你健康又能幹，外表討好、事業有成並財政穩健。你明明有不錯的社交生活，交遊廣闊，不過，日復日、年復年，你還是單身一人，又準備孤身迎接快將來臨的2016年，這件事怎樣說也不合情理。

　　要合理化一件事情，有很多種方式。畢竟，很多有實力的歌手都不紅，很多當紅的歌手都沒有實力；不是每位億萬富豪都擁有高學歷，又不是讀書多就可以當億萬富豪…正因如此，我們可以理解不是每位有樣有事業的成功人士都擁有伴侶。把問題歸咎於自己的工作、自己的命運……命裡有時終雖有，命裡無時莫強求。就此以半放棄的認命態度，一句「世上不是事事合乎邏輯」的理由便去說服了自己。

　　自然主義者假設凡事都可以以自然定律來解釋；理性主義者相信凡事必有因，可以被合理解釋；無神論者強調任何信念都必要有邏輯及證據支持。如此一來，反理性主義者提出「世上不是事事合乎邏輯」的論點有否實質的支持？還是，這只是思想狹窄的人，因為無法處理深層次的對立思維，而硬捏出來的簡單化解釋？還是，因為我們的認知是不完美，故生活中有很多未能預料的事情會為我們帶來驚訝？但是，我們難以預測未來並不等如世事莫測，並不代表人生有許多不合理或不合邏輯的地方。不完美的可能只是我們的認知範圍狹窄，難以跳出思維的框架去面對現實，因而估計錯誤的結果。

　　邏輯謬誤是推論時出現的錯誤，會令論述大打折扣。表面上，謬誤或可加強論述，但事實上，它們絕少可以在反駁當中站得住腳。以下是一些大眾用來解釋自己的處境時，常犯的邏輯謬誤。

1)原因出錯：相信了錯的原因，自有錯過的事情，例子：你相信自己明年犯太歲不利姻緣，自然不會在2016年找到伴侶。

2)一概而論：以單純的負面想法概論事情，如「我不會跟這個男人約會，他大我6年」，「六衝」極度不利，勢必帶來災難性的後果。

3)類比錯誤：胡亂假設，只要兩件事物有部分相似之處，就代表兩者是相同的──她的樣子長得像她媽媽。即使聲線也相似，毫無疑問，有一天，她會跟她媽媽一樣肥胖又嗓子大。

4)套套邏輯：以一個不可能被推翻的方式來建立論述。例子：你是一個愛爭辯的人，如果你反駁我，這只會曝露你是一個多愛爭辯的人。

5)訴諸權威：那條Versace的裙子在Beyonce身上看來漂亮極了，她是個萬人迷。我倆的高度差不多，我一定要買那條Versace裙子！

6)轉移視線：嘗試在真相中轉移視線。我的工作太忙了，難以經常與他碰面，還有我生於豬年他竟然是蛇年的，難有好結果。

　　因為自己未完全弄清狀況，而認為世上有部分事物是不合理的，是一種以人類為中心的想法，抱持這種想法的人相信一個不合邏輯常理、沒有理據支持，由自己虛構出來的主宰，他們選擇迷信而不是理性地調查真相。

　　上年的婚姻登記數目是5萬5千宗，當中只有52%的結婚對象是香港女性。換句話說，有48%的新郎娶的是來自內地、台灣，以及世界各地的新娘。或者，我們該開始認認真真地自我反省，並找出令我們吸引力退減的原因；或者，在命運或神迹以外，會找到實際、合乎邏輯的解釋，想想吧。

　　我們邀請合資格的顧問及感情專家定期舉辦講座。作為一個推動企業社會責任的計劃，所得收入將捐予慈善機構。歡迎你的參與！

　　預祝各位聖誕快樂，並有一個心想事成的 2016年！

　　（按：中文內容乃翻譯及撮寫版本）

“Not Everything In Life Is Logical ! ”

　　You are healthy and intelligent, your appearance is above average, you have a successful career and are financially secure. You have  a fairly active social life, meeting lots of people, yet you continue to remain single year after year. 2016 is only around the corner, you still don’t have a partner, let alone a spouse…It just doesn’t make any sense.

　　Rationalization comes in many forms. After all, many good singers aren’t famous, many famous singers aren’t good. Not all billionaires are highly educated, nor are all the highly educated, billionaires…Hence, not  everyone who is good looking and successful can find a spouse.  Blame it on your job,  on your fate, on your stars…Some day, should destiny decide there should be someone in your life, then this someone will emerge…  Resigned and acquiescent, “Not everything in life is logical…” and the justification is  complete. 

　　Naturalists assume that everything has an explanation in terms of natural causes. Rationalists believe that everything which happens has a rational explanation. Assorted atheists insist that no one should form beliefs that disregard logic and evidence. So when the defenders of irrationalism say that “ not everything in life is logical ”, is there substance to this statement ?  Or are they just closed minded people demanding overly simple explanations because they are incapable of handling the profundity of counter intuitive ideas ? While it is true that our common sense is not perfect and  we are repeatedly surprised in life by unexpected turns of events, these are poor bases for inferring that the world itself is fundamentally irrational and illogical. We get surprised by reality because of the limits of our common sense or of our current understanding to grasp basic realities and to predict the future perfectly – not because there are limits of reality to be rational in itself.

　　Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undercut an argument. On the surface, fallacies may seem to strengthen an argument, but in fact they rarely hold up to rebuttal.

Below are some common logical fallacies people often use to justify their situations:

1)Faulty Cause: mistaken conviction in cause and consequence:  Example: You are offending the Tai Sui next year, hence you definitely won’t find anybody in 2016.

2)Sweeping Generalization: broad assumption based solely on negatives: I can’t date this man, he is 6 years older than me - “conflicting six”, guaranteed disaster.

3)Faulty Analogy: Arbitrary assumptions that some similarities represent all similarities. She looks like her mother, even her voice sounds like her mother, one day she will no doubt be as loud and fat as her mother. 

4)Tautology: defines an argument in a manner that makes it impossible to disprove. Example: You are an argumentative person and if you disagree with me, it shows even more just how argumentative you really are.

5)Appeal To Authority: The Versace dress looks stunning on Beyonce, she is a men magnet. We are the same height..  so I MUST absolutely buy that Versace dress !

6)Red Herring : attempts to divert attention away from the real issue. I am too busy at work to continue seeing him. Besides he is a snake and I am a pig…

　　It is rather anthropocentric to claim that something about the world makes no sense just because we cannot yet make total sense of it ourselves, and to infer that it is justified to believe in an anthropomorphically imaged God that makes  no sense logically and has no evidence rationally, and  to capitulate to superstitions rather than to continue to investigate rationally. 

　　Of the 55,000 marriages registered last year, only 52% were with Hong Kong women. In other words, 48% grooms chose to marry Mainlanders, Taiwanese, and ladies from else where… May be we should start doing some serious soul searching and find out what exactly is making us less desirable ? May be there are  really some concrete, logical explanations other than destiny or deities… Think.

　　We invite highly qualified counselors & relationship experts to conduct talks on a regular basis. A CSR project, we donate all proceeds to charities. Do come and join us sometime.

　　Merry Christmas. May you find what you seek in 2016 !