2,443
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第700行：
第700行： − {{quote box|quote=You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.|source=[[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]|width = 250px}} + − Effective analysis requires obtaining relevant [[fact]]s to answer questions, support a conclusion or formal [[opinion]], or test [[hypotheses]]. Facts by definition are irrefutable, meaning that any person involved in the analysis should be able to agree upon them. For example, in August 2010, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimated that extending the [[Bush tax cuts]] of 2001 and 2003 for the 2011–2020 time period would add approximately $3.3 trillion to the national debt.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670|title=Congressional Budget Office-The Budget and Economic Outlook-August 2010-Table 1.7 on Page 24 |format=PDF |accessdate=2011-03-31}}</ref> Everyone should be able to agree that indeed this is what CBO reported; they can all examine the report. This makes it a fact. Whether persons agree or disagree with the CBO is their own opinion. − − Effective analysis requires obtaining relevant facts to answer questions, support a conclusion or formal opinion, or test hypotheses. Facts by definition are irrefutable, meaning that any person involved in the analysis should be able to agree upon them. For example, in August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 for the 2011–2020 time period would add approximately $3.3 trillion to the national debt. Everyone should be able to agree that indeed this is what CBO reported; they can all examine the report. This makes it a fact. Whether persons agree or disagree with the CBO is their own opinion. − − 有效的分析需要获得相关的事实来回答问题、支持结论、支持正式的观点，或者检验假设。事实的定义是不可辩驳的，这意味着任何参与分析的人都应该能够同意它们。例如，2010年8月，'''<font color='#ff8000'>美国国会预算办公室Congressional Budget Office(CBO)</font>'''估计，延长布什2001年和2003年的2011-2020年减税政策将使国家债务增加约3.3万亿美元。每个人都应该能够同意这确实是国会预算办公室报告的；他们都可以检查报告。这使该报告的内容成为一个事实。人们可以选择自己观点：是否同意国会预算办公室的报告。 − − − − As another example, the auditor of a public company must arrive at a formal opinion on whether financial statements of publicly traded corporations are "fairly stated, in all material respects." This requires extensive analysis of factual data and evidence to support their opinion. When making the leap from facts to opinions, there is always the possibility that the opinion is [[Type I and type II errors|erroneous]]. − − As another example, the auditor of a public company must arrive at a formal opinion on whether financial statements of publicly traded corporations are "fairly stated, in all material respects." This requires extensive analysis of factual data and evidence to support their opinion. When making the leap from facts to opinions, there is always the possibility that the opinion is erroneous. − −
→混淆事实和观点
=== 混淆事实和观点===
=== 混淆事实和观点===
'''有效分析 Effective analysis'''需要获得相关的事实来回答问题、支持结论、支持正式的观点，或者检验假设。事实的定义是不可辩驳的，这意味着任何参与分析的人都应该能够同意它们。例如，2010年8月，'''美国国会预算办公室Congressional Budget Office(CBO)'''估计，延长布什2001年和2003年的2011-2020年减税政策将使国家债务增加约3.3万亿美元。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670|title=Congressional Budget Office-The Budget and Economic Outlook-August 2010-Table 1.7 on Page 24 |format=PDF |accessdate=2011-03-31}}</ref>每个人都应该能够同意这确实是国会预算办公室报告的；他们都可以检查报告。这使该报告的内容成为一个事实。人们可以选择自己观点：是否同意国会预算办公室的报告。
另一个例子是，上市公司的审计师必须就上市公司的财务报表是否“在所有重大方面得到公允陈述”达成正式意见，这需要对事实数据和证据进行广泛的分析，以支持他们的观点。在从事实到观点的飞跃中，总是存在着观点错误的可能性。
另一个例子是，上市公司的审计师必须就上市公司的财务报表是否“在所有重大方面得到公允陈述”达成正式意见，这需要对事实数据和证据进行广泛的分析，以支持他们的观点。在从事实到观点的飞跃中，总是存在着观点错误的可能性。
===Cognitive biases 认知偏差===
===Cognitive biases 认知偏差===