早兩天收到一位朋友的電郵，問我有沒有看這星期的 60 Minutes；原來這個電視時事節目剛報道了「毒地板」的問題，朋友知道我家的木地板是最近幾年才鋪的，也許會受影響，所以好心通知一聲。
我收到電郵後便匆匆到 60 Minutes 的網頁查看，但因為正忙著要完成幾件工作，只粗略看了文字報道，竟看漏了一個重要的分別，令我虛驚了一會：報道裏說的有問題地板，是強化地板（laminate flooring），那是合成製品，不同我家鋪的那種真木地板。
毒地板之毒，在於它含有過量的甲醛（formaldehyde），這是已經證實能致癌的物質。報道中的毒地板都是 Lumber Liquidators 零售的，這是一間美國公司，共有三百多間門市，遍佈美國四十六個州。這公司售賣的主要是真木地板，但也有售賣強化地板；由於強化地板價錢便宜不少，而且比真木地板更耐用，因此頗受歡迎，單在加州，便有數以萬計的住屋鋪了 Lumber Liquidators 售賣的強化地板。可是，這些強化地板被驗出甲醛含量超標，超過加州法例規定的安全含量上限數以倍計，最嚴重的甚至超標二十倍！
為甚麼會這樣？當然和利潤有關。這些甲醛含量嚴重超標的強化地板都是中國製造的，在中國製造，成本低很多，但質量控制卻做得很差，根本沒有人會監管產品的甲醛含量。由於成本大大減低，利潤因此增加，於是 Lumber Liquidators 的股價由 2011年的每股13美元升到 2013年的每股 119美元，升幅不可謂不驚人。Lumber Liquidators 賺大錢，卻令不知底蘊的消費者付出健康為代價。
不期然想起 “stereotype” 這個問題，「理論上」中國一間廠生產的地板有毒，不等於所有中國出產嘅地板都可能有毒吖；中國某一個牌子嘅牛奶有毒，理論上亦不等於其它所有牌子嘅牛奶有毒；回覆刪除
When there are statistical data to support the tendency, it is no longer a "stereotype". Thus there is no logical fallacy involved.刪除
Stereotype 本身沒有問題，因為人類天性是有主觀意見（= 偏見），但你的偏見若變成行為影響無辜的人（被標籤但沒實際犯錯），侵犯他們跟你一樣應享有的人權，那就是歧視。Stereotype 是負面之詞皆因太多人利用為歧視藉口。刪除
商業的 stereotype 只是商品的口碑，中國貨（+中國式經營）危害健康的口碑，怪誰？你中國製10粒糖有5粒是優質產品，3粒是一般合格貨式，2粒是有毒，你敢食中國糖？中國貨得以生存靠價廉，買者自度風險。這自費明知產地還可以避，出問題的是公共建設+公營工具+無產地資料產品（豆腐渣建築的大廈天橋，國產巴士地鐵高鐵系統，各類零件入了製成品），你無權選擇，避無可避，用了也不知，所以有後果就自然生怨懟。。。噢，還有個大亞灣，你以為有事會有資料公開？唉。
中共最大失策是 damage control，所有國家都有狠心狗肺之人渣危害社會，但中國所有重大事故（毒奶粉，豆腐渣產品等等）政府第一對策是封鎖消息，到真鎖無可鎖才遮遮掩掩的默認再補救。。。死喇，我點知你仲成功封鎖咗啲乜大劑嘢？民眾信心一失，永遠都會往最壞處假設，中共這方面是自作孽。。。自己的口號［坦白從寬］也不懂應用。。。刪除
匿名3/08/2015 4:52 上午，刪除
//When there are statistical data to support the tendency, ......//
I konw what your mean however, if you mentioned "statistical data", since the nickname "world's manufacturing country" -- China is at the top of the List of countries by exports ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports ),
it makes/exports tens of thousands products a year, say if every ten thousand products they made 95% of them are okay and only 5% of them maybe toxic, even the 5% of ten thhousand would be 500, it seemed a lot of products maybe toxic however, it's still 95% passed. Do you think that the tendency of the statistical data should be based on 95% or should be based on the 5% ?
It is not about the 5% or 95%. For example, suppose you open a sardine factory, if 1 out of 1 million cans of sardine on stock contains "arsenic", the whole stock should be destroyed, due to government regulation, public health concern and business moral subject to the food industry.刪除
Back to the 毒地板 issue, the retailer (actually a trader on a higher level than a supplier) must have out-sourced reliable suppliers to provide good 地板 to sell, and the suppliers must have agreed to the certain standards and requirements (such as list of materials used, etc.) set forth by the retailer (based on local laws and regulations) before contracts were signed. So whether the 地板 有毒 or not, the suppliers should have 1st hand info, plus they should also have a business moral that NO customers would enjoy 有毒地板.
If one batch of 地板 有毒, that could be accidental. But if more 有毒 地板 were sold to retailers at various places by different suppliers, it is no longer accidental but a problem in the manufacturing process, which not only affect the product customers but also the manufacturing workers.
Thus you need to apply the term "statistical data" wisely and carefully, as its interpretation is different across different industries.
//......if 1 out of 1 million cans of sardine on stock contains "arsenic", ......//刪除
There is the point: you are talking about one manufactory however, I am talking about the whole country -- it's tens thousands manufactories.
One manufacory is making toxic goods doesn't mean other manufactories are making toxic goods and, even it could have hundreds or more manufactories are making toxic goods, it also doesn't mean that other tens thousands manufactoris are making toxic goods.
You can destroy one million cans of sardine if one can found toxic however, you cannot destory all other products that made by other tens thousands manufactories because they are simply unrelated.
You HAVE to destroy one million cans of sardine if one conforms to government regulations and/or business moral.刪除
When *multiple* industries show a deficiency in business moral and/or government monitoring, that is a statistics and thus not a stereotype. That is the original question.
You said "One manufacory is making toxic goods doesn't mean other manufactories are making toxic goods and, even it could have hundreds or more manufactories are making toxic goods, it also doesn't mean that other tens thousands manufactoris are making toxic goods."
Your argument is making assumption that the other tens thousands manufacturers are NOT making toxic goods. And I didn't say that the other tens thousands manufacturers need to destroy their products EVEN WHEN their products are clean and good.
For food industry, the government regulations should be very tight, comparing to 地板 industry. You are packaging all industries into one statement for induction, and thus it is a logical fallacy. -> i.e. when one in a million 地板 有毒 could be OK by some government regulation (and depending on the level of the "毒"), but one in a million cans of sardines 有毒 is NOT OK for any kind of "毒" Thus you cannot mix up the industries..
//You HAVE to destroy one million cans of sardine if one conforms to government regulations and/or business moral. ......//刪除
It's ONLY true IF one million cans of sardine were made by the SAME manufactory (ONE manufactory).
However, it's NOT true if those cans of sardine were made by different manufactories and the sardine sources of different manufactories were supplied by different suppliers.
That's the point.
It's therefore, the answer of who did "packaging all industries into one statement for induction, and thus it is a logical fallacy" is obviiously.
我啼笑皆非。你一早知邊盒邊箱邊件係中國劣毒產品？咁係咪唔掂最安全呀？中國有親乜陰毒大劑野政府以無限權力隱瞞喎！你窮或 cheap 就冇得好講，否則有好 track record，好監管嘅產地國家你唔揀，你去玩俄羅斯輪盤？刪除
1. You said that "It's ONLY true IF one million cans of sardine were made by the SAME manufactory (ONE manufactory)."刪除
This is a common sense. When certain products of "Del Monte" had a problem, no one would ask "Del Monte" to destroy all their other otherwise safe and good products. (Would you?) So What is your point?
2. You said that "There is the point: you are talking about one manufactory however, I am talking about the whole country -- it's tens thousands manufactories."
Thus you were not referring to ALL the 地板 manufacturers in China, you were referring to ALL manufacturers in China (including the non-地板 manufacturers). And that is a logical fallacy which you created yourself.
3. Obviously you don't know the interpretation of statistical data, which (i.e. "such interpretation") is subjective to many factors and criteria. (I already showed you the way to handle one can of 有毒 sardines and one 有毒地板 could be different.)
4. You said that "However, it's NOT true if those cans of sardine were made by different manufactories and the sardine sources of different manufactories were supplied by different suppliers."
And there are such things called "Consumer Confidence" and "Crisis Management". [You could continue to argue that the sardine company could give out free sterling silver spoons to customers to help testing if their cans of sardines would be 有毒 or not. Then of course, the CEO of such sardine company should be given an award for being so creative and stupid at the same time.]
//Thus you were not referring to ALL the 地板 manufacturers in China, ......//刪除
Okay, do you know how many 地板 manufacturers in China and how many 地板 they made a year? How many of them are toxic？ How's the percentage of the toxic 地板 in the 地板 industry in China? 5%? 10%? more or less?
"statistical data" is not a guessing nor "Consumer Confidence" too, where is your "statistical data"?
Can you show or post a link of an actual statistical data that could prove your claim of "When there are statistical data to support the tendency,......"?
You are still circling around your logical fallacy for some unknown purpose(s) of yours. As far as the number of 地板 manufacturers in China goes, it wouldn't have been, as you said and I quote, "tens thousands manufactories".刪除
It has not been a good discussion when you fail to see the logical fallacy you created for yourself and that you fail to understand the purpose and usage of "statistics" and "statistical data". Therefore it is not advisable to continue this thread of discussion. "."
You claimed "When there are statistical data to support the tendency, it is no longer a "stereotype". Thus there is no logical fallacy involved."刪除
However, you could not show or link any "statistical data" to prove your claim, it would only prove your claim was based on your guessing or based on your psychological feeling, nothing to do with the statistical data.
Please go back to the top to read the original question and the progress of your thoughts. I have already answered more than enough to help you understand, while you still shows a lack of understanding of the application of "statistics". (For example, "1 in a million" could be "too much" or "no problem" or "no legal consequence" or "big issue", etc, which depends on many factors and its context,)刪除
Obviously you don't have any experience in the "trading" field, and ignore all the steps and processes which took place before a contract was signed between the 地板 retailer and its many 地板 suppliers. You simply ignored the fact that someone had not been honest during the trading period until the 有毒地板 were installed in the homes of the final customers.
Ignore any of these is already a logical fallacy.
Therefore, you simply argue for argument's sake for your own good while wasting my time, and fail to understand a problem nor view it from different angles.
I have already shown you that the current case is NOT a stereotype and it is not caused by just a "couple" of 有毒地板. (I am not excluding the chance that there are/could be some very honest 地板 suppliers in China producing very good 地板. But then everyone has his/her preferences as far as consumer confidence goes.)
In the current case, "1 in a million" is already not acceptable, because the 有毒地板 must have violated the original contract(s) signed by the 地板 retailer and 地板 supplier(s) which should have conformed to local laws and health regulations before they left China.
And for China, 有毒地板 is just one of the several problematic products happened in the news. This is also another piece of "statistical data" you should consider before you start another round of argument.
If you want to continue to argue, please open your own blog page and write a more comprehensive article to clearly present your thoughts, because from the above, I have no idea what you want to accomplish. "." means "(Period) !!"
//If you want to continue to argue, ......//刪除
You don't understand what I mean, what I wanted to say was: statistical data cannot or very difficult to prove things would be the same because statistical data would show the differences of the things that look like the same.
In this arguement, the "things" would be China-made wood floorings. If you wanted to try applying statistical data to prove many or most China-made wood floorings are toxic, you got the wrong way because statistical data would not only could not prove many or most things would be the same (except they really are), instead, it would show the differences of the things that otherwise look like the same and, that's why you cannot find an actual statistical data that could prove your claim.
You changed the discussion topic, which is another logical fallacy. Please look up how many types of logical fallacies you committed so far.刪除
Could saying "logical fallacy" again and again prove you were not stupid?刪除
1. I wasn't trying to prove who is stupid.刪除
2. Whenever there is a logical fallacy, the discussion should be paused and problem rectified, as otherwise, more logical fallacies could happen or the resulting discussion would not be valid.
3. I alerted you the occurrence of logical fallacy before, but you didn't rectify the problem while branching to other areas.
You don't understand doesn't mean it's " logical fallacy".刪除
It means that you don't understand the application of tools in Logic.刪除
可惜連強國人自己都懂得來香港到日本甚至更遠的外國購買再帶回國轉賣 “塗” 利回覆刪除
Example：奶粉 電飯煲 廁所板 non exhaustive