation and brain tumor leukemia, and the conclusions do not support the correlation. You proved that "yes" can't be established, but my "no" will continue to be established.
Many people who insist on "yes" will throw out the statement of "potential possibility" when they can't prove it, thinking that this is the most ridiculous statement, and there is no one. You can't say that after reading this article, the potential possibility of the destruction of the earth ball does not exist at all, but is this imaginary possibility without evidence meaningful? Just like losing a fight and leaving a sentence "you are waiting" before running, "potential possibility" is just a nonsense about finding a venue, so you don't have to pay attention to it at all.
3. Positive accusations need evidence, and negative accusations have boundaries.
Affirmative accusation refers to the accusation that the other party has done something. For example, if you accuse me of stealing a wallet, you have to take out physical evidence and witness, and publish information such as time and place, instead of proving that I didn't steal it. Its logical root lies in the fact that "nothing" cannot be proved. .
Negative accusation refers to accusing the other party of not doing something. For example, if you accuse me of not going to college, I got the teaching position by cheating, because your so-called "nothing" doesn't need to be proved, so it's my turn to prove it. But before I provide evidence, you must first find out where the "falsity" of your accusation is. For example, you agree to give up as long as I show my college diploma, and then I'll prove it. Otherwise, I will show my diploma, and you will deny its authenticity. After I proved that the diploma was true, you didn't recognize the person on the diploma as me ... This is a common fault of people who are proficient in logic. He always makes negative accusations, forcing you to prove yourself until you collapse. Negative accusations must have a line that can be falsified, otherwise it is hooliganism.
4. Use the exclusion method with caution.
UFO enthusiasts have observed foreign objects in the sky, and the analysis is as follows: it is not an airplane, a meteor, an airship, a balloon, or … so it can only be a UFO! But it was finally proved by experts to be an undisclosed missile launch from a base in northwest China. Exclusion method is a good analysis method, but there is a premise that sets and elements must be clear. In the field of mathematics, sets and elements are often very clear, so the exclusion method is very convenient. For example, there are three numbers in a set, except for number A and number B, it can only be number C. But in real life, sets and elements are often unclear, and many elements are even unknown, so it is very dangerous to use exclusion again.
I was alone in a room with a girl. After hearing the girl's crying, you broke into the house, felt wronged for her and asked me, "There is no one else in the room, what can you say!" " In fact, I really have a lot to say. For example, that girl wanted to die just after falling in love, and she cried after I enlightened her. The girl finally found a kind-hearted person who helped her study for many years, and she cried with excitement ... I am really more wronged than Dou E ~
5. Correlation may not be causality.
Every time you catch a cold, you drink Radix Isatidis for ten days. Too many times without exception, the evidence makes you believe that Banlangen is very effective in curing your cold. Actually, you are wrong. A cold is a self-healing disease. Whether you drink Radix Isatidis or not, it will be fine in about ten days. I don't believe you can try radish soup next time, and the effect will be the same. Drinking Radix Isatidis and recovering from a cold are only related in time, not causality. Many people are accustomed to preconceived relevance as causality, which is also a common logical error in debate.
Causality is hard to get, and many random samples need to be checked. Causality given rashly is often unreliable. For example, "drinking red wine is good for health." There have been scientific statistics in France, and people who drink red wine every day live longer. " The statistical results are not necessarily causal, but it is more likely that people who can afford red wine every day have better food hygiene conditions and live longer, which has nothing to do with red wine. A more extreme example is that heavy smokers who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day now live longer than the ancients before the introduction of tobacco. Does this mean that smoking is good for longevity?
6. Either this or that is not necessarily the case
An either-or relationship can only be established when it is mutually exclusive. If I say that a Go is not black, you have reason to think that my judgment is white, because Go is black and white. In the cabin, a strong man had a conflict with a girl, and the girl had evidence of injury. Because I feel that the evidence is insufficient, I doubt that the strong man was beaten. You shouted at me with a sense of justice, "Do you think that girl's injury was caused by herself? ! "Although we can't rule out the possibility of self-harm, this is not what I believe, because it may also be caused by others. It's like a poker. I guess it's not Spades 3. At that time, you shouted at me angrily, "Do you think it is Cao Hua 9?"
It's ok to criticize the other side with obviously wrong views. If the other party makes a positive judgment, you can criticize it with the negative proposition of this judgment, because a proposition is equivalent to its negative proposition, no matter which one you criticize. If the other person makes a negative judgment, you can refute him by denying the mutually exclusive judgment of the negative judgment. It sounds circuitous, but it's actually very simple. Just like the example of Go above, my negative judgment is "This child is black" and its mutually exclusive judgment is "This child is white". As long as you deny that "this child is white", you deny my denial that "this child is black". The key issue is mutual exclusion. If the other party comes up with a pair of events that are not mutually exclusive and asks you in an either-or way, you should give him a sentence, "Are the two things you said mutually exclusive?"
7. You can't choose witness testimony.
I am doing a scientific experiment. According to my original theory, the data of the experimental result should be 8, but the result of my first experiment is 2, and the result of my second experiment is 19. Keep doing it ... and finally get an 8 once. I am happy to announce that "although there are many mistakes interfering with the experiment, I finally got the correct result, which is the ironclad proof of my theory!" " You must think this experiment of choosing evidence by position is funny, but it is a common practice in debate. As long as you are patient and keep doing it, as long as you keep turning a blind eye to the unfavorable results, you can prove anything you want, and the evidence is "hard evidence".
You have a position, a witness appears, and some of his statements confirm your position. At this time, you claim that this person is credible and take his statement as your own evidence. But the other side questioned what this person said against you. You said, "Who can guarantee that there will be no mistakes? Maybe he didn't see some details clearly. " This is a deliberate choice of evidence. You were supposed to be your witness, so you can't favor one over the other. Unless you have evidence to prove that "favoritism" is reasonable, what's the difference between that and my ridiculous scientific experiment?