以下文章来源于新潮沉思录 ，作者潮思 新潮沉思录 . 新潮沉思录 本文来自微信公众号： 新潮沉思录 ，作者：邓铂鋆，题图来自：视觉中国 在网络空间上，我们经常看到这样的诡辩手段："你说国家做了A是为了老百姓好，B的问题就不存在 么？国家真这么好心，为什么不解决B？"最近，禁毒议题在社交平台上激烈讨论，一位"话题制造 者"成功地提供了一个话题。 笔者认为，这类表述是一种常见的滑坡谬误 （Slippery slope） ：指通过夸大事件链中每个因果关系 的强度，将可能性转化为必然性，最终得出不合理结论的逻辑错误 。其核心特征在于假设事件A发 生后会引发B、C直至Z的连锁反应，并以此否定A的合理性，但实际推论环节常缺乏充分证据支持。 借此机会，我们今天谈谈成瘾品的合法与非法的界限。 三大合法成瘾品 成瘾是人类社会中存在的一种历史悠久的现象，五千年前的人类就已经开始使用酒精、鸦片、大麻等 成瘾物质。现代社会的成瘾包括了物质成瘾 （如药物、毒品、烟酒） 和行为成瘾 （如赌博、沉迷网 络与手机） 。 成瘾品是一个中性概念，它既包括在合理使用的前提下危害可控的医疗用途药物，也包括非医疗用途 的麻醉品和提神物质。人们根据成瘾 ...

Core Points - The article discusses 20 common logical fallacies and their identification methods, emphasizing the importance of recognizing these fallacies to construct more rigorous arguments [1]. Group 1: Types of Logical Fallacies - Ad Hominem Fallacy: This occurs when the argument is directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining [2]. - Appeal to Authority Fallacy: This fallacy arises when someone cites an authority figure's opinion without substantial evidence to support the argument [4]. - Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: This involves attempting to win an argument by appealing to emotions rather than facts or logic [6]. - Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: This fallacy claims something is true simply because it has not been proven false [7]. - Bandwagon Fallacy: This assumes that if many people believe something, it must be true, regardless of the actual evidence [8]. - Causal Fallacy: This occurs when a correlation between two events is mistaken for a cause-and-effect relationship [9]. - Circular Reasoning: This fallacy uses the conclusion as a premise, creating a loop in reasoning [11]. - Post Hoc Fallacy: This involves assuming that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second [12]. - False Dichotomy Fallacy: This presents only two options when more exist, oversimplifying the situation [15]. - Ambiguity Fallacy: This uses vague or double meanings to mislead or distort the truth [17]. - Composition Fallacy: This assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole [18]. - Division Fallacy: This assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for its parts [20]. - Gambler's Fallacy: This is the belief that past random events affect future random events [22]. - Genetic Fallacy: This assumes that the origin of a person or idea determines its value or truth [24]. - Hasty Generalization Fallacy: This involves making a conclusion based on insufficient evidence [26]. - Loaded Question Fallacy: This contains a presupposition that leads to a predetermined conclusion [28]. - Red Herring Fallacy: This diverts attention from the main issue by introducing a related topic [29]. - Straw Man Fallacy: This simplifies or misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack [31]. - Sunk Cost Fallacy: This involves continuing a behavior or endeavor due to previously invested resources [33]. - Slippery Slope Fallacy: This suggests that a small first step will lead to a chain of related events culminating in a significant impact [34].

当你同时面对客户的突发需求、研发的技术壁垒、老板的进度压力时，焦虑就像藤蔓一样悄悄缠上来， 最终精心规划的产品蓝图，产出后变成一团乱麻。 但焦虑从来不是问题本身，而是提醒你需要调整的信号。 当焦虑主导决策，它不仅吞噬你的判断力，也可能悄悄毁掉你正在打造的产品。本文将从典 型场景出发，拆解焦虑如何渗透进产品流程，并提供实操建议，帮助你在压力中保持清醒， 做出真正有价值的产品选择。 凌晨一点的办公室，你盯着电脑屏幕上的需求清单，头发散落一丝丝散落在桌子上，椅子旁，指尖悬在 键盘上迟迟没有落下。 作为一家 SaaS 公司的 B 端产品经理，你负责的工程管理系统已经第三次因为需求变更延期，研发团队 的抱怨像针一样扎在心上，而销售那边催上线的消息又在钉钉里不停跳动。 这种窒息感，几乎是每个 B 端产品经理的日常。 焦虑就像是身体潜藏的病毒一样，当免疫系统松懈焦虑就会自己冒出来。 我们不可能彻底消灭病毒，当然也不可能彻底消灭焦虑，我们能做的是尽可能的避免焦虑对我们的日常 生活造成过分的影响。 下面，我们来探讨一下焦虑的根源以及相对于的解决办法。 定问题：B 端产品管理焦虑的三个根源 很多人以为焦虑是心态问题，其实背后藏着 ...

Core Points - The article discusses common logical fallacies that can distort reasoning and decision-making processes [4][35] - It emphasizes the importance of recognizing these fallacies to improve critical thinking and logical reasoning skills [35] Group 1: Common Logical Fallacies - Correlation does not imply causation, highlighting that simultaneous occurrences do not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect relationship [5][10] - The slippery slope fallacy exaggerates the consequences of an action, leading to irrational conclusions [14][15] - False dichotomies present limited choices, ignoring the existence of other possibilities [17][19] Group 2: Additional Fallacies - Begging the question involves using an unproven assumption to support an argument, leading to circular reasoning [20][21] - Red herrings divert attention from the main argument, often used to mislead or distract [23][25] - Appeals to authority, pity, or popularity can manipulate opinions without logical basis [26][28] Group 3: Impact of Logical Fallacies - The prevalence of logical fallacies in everyday reasoning can lead to poor decision-making and misunderstanding of issues [3][35] - Recognizing and addressing these fallacies is crucial for achieving clarity and truth in discussions [35]