2004-09-21 - 2:02 p.m.
Everyday, basic logical errors
From these ��letters to the editors��, we may conclude that people are not so serious about the validity of their reasoning. Or you may wonder, should I be so serious about the reasoning of this kind of commentary?
��But democracy is not just changing the voting system. "No taxation without representation" is vital to make any democratic system work�K Most people concede that the tax base in Hong Kong is far too narrow�K But if the vote is given to all under the present system, what chance is there that the non-tax-paying majority will vote for tax change? My point is not that democracy should be held back but that tax reform should be accelerated.�� (Roy Prouse, 21 Sept, SCMP)
The fallacy of affirming the consequence. Is there any other more obvious logical mistake in our daily life? The author tries to use the American Revolution��s motto ��no taxation without representation�� (if no representation, then (there should be) no taxation) to justify his position that there should be ��no representation without taxation�� (if not paying tax, there should be no representation for you!). Not the first time this error has been committed by different people.
��UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has declared that the war being waged in Iraq is illegal (September 9). He is quite correct. The US and Britain went to war for selfish ends, namely oil. I believe Mr Annan, a man of integrity and honesty. Who in his right mind would believe politicians?�� (Bob Beadman, 21 Sept SCMP)
The informal logical fallacy of ad hominem. How can an act be rendered illegal just because it is intended for selfish ends? And while it is completely reasonable to believe a man of integrity and honesty, there is no valid reason (as listed here) to claim that ��he is quite correct��.
0 comments so far?lt;/P>
?lt;/P>
