人們進行邏輯推理時所依據的最基本的公理是什麼？

01-04

打個比方來說我在推理的過程中發現已知內容與結論相矛盾，我就認為自己的推理是錯的。此時我大概依賴「某種事物不能同時具有相反的兩個狀態」這一理由進行推理的。諸如此類。

（度假剛回來，還在倒時差。度假期間的邀請，抱歉我將全部忽略。）

亞里士多德最早提出的思維規律[1]是：

同一律：如果A則A，或者說A與自身恆等。
無悖律：不可能A且非A，或者說A不能即是又不是。
排他律：要麼A，要麼非A。

後來很多哲學家和邏輯學家又提出過其他規律。被普遍接受的一個是

有因律：如果A發生或存在，那麼一定有存在或發生的理由。

注意，這些思考規律本身也是有爭議的，並且在日常生活中被大量錯用和濫用。

比如，對於＠羅駿飛用量子力學的「結論」舉的那些例子……

我想提醒一下，不要把學科自我推廣營銷所用的修辭手段當作學術結論本身。

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason

適用於一階邏輯的自然推理規則：

應該是三段論：其中一個命題（結論）必然的從另外兩個命題（叫做前提）中得出的一種推論。

要使三段論作為一個有效的推導，必須符合7個條件：

(1)一個正確的三段論，有且只有三個不同的項。

(2)三段論的中項至少要周延一次。

(3)在前提中不周延的詞項，在結論中不得周延。

(4)兩個否定前提不能推出結論。

(5) 前提有一個是否定的，其結論必是否定的；若結論是否定的，則前提必有一個是否定的。

(6)兩個特稱前提推不出必然性結論。

(7)前提中有一個是特稱的，結論必須也是特稱的。

三段論包括四種格，性質命題有A、E、I、O四種，所以每一種格有4*4*4=64種（三個命題，每個命題4種可能），三段論一共有64*4=264種，但是符合上述7個條件的有效推理並不多，只有24種，這24種三段論就是人類推理的基本公理。

關於「項」「周延」「格」和「性質命題」我就不做解釋了，有興趣單獨去查一下就好了~

還是補充一下「格」和「性質命題」吧：

三段論的格，就是指三段論中的中項在前提中所處的位置不同而形成的不同的三段論結構形式。

第一格：中項在大前提中做主項，在小前提中作謂項

M——P

S——M

———

S——P

第二格：中項在大、小前提中都作謂項

P—— M

S—— M

———

S——P

第三格：中項在大、小前提中都作主項

M ——P

M ——S

———

S——P

第四格：中項在大前提中作謂項、在小前提中作主項

P——M

M——S

———

S——P

關於性質命題：

A是全稱肯定命題；E是全稱否定命題；I是特稱肯定命題；O是特稱否定命題。

了解了上述這些，我想大家就可以構造出很多有效的三段論了~

很多人都會按自己的一套思維模式來推理吧。

屬於自己的思維模式更多是建立自己經驗總結上。當自己的的經驗總結不斷修正，和公理越來越相似，推理出來的結果越來越接近客觀事實。

但，倒是可以避免常見的邏輯錯誤http://www.70man.com/?p=8677

＂Popper (2003) and many philosophers scorn anything smacking of the "metaphysical,"

but, in fact, all science-and all knowledge-is based on certain philosophical premises (i.e.,

axioms), whether held explicitly or implicitly. Ayn Rand (1990: 55) writes,

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed

(i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts). It is implicit in all facts and in all

knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires

no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanation rest. . . . [Axioms] are per-

ceived or experienced directly but grasped conceptually. They are implicit in every state of

awareness, from the first sensation to the first percept to the sum of all concepts."

Axioms are self-evident and cannot be contradicted without accepting them in the process

(Peikoff, 1991). They are grasped inductively; they are implicit in one"s first perceptions of

reality. They are both true and nonfalsifiable, though Popper considered this impossible. The

three primary axioms are existence (reality), identity (everything has a specific nature, to be

is to be something specific), and consciousness (awareness). Without these axioms as the

base, all knowledge would be impossible. If there is no reality out there, there is nothing to

be conscious of. If things have no identity, what you discover about them today could be dis-

solved tomorrow; a thing would not be itself. Without consciousness, there is no means to

discover knowledge. Rand also stresses that existence is primary; the function of conscious-

ness is to perceive reality not to create it. Existence exists and is what it is independent of

consciousness. (For a discussion of man-made facts and why these do not contradict the pri-

macy of existence principle, see Ghate and Locke [2003] and Peikoff [1991].) The law of

causality is implicit in the law of identity: If everything has a specific nature, then it must act

in specific ways under specific conditions. Acorns cannot turn into elephants and pencils

cannot become hot fudge sundae, even if one wishes them to.

Observe that these principles entail a total rejection of the philosophical premises of Kant

(Ghate, 2003; Harriman, 2006) and the skeptics who followed him, including Popper. These

principles lay the foundation for objective knowledge. The question of how one gains knowl-

edge belongs to the field of epistemology and includes the need for a valid theory of con-

cepts: what they are and how they are formed (see below).＂（Locke, 2007)

實事求是

人的心理和思維活動不能一概而論，行為學也只是總結規律。按你的描述來講，你所依的就是你自己的所想，當你在說「我就認為」「我大概依賴」的時候，你自己依據的相信的都是你自己願意相信的。如果有個人告訴你這結果是對的，你會不會以「某種事物不能同時具有相反的兩個狀態」的自我觀點再和他去辯論呢，或許結果真就是對的，或許真就是矛盾了呢。界有陰陽，晝夜不能一。子絕四——毋意，毋必，毋固，毋我。

因果關係：

事件A發生之後事件B發生，因此邏輯推理：事件A導致了事件B。

謬誤也是這樣產生的：事件A發生之後人為的讓事件C發生，一段時間之後人們便會認為：事件A導致了事件C。指驢為馬就是說的這事。

先明確自己的目的

接下來羅列已有的事實

之後再試圖將兩者聯繫起來

客觀事實、社會普遍認識和因果關係