FALLACY, an error in reasoning, usually a mistaken inference that appears plausible and represents a faulty or illogical conclusion. Often the word fallacy is used to designate any error whatsoever, but this is a misuse that will not be discussed here.

谬误，推理中的一种错误，通常是呈现看似合理的错误推论，代表一种有缺陷的或不合逻辑的结论。谬误一词常常被用于描述任何错误，但这是一种误用，不在此讨论。

Logic is sometimes referred to as the ability to reason correctly, but it is more properly defined as the evaluation of the relationships between statements that are usually given with the intention of offering an argument.

逻辑有时被称为正确推理的能力，但它更适合被定义为通常是以提供论据意图而给定的陈述之间关系的评估。

Sound reasoning has to do with the ways in which the statements of an argument are related to each other. When statements are connected in a manner that follows rules of inference, the connection is said to be valid. The validity of an argument cannot be established without a check on the accuracy of the application of these rules of logic.

合理的推理与方式相关，其中论据的陈述相互关联。当陈述与遵循推理的规则关联时，据说该关联就是有效的。没有检查这些逻辑规则应用的准确性，论据的有效性则无法建立。

Rules of inference define proper derivability—that is, they designate the kinds of statements that may be derived from certain given kinds of statements. Generally, the final statement is called the conclusion, and the others are called premises. To state an argument or reach a conclusion that appears, on superficial examination, to follow these rules of inference but that actually breaks them is to commit a fallacy.

推理规则定义了适当的可导出性—换言之，它们指定的各种陈述可能源自于某些给定的各种陈述。通常，最终的陈述被称为结论，而其它陈述被称为前提。要陈述一个论据，或得出一个呈现的结论，在表面的检查上，似乎遵循了这些推理的规则，但实际上却破坏了它们，就是犯了谬误。

Types of Fallacy. Logicians classify fallacies in many ways. They may distinguish, for example, between formal fallacies—that is, those that lie in the formal structure of an argument—and nonformal fallacies. They may subdivide the latter class into verbal fallacies, which result from the ambiguity of certain words or phrases, and material fallacies, which allegedly have to do with the matter in the statements of an argument. Without pursuing such doubtful distinctions, it is possible to describe several general categories into which one or another of the most frequently committed fallacies fall:

谬误的类型。逻辑学家用许多方法对谬误进行了分类。例如，他们可以在形式谬误—换言之，位于论据的形式结构中—与非形式谬误之间的那些谬误进行区分。他们可以把后一类细分为由某些单词或短语歧义引起的文字谬误，以及据说与论据陈述中问题有关的材料谬误。不追求这种不确定的区别，就可能将几个一般类别描述为一个或另一个属于最经常犯的谬误:

(1) Arguments are made that suggest that the evidence encompasses more of the possible data than it does. Overgeneralizations are drawn from information that, though it may be relevant, is unscrutinized, biased, or incomplete. No inference may be considered valid if it rests on limited or biased samples. A familiar example of such a fallacy is attributing to all of the members of a racial or ethnic group the qualities assumed to exist in a few of its members.

（1）提出的论据认为，证据包含了比它更多的可能数据。过度概括是从信息中得到的，虽然它可能是相关的，但未经认真审查，有偏见或不完整。如果推理建立在有限或偏见的样本上，那么任何推理都不可能被认为是有效的。这种谬误的常见例子是将一个种族或族群的所有成员归因于假定存在于其少数成员中的品质。

(2) Arguments are made in which the meaning of a word or phrase is changed in a manner that assures the conclusion. Switching or extending the sense of a term—especially easy to do when the term has a legitimate double meaning—permits the arguments to carry. This is called equivocation and is one of the commonest of fallacies. It can lead one to reach the conclusion that steel is a chemical element, since iron is a chemical element, the chemical elements include metal, and both iron and steel are metals. The flaw is in the failure to distinguish between the two meanings of the term “metals,” one referring to a class of chemical elements and the other to a class of manufactured products.                 

（2）提出的论据，其中单词或短语的含义是以某种方式确保结论而改变。切换或延伸一个术语的含义—当该术语拥有了一种合理的双重含义—允许携带论据时，尤其容易做到。这被称为模棱两可，而且是一种最常见的谬误。它可以导致人们得出结论，钢是一种化学元素，因为铁是一种化学元素，化学元素包括金属，而铁和钢都是金属。该缺陷在于未能区分“金属”一词的两种含义，一种指的是一类化学元素，而另一类指的是制成品。

(3) Arguments are made that suggest that the origins of an idea or event determine its status or quality. The genesis of ideas and states of affairs should always be separated from their evaluation. It may not properly be inferred, although it may be assumed, that the source of certain matter decides its value. The argument “they wouldn’t print it if it weren’t true,” as a supposed validation of a newspaper story, is a common example of this, which may be a fallacy, or may be an assumption about the paper in question, be that assumption true or false. It does not follow that since it is printed it is true, though it may well be that in fact it is printed because it is true.

（3）提出的论据认为，一个想法或事件的起源决定其地位或质量。想法的起源和事务的状态应该总是与它们的评估相分离。虽然它可以被假定，即某些事务的来源决定其价值。但它可能未被正确地推断。“如果它不是真实的，他们则不会印刷它”的论据，作为对报纸故事的假定验证，就是这种可能是谬误，或者可能是对正在讨论的故事假定的常见例子，无论那个假设是真还是假。它并不遵循，既然印刷了它，它就是真实的，尽管它很可能是，事实上印刷它是因为它就是真实的。

(4) Arguments are made that suggest a causal relationship between events or states of affairs due to their chronological sequence, an assumption summed up in theLatin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). Although an event may follow another event in time, it may not logically be argued that time order proves that the first was the cause of the second or that the second was the effect of the first. Even if there is a true causal law illustrated in time sequences of cause and effect, the conclusion from the time sequences to causality is a fallacy.

（4）提出的论据认为，在事件或事态之间的因果关系由于它们按时间的先后顺序，一种在拉丁语短语中post hoc, ergo propter hoc(事后推理，因此而因此：后此谬误) 的总结假设。尽管一个事件可能及时地跟随另一个事件，但从逻辑上讲，它不可能论证，时间顺序证明第一是第二的原因，或第二是第一的结果。即使有一个真实的因果律及时说明了因与果的时间顺序，从时间顺序到因果关系的结论也是一个谬误。

（5）Arguments are made in which considerations of value are derived from matters of fact. What “ought to be,” however, may not validly be inferred from what “is.” For example, the fact that the world is becoming increasingly urban cannot be used as a justification for the argument that people “should” or “were meant to” live in cities.

（5）提出的论据认为，对价值的考虑来源于事实问题。然而，“应该是”什么可能无法妥当地从”是“什么中推断出来。例如，世界正越来越变得城市化不能被用作人们”应该“或”意味着“生活在城市中论据的正当理由。

The exposure of both fallacies (4) and (5) is usually attributed to the 18^th century philosopher David Hume.

对谬误（4）和（5）的揭示通常归因于18世纪的哲学家大卫·休谟。

Origins. Logical rules of inference have been evolved over a long period of time by philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians. In the Western world, they have been developed, refined, and added to since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

起源。推理逻辑的规则是由哲学家、逻辑学家和数学家经过很长一段时间演化而来的。在西方世界，至少从古希腊人的时代开始，它们已得到了发展、改善和增加。

The first reference to fallacies is found in Greek literature, where they are called sophisms, a term derived from the name of a school of philosophers of the 5^th century B. C. (See SOPHISTS.) Certain Sophists were accused by Plato of engaging in subtly deceptive reasoning, a process that has therefore come to be known as “sophistry,” especially since Aristotle, who first presented canons of formal logic, also presented a doctrine of the fallacies, which he called by this name. There is serious question, however, whether the Sophists were any more guilty of this charge than were many other philosophers. See also LOGIC.

在希腊文献中已发现了首次提到的谬误，在文献中它们被称为诡辩，一个源自公元前5世纪的哲学家学派的名称术语（见诡辩词条）。柏拉图谴责某些诡辩家从事微妙的欺骗性推理，因此这一过程被称为“诡辩家“，尤其是自亚里士多德首次提出形式逻辑的准则，而且提出了谬误原则，他就用这个名称来称呼它。然而，有一个严重的问题，对待这项指控诡辩家们是否比许多其他的哲学家更为内疚。也可参见逻辑词条。

                                   STEPHANIE EDGERTON

 New York University

斯特芬妮· 埃杰顿

纽约大学

                                     2024年4月26日译

（译者注：该词条位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第10卷，第858页）