好 我们到第六周了 最后一周课了 Okay here we are at week 6. The very last week of our course.
这周我们要快一点 This week we are going to get on a bit of a rump.
我们要看看逻辑谬论 We are going to look at fallacies.
逻辑谬论是看起来像好论点的不好论点 Fallacies are bad arguments that look like good argument
并且可能很容易弄混 and can easily be confused of them.
我们开始吧 照例回顾一下上周 Okay lets get started. Just a recap of last week as always.
如果你记得我们看演绎论点的完好 If you remember we looked at deductive arguments sound.
什么使论点有效 And what makes an argument valid.
只是一个快速的提示 So just a quick reminder for you.
论点在这种情况下能够完好吗 Would the argument be sound in this situation,
有效但是有假前提 where it's valid but has false premises.
如果你认为这完好的话就举手 Put your hand up if you think that's sound.
这是个有效的论点但是有假前提 So it's a valid argument but has false premises. Okay
如果是无效论点有假前提呢? what about if it is an invalid argument with false premises.
不是 如果无效论点有真前提呢? Nope. What if it's an invalid argument with true premises?
有效论点有真前提 And valid argument with true premises
学生:好 Student: yes
教授:很好 Prof: yep well done.
如果是有效论点才会完好 It's only sound if it's a valid argument
他有真前提 and it has true premises.
这是前提必须为真并且有效 And that all it's premises must be true and its valid, well done
这里是复杂的地方 Okay now here's a tricky the questions is
问题是论点为真 could the argument be valid
但他有假前提和假结论? it has got false premises and a false conclusion?
学生:(无声) Student: inaudible
教授:这可能有效 很好 可能无效吗? Prof: it could be valid well done. Could it be invalid?
学生:(无声) Student: inaudible
教授:很好 可能无效吗? Prof: good well done. Could it be invalid?
学生:是的 Student: yes
教授:好 Prof: well done. Good. Okay
如果有假前提和真结论 what if it has false premises and true conclusion
可能有效吗?这次举手 could it be valid? Put your hand up this time.
假前提和真结论 可能有效吗? False premises and a true conclusion, could it be valid?
没有举手的那些 Those of you without your hand up,
意味着你们不知道?好 could it mean that you don't know? Okay.
如果有真前提和真结论呢? What about if its got true premises and a true conclusion?
可能有效吗? Could it be valid then?
学生:(无声) Student: inaudible
教授:好 可能无效吗? Prof: okay. Could it be invalid then?
学生:不会 Student: No
教授:哦 可能会的! Prof: OH Yes it could!
只有一种情况他会无效 There's only one situation in which it couldn't be valid.
只有一种情况它会无效 Only one situation when it couldn't be valid.
就是这个 And that's this one.
如果有真前提和假结论 If it's could true premises and a false conclusion
它就不可能有效 否则就可能有效 it couldn't be valid. Otherwise it could be.
可能有效 也可能无效 It could either be valid or invalid.
原因是因为论点有效 And the reason for that because an argument is valid
如果且仅如果没有可能情况 If and only if there are no possible situation in which
所有的前提都为真结论为假 all its premises are true and its conclusion false.
所以这对于论点有效性是充分条件 So it's a sufficient condition for an argument being valid that
没有可能前提为真 there is no possible situation where the premises are true
结论为假 这是必要条件 and the conclusion false. And that's a necessary condition too.
就像你记得上周我说了两件事 As you remember last week I said two things
你们要记住的 that you got to remember.
一件是可能性而不是真实性 One is that the possibility not the actuality of
真前提和假结论的结合 the combination of true premises and false conclusion
这是很重要的 另外一点是 that's important. And the other is the combination of
真前提和假结论的结合是很重要的 the true premises and false conclusion that is important.
好 给你们另一个测试 这是有效性的测试 Okay I gave you another test. That was one test of validity
另一个是有效论点中 and another test I gave you was in the argument is valid
如果且仅如果这是不一致的反例 if and only is it's counterexample set is inconsistent.
反例是包含 And the counterexample set is the set consisting of
前提和结论的否定 the premises plus the negation of the conclusion,
所以星期五Marianne穿牛仔裤 so it's Friday Marianne is wearing jeans.
星期五Marianne穿牛仔裤 It is Friday so Marianne is jeans,
这是个论点如果你拿到结论 that's an argument if you take the conclusion,
Marianne穿着牛仔裤并否定它 你们得到 Marianne is wearing jeans and negate it, so you got
这不是Marianne穿着牛仔裤 it's not the case that Marianne's wearing jeans.
那么反例成为了 Then the counterexample set then becomes
这是星期五Marianne穿着牛仔裤 if its Friday Marianne's wearing jeans.
Marianne穿着牛仔裤 那么就不是这样 Marianne is wearing jeans then it's not the case, okay um
我忘了前提和结论是什么 I forgot what the premise and the conclusion were.
这是周五Marianne没有穿牛仔裤 It is Friday and it's not the case Marianne is wearing jeans.
这是反例 Is the counter example set.
现在这能一致吗? Now this again, can that be consistent.
这些句子同时为真 Can all these sentences be true together.
如果这是星期五 Marianne穿着牛仔裤 If it's Friday Marianne's wearing jeans.
这是星期五 Marianne穿着牛仔裤 It is Friday it's not the case Marianne is wearing jeans.
这能同时为真吗? Could those be true together?
学生:不 Student: no
教授:不能 不是吗? Prof: no they couldn't could they?
这显示了原论点为真 And that shows that the original argument is valid and
这显示了不可能 it shows there is no possible situation where
前提为真结论为假 the premises are true and the conclusion is false
因为由前提 because the set consisting of the premises and
和结论的否定的组成不是一致的 the negation of the conclusion is inconsistent.
换言之 不可能有情况 In other words there is no possible situation
他们都同时为真 这也是为什么测试有效 where they are all true together. That's why that test works.
我说有两个测试 So okay and I said there were two test that
你能理解有效性的定义 you would understand the concept of validity
一旦你们理解 once you've understood
首先暗含的悖论 然后为什么有用 firstly the paradoxesof entailments and secondly why this works.
如果你理解为什么这有用 你们就明白了 If you understand why this works your getting there,
如果你理解暗含的悖论 if you understand the paradoxes of entailment
是有效论点 你们就明白 are valid arguments you'll see why,
你们理解了有效性的概念 you've understood the concept of validity. Okay,
我能明白 仍然有人担心 I can see there still people worrying about
有效性的论概念 如果有问答时间 the concept of validity if there are time for questions
我们要看看你们可能的问题 we'll look at the questions you might have then,
但是我们今天必须继续 我恐怕 but we must go on today I am afraid
我们必须继续 so we'll move straight on.
这周我们要看看 普通谬论 This week we'll be looking at common fallacies.
谬论是看起来像好论点的论点 A fallacy is an argument that looks like a good argument,
很可能被误解为好论点 can easily be mistaken for a good argument,
但不是好论点 but isn't a good argument.
你们不会相信有多少谬论 And you won't believe how many fallacies there are.
谬论是你们可以认出并解释 Fallacies that you can just identify and explain
他们是谬论为什么看起来 they are fallacies why they look as if
是好论点但实际上不是 they are good arguments and they are not.
但是我列出了所有谬论的清单 But I've listed a whole list of fallacies
我从网站上看到的 之前提到过 that I've taken from a website that I've mentioned on the top.
我想有四页的谬误 And there are I think four pages of fallacies or something
他们都在里面 and they are all in.
很抱歉印的很小 I apologize for the smallness of the print but
如果印大一点 他们不让影印 they wouldn't let me photo copy it if I put it any larger.
我只能指出最主要的谬论 And I would just like to point out one fallacy at the top-Um
我没带眼镜 no I don't have my glasses on.
它说请注意 It says something like please note
第八页上快速谈话的论点告诉你们 the argument of fast talking on page 8 that tells you
如果有人说得很快 你们没有机会 if somebody talks fast you haven't gotten the chance
自己找出是否 to work out for yourself whether
前提为真 结论有效 the premises are true and the conclusion is valid.
我想指出通过这些想法 And I would like to point out I through these ideas and
有些情况下这些讲座 these lectures so quickly in some cases that
不可能有时间停下思考 there's no way you had time to stop and think about them as
我谈过你们可能说整个这些讲座 I've been talking so you could say the whole of these lectures
是一个巨大的快速谈话的谬论 have been a giant fallacy of fast talking.
我保证这不是 如果你回去看我说的 I promise it's not. If you go back and consider what I've said,
他们都在音频上 你们能回去 and they all will be on podcast, you'll be able to go back and
听听我说的 listen to what I have said again.
你们能理解我所有的错误 You'll be able to listen to all my mistakes as well as
和我说的正确的方面 the things I have said correctly.
我希望我们认出我所有的错误 I hope we've identified all my mistakes as we have gone through,
但是这会给你们时间来想我说过的 but that'll give you time to think about what I have said
自己想明白 and work it out yourself.
实际上没人能教人做任何事 Actually nobody can teach anybody anything
你们能从我说的当中学到 我不能做什么 you can learn from what I say, there is nothing I can do
来是你们理解有效性的概念 to make you understand the concept of validity.
你们得自己努力去想 You've got to put that effort in yourself.
我保证的是 One thing I will promise you though
如果自己努力去想了 就会明白 if you do put that effort in you will understand.
如果你们努力了仍然不明白 给我发电邮 If you still don't after putting a lot of effort in, email me
我会给你们一对一指导 and I'll give you a tutorial all on your own because
因为如果你看见了就很容易理解 it really is easy to understand once you've seen it.
这是一个看起来 and it really is a question of looking at it
有点不同的问题 你们会明白 a slightly different way and you'll see it,
这是一个很恼人的问题 it's rather one of those irritating things
从你们学校的记忆中 you'll remember from school.
快速谈话的谬论 So the fallacy of fast talking,
谬论的清单是供你们娱乐的 and the list of fallacies are down there just for you amusement
这里有个谬论 演绎的有效论点 Okay here's a fallacy, well deductively valid argument
有谬论看起来像 and here's a fallacy that looks like it.
这有个三段论的例子 你们之前看过 here's an example of modus pollen, you've come across before.
我想你们能同意 这些为真这个为假吗? I think you can agree. Could these be true and this one false?
如果这两个为真 这个能为假吗?完全不能 If these two are true could this be false? No absolutely not.
如果你否认结论 把所以拿掉 那么 So if you negate that conclusion and took away the therefore,
如果你否认结论 这就不一致了 if you negated that conclusion the set would be inconsistent
不是吗?这显示这是一个有效论点 wouldn't it? and that shows you that that's a valid argument.
你们希望我们做什么? Would you like us to do that there?
我们看看反例 We can look at the counter example set,
如果在下雪 送信就会晚 if it is snowing the mail will be late,
现在在下雪 送信就会晚 it is snowing the mail will be late.
我们要攻击一下 并不是这样 And we are going to tack on that it's not the case that,
这只是一个象征 这是他的意思 which is just that symbol there. That's what that means,
不是这样 我们有了反例 it's not the case that, so we've got the set,
如果下雪送信就会晚 现在下雪了 if it's snowing the mail will be late, it is snowing,
送信不会晚 it's not the case that the mail will be late.
你们同意这不一致吗? Do you agree that that's inconsistent that
没有可能情境 there are no possible situation which
所有那三个句子同时为真 all those three sentences can be true together.
好 如果没有可能情境 Okay if there's no possible situations in which
那三个句子同时为真 those three sentences can be true together
那么有前提组成的 then the set consisting of the premises plus the.
不是 没有可能情境 No sorry there are no possible situation where
前提为真结论为假 不是吗? the premises are true and the conclusion false. Is there?
这是反例 That's what the counter set example is.
前提是结论的否定 The premises just as they are and the negation of the conclusion
这是为什么测试有用 看看这个吧 that's why that test works. Look at this one.
如果下雪 送信就会晚 送信晚了 If it's snowing the mail will be late the mail will be late
所以在下雪 我们来创造一个反例 therefore it is snowing. Let's create the counter set of that.
好 告诉我要写谁 Okay tell me what to write somebody.
学生:(无声) Student: inaudible
教授:如果在下雪 送信就会晚 Prof: if it's snowing the mail will be late.
下一步写什么呢? What do I write next?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:送信就会晚 Prof: The mail will be late.
不 我们没有所以这个词 No we don't put the therefore
因为我们在创造反例 because we're creating the counter example set now.
我们只是造几个句子 We're just making a set of sentences.
所以我写的是现在在下雪 然后怎么办呢? So I am putting it is snowing and then what do I do?
我在前面写上否定的标志 I put the negation sign in front of that.
这不是下雪的时候 That it's not the case that it's snowing.
现在我们有前提组成的 So now we've got the set consisting of the premises just as
加上我们假装结论为假 they are plus we are pretending the conclusion is false.
我们加上不是这样 So we're putting that it's not the case,
假装结论为假 pretending that the conclusion standing is false.
这些句子能同时为真吗? Could these sentences be true together?
有没有可能 Is there a possible situation where
所有这些句子都为真? all these possible sentences are true?
如果在下雪 送信就会晚 Where if it's snowing the mail will be late,
送信晚了 但是没有下雪 the mail is late but it's not snowing.
学生:对 Student: yes
教授:对 给我几个例子 Prof: yes, give me couple.
学生:如果邮政罢工 Student: if there's a postal strike
教授:如果邮政罢工 很好 Prof: if there's a postal strike yes exactly. I think so.
再给我一个 Give me another one if you think of one.
学生:(无声) Student: inaudible
教授:邮政车坏了 Prof: The mail van's broken down.
所有这些情境 So there are all sort of situation
两个前提为真 where these two premises are true and
结论的否定也为真 so is the negation of the conclusion.
所以很显然 有多于一种可能情境 Therefore it's obvious there are more than
其中前提为真 one possible situation in where the premises are true and
结论为假 所以创造反例 the conclusion is false. So making a counter example set
使你能思考情境 enables you to think about situations
其中前提为真结论为假 where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
这是他告诉你结论是否有效 And that's what tells you whether the argument is valid or not
这是演绎有效的论点 这是一个谬论 So this is a deductively valid argument and this is a fallacy.
这是肯定结果的谬论 This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
你们获得条件的结果 You take the consequent of the conditional
而不是前提你们把那作为第二前提 instead of the antecedent and you put that as the second premise
源自前提而不是结果 and derive the antecedent instead of the consequent
这不管用 你们能看到 and it doesn't work. As you can see,
这是正式的谬论 so that's the formal fallacy we're going to
我们要看一些不正式的谬论 look at fallacies informally some of the fallacies that
我们要看一些实际上正式的谬论 we're going to look at are actually formal fallacies.
但我不会谈得太正式 But I'll talk about them informally
因为方便你们理解 好 because it's just easy for you to understand. Okay
我们来看看三种谬论 we're going to look at three types of fallacies;
相关性谬论 空白性谬论和清晰性谬论 fallacy of relevance, fallacy of vacuity, and fallacy of clarity
即使那样我们也只是学点皮毛 And even then we're just skimming the surface.
我们来看看相关性谬论 Okay let's look at fallacies of relevance.
首先是不当结论 The first one is a non-sequitur.
你会做出不当结论型谬论 You commit a fallacy of non sequitur when
当你采用支持结论 you site in support of a conclusion something
为真而不相关的时候 that's true but irrelevant.
所以你采用并支持结论 So you site and support of a conclusion,
其中一个前提为真 很好 one of your premises is true so that's fine
但是与结论不相关 but it's irrelevant to the conclusion.
现在你可能有点担心这个 Now you might be a bit worried about this
但是让我给你们一些不当结论的例子 but let me just give you examples of non sequiturs
这些都是明显的不当结论 that are obvious that they are non sequiturs.
比尔住在一栋大楼里 所以他的公寓就大 Bill lives in a large building therefore his apartment is large.
有没有可能前提为真 Is there any situation where this premise is true
结论为假呢? and this conclusion is false?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:有很多 你们可能住在大楼里 Prof: 100s of them, yea. You may live in a large building
但是他的公寓可能比壁橱还小 but his apartment may be no bigger than a broom cupboard.
所以你们看到这不是有效论点 So you see that isn't a valid argument the reason
因为前提 没关系 because is that the premise-it doesn't matter
前提有多真 how true the premise is,
完全与结论无关 不是吗? it's completely irrelevant to the conclusion isn't it?
你不能让结论的真理 you cannot derive the truth of the conclusion
源自结论的真理 from the truth of that premise.
我打赌你们在想 I bet you are thinking
那些暗含的谬论是什么 what about those paradoxes of entailment then.
当然这是无关的范例 Surely that was a case of a paradigmatic case of irrelevance.
你们记得我说草是绿的所以2+2=4 You remember I had grass is green, therefore 2+2=4.
当然前提与结论无关 Surely that premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.
但是我再问问 有没有可能 But let me ask again, is there any possible situation
前提为真结论为假 where that premise is true and that conclusion is false.
有没有可能的情境 Is there any possible situation where
前提为真结论为假 that premise is true and that conclusion false?
学生:没有 Student: no
教授:对 没有 但是为什么呢? Prof: You're right. There isn't but why isn't there?
我们看这个前提可能为真 We saw here that this premise can be true and
结论为假 不是吗?这不是问题 that conclusion false can't we? That's not a problem,
这是个不当结论导致的无关谬论 that is a non-sequitur commits the fallacy of irrelevance.
但是这没有吗? But doesn't this one do that？
学生:首先结论不依赖于前提 Student: first the conclusion isn't dependent on the premise
教授:也没有这个 Prof: well neither does that one.
好 这个有什么错呢? Well that's what's wrong with this one.
这个前提和结论完全 This premise and the conclusion are completely
相互无关 不是吗? irrelevant to each other. Aren't they?
为什么这不是问题呢? Why is it not a problem with this one?
学生:结论必须为真 Student: the conclusion is necessarily true.
教授:结论必须为真 这是对的 Prof: The conclusion is necessarily true. That's right.
原因是这是悖论 The reason that this is a paradox is that
前提完全与结论无关 the premise is completely irrelevant to the conclusion
但是它满足了有效性的定义 but it satisfies the definition of validity
因为不可能有情境 because there can't be any possible situation
前提为真结论为假 where the premise are true and the conclusion false.
如果没有可能情境 If there isn't any possible situation
结论为假 where the conclusion is false.
如果Q不为真 P和Q怎么可能为真 How can P and Q be true if Q isn't true.
如果Q必须为假 P和Q怎么能为真? If Q Is necessarily false how can P and Q be true.
P的真实性变得无关紧要了 不是吗? The truth of P just becomes irrelevant doesn't it?
P的真实性不是必须的 你们能跟上吗? the truth of P is just unnecessary. Are you with me?
我看见大家若有所得 I am seeing lights sort of going on here
但是很困难 不是吗? but it's difficult isn't is? Okay
因此 这是不当结论型谬误 而那个不是 this commits the-this is a non sequitur where that's not.
这是暗含的悖论 That's the case of a paradox of entailment.
也是他们之间的不同 And the difference between them is that
2+2=4是必要真理 two plus two equals four is a necessary truth,
这不能为假 所以怎么可能前提为真 it cannot be false so how can the premise be true and
结论为假但是如果他不能这样 the conclusion false but if it can't be the case
前提为真结论为假 where the premise is true and the conclusion false then
那么这满足了有效性的概念 但是这没有 it satisfies the definition of validity. Whereas this doesn't.
好 这里有另一个不当结论 okay here's another non sequitur.
每年有许多人通过他们的生活支持 Every year many people are supported by their lives
通过他们的宗教信仰 by their religious believes,
所以宗教信仰肯定为真 so their religious believes must be true.
这前提支持结论吗? So does that premise give any support to that conclusion?
学生:不 Student: no
教授:不 我是说可能你们的宗教信仰 Prof: No. I mean perhaps your religious believes
帮助你们过着好生活 do help you live a really good life,
你们满意的生活 a life that is satisfying to you.
但是这不必须意味着他们为真 But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are true
最大的假信仰是如果你相信 the biggest false believes is that if you believe
假信仰为真 他们会给你一切 false believes are true they will give you everything
如果为真的话 如果你们明白我的意思 they would if they were true. If you see what I mean.
这是两个不当结论 So those are two non sequiturs.
我们能看到为什么不当结论是无效论点 And we can see why a non sequitur is an invalid argument.
我们能很容易得出前提为真 There is easily situations where that's true and
而结论为假的状况 因此这个论点是无效的 that's false therefore it's not valid.
同样的 前提的真实性与结论的真实性无关 Again the truth of that bears no relation to the truth of that
所以两个论点无效 so the two arguments are not valid.
好 这样的论点怎样运作呢 Okay so how does arguments like this works.
其中一件事是看到 One of the things we're got to see is that
我们永远陷入谬论 我是说我们没有正确论证 we're forever falling for fallacies I mean we argue incorrectly
要么创造谬论 我们自身谬误地论证 we either make fallacies, we argue fallaciously ourselves.
或者我们陷入其他人提供的谬论 Or we fall for the fallacies that other people offer us.
我说过清晰度的准则吗? Have I talked to you about the principle of charity?
清晰度准则告诉你们 The principle of charity tells you that
与其断定你的交谈者太愚蠢 your interlocutor silliness is
不如考虑是不是自己对于对方的理解太糟糕 less likely than your bad interpretation.
好 这意味着什么 你叫什么 Okay what does that mean. Okay what's your name.
我在想你前面戴着漂亮项链的那位 I was thinking of the lady in the front with the nice necklace,
你可能也有漂亮的项链 好 Margaret you probably got a nice necklace too. Okay Margaret.
Margaret和我争论 Margaret and I arguing.
Mararet说我认为显然很傻的问题 Margaret says something that I think is blindly obviously stupid
不 我能想出两种可能性 No I can think two possibilities.
Mararet说一些显然很傻的问题 Margaret said something blindly obviously stupid,
我不再给她讲了 I am not going to talk to her anymore,
她显然不值得 she's obviously not worth talking to
因为她说非P 当然P很明显 because she said not P where surely P is obvious.
现在清晰性规则告诉我那样 Now what the principle of charity tells me to do in that case
就是说它很有趣 Margaret说非P is to say that's interesting Margaret says not P
我想非P肯定为假 I think not P is definitely false,
所以我肯定误解了Margaret therefore I must have misunderstood Margaret
因为不太可能是她傻 because her silliness is far less likely than
而更可能是我对她论点的误解 能跟上吗? my misunderstanding of her argument. Are you with me?
学生:能 Student: yes
教授:所以不说Margaret Prof: So instead of saying to Margaret
"哈哈 你肯定在开玩笑 "hah you must be joking-
你怎么能这么傻呢之类的" how stupid can you get or anything like that"
或者对自己说"哦哈哈 对 谢谢 or saying to myself "oh ha-ha yea okay, thanks
Margaret很高兴见到你 然后走下去" Margaret nice to see you- and then walking off"
我对Margaret说 I say to Margaret
"那很有趣 你认为非P我认为P "That's interesting you think not P and I think P,
为什么你认为是非P?"你们给我理由 why do you think not P?" you give me your reasons
我给你们我认为P的理由 I give you my reasons for thinking is P and
我们有一个合适的论点 发现实际上P we have a proper argument and we discover actually P
和非P并不属于不一致的情况 and not P not in this case inconsistent.
所以我们都有一点误解 So we both got a slight misunderstanding.
我来给你们一个例子 Let me give you an example.
我不知道为什么我用这个例子 I don't why I use this example
但是我经常这样做 我再做一次 but I always do so I am going to do it again.
一个笼子里的两只老鼠 他们来自不同的笼子 Two rats from a cage they both come from different cages
和那些笼子中的一个 and one of those cages,
其中一只老鼠被电击 one of the rats was given an electric shock
每次都发出声音 every time a sound was made.
给予食物小球的老鼠也发出同样的声音 The same sound resulted in the rat being given a food pellet.
所以试验完成 So the experiment is finished and
现在他们被放在同一个笼子里 now they have been put in the same cage
发出了声音 and the sound happens,
一只老鼠跑到笼子角落 one rat is going to rush in the corner of the cage
等待一次电击 waiting for an electric shock and
另一只老鼠跑到食碗处 the other rat is going to rush into the food bowl
寻找食物小球 不是吗? looking for food pellet isn't?
然后他们互相看看 说"你疯了" and then they look at each other saying "you're mad"
你知道为什么我做了那些? you know why have you done that?
如果它们互相看对方 If they were talking to each other-
这是为什么我不知道为什么我用这个例子 this is why I don't know why I use this example-
如果他们能互相交谈 if they were able to talk to each other,
他们会发现 they would then discover-
实际上他们都过于归纳了 不是吗? actually they both over generalized didn't they?
因为一个的经验和 Because one's experience was whenever that then this
另一个的经验 and the other rat's experience was whenever that, that.
他们假设这是所有的经验 They assumed that that's all the experience
在这个世界上的 there were in the world.
实际上他们有两个反例 And in fact they got two counter example to that.
一个是他们在笼子里 声音传不出 One is that they are in a cage where the sound goes off
什么都没发生 and nothing happens and the other if there are
另一个是如果世界上有地方 完全不同的事发生 places in the world where something completely different happens
只有如果它们谈论的时候 他们会考虑 And only if they talk about it they will discover that.
所议论政事 So arguing is the lifeblood for
合作寻找真理的生命 cooperating in the search of the truth.
如果你想知道真理是什么 If you want to know what the truth is
你想和其他理性动物合作 you want to cooperate with other rational animals,
换言之 其他像我们一样的人 in other words, other people like us,
如果你发现 这是个矛盾 and if you find that-there's a contradiction-
不要假设另一个是错的 don't assume the other is wrong
因为唯一理性的判断是 because the only rational thing to assume
你们中只有一个是错的 而即使这个结论也可能为假 is that only one of you is wrong and even that might be false
当然很可能错的人是你 But it certainly might be you.
你们看到的清晰性的规则 And the principle of charity you observe
当你们为了不做非理性的事而争论时 when you argue in order not to do the irrational thing
并假设另一个人错了 and to assume the other person is wrong rather than
而不是假设你误解了他们 assume that you have misunderstood them.
好 这是清晰性规则 Okay that's what the principle of charity is
这里的情形是 这种不当结论的情形是 what happens in this case, in the case of non sequiturs is
清晰性规则可能把你带到错误的地方 the principle of charity can get you into the wrong place,
因为你可能不会注意可能的无关性 because you might not notice the irrelevance and that can happen
比如说一个大公寓 你可能想到大楼 For example large apartment, large building you might think
两个最大的可能使他们相关 the two largest there might make it relevant and
让论点明确 let the argument go through.
这种想法不对 但也许可以理解 You wouldn't be right to do that but maybe is understandable.
但有时候当人们争论时 你可能会想 But sometimes when people are arguing you might think-
好 等等 这肯定相关 但是他不可能 okay hang on sure that was relevant but it can't have been
因为理性的Margaret不会让这个论点变得无关 because Margaret is too rational to allow the irrelevance to go through
在看像这样的不当结论时 或者 你可能想 and non sequitur like that or you might just want to-
不要承认你不能看到联系 not admit that you can't see the connection.
所以要做的事 A注意 So the thing to do is A be aware that
应该在每个谈话中 there should be in just about any conversation
隐含的在 the implication is that there is a connection
前提和结论之间都有联系 between the premises and the conclusion like the sea has salt,
就像海是咸的 墨尔本在澳大利亚 我给你们语境 Melvin is in Australia and I gave you the context
你们能看到联系 you can see the connection.
所以如果你看不到联系 去寻找 So if you can't see the connection, ask for it.
所以不要太宽容 so don't be too generous
因为有可能 because it is possible
这个人是在提出一个不当结论 this person is putting forth a non sequitur.
当然不会以寻找关联为傲 And certainly don't be too proud to ask for the relevance
如果你不明白 好 这里 if you can't see it. okay here's the-
这是第二个相关性谬论 this is the second fallacy of relevance.
第二个是攻击那个人 So the second one is attacking the person-
我们看的第二个 the second one we're looking at and
有更多内容 there's many more than this.
你可以攻击那个人 做出论点 You may attack the person making the argument rather than
而不是之前做过的 the argument that is being made.
这叫做个人偏好谬论 And this called the ad hominem fallacy.
你们可能听过 米勒帮 And you may have heard- miller band-
今天说的 他和谁谈话? on the today program talking about-who was he talking to?
他和William Hague谈话 He was talking to William Hague.
他假设William Hague是一个个人偏好谬论 And he accused William Hague of an ad hominem fallacy.
你们说你们反对那个人的论点 You said your arguing against the man and
不是反对论点 not against the argument and
你们使那个人停下 而不是牛 you're stopping the man and not the bull.
这是个很好的例子 It was a very good example.
这是个个人偏好论点 Okay here's an Ad hominem fallacy.
Nick Griffin是BNP的领导 所以他的宣称 Nick Griffin is leader of the BNP therefore his claim that
有些人担心移民是垃圾 some people worry about immigration is rubbish.
我实际上听过这个曾经很强的谬论 在问答时间明白了 I actually heard that fallacy loud and learn on question time.
我想你们也一样 I am sure you did too.
事实的真理 Nick Griffin Does the truth of the fact that Nick griffin
是BNP的领导 is a leader of the BNP bear at all on the claim and
是出在有些人担心移民的宣称上? the truth of the claim that some people worry about immigration?
这可以是Nick Griffin是BNP的领导 Could it be the case that Nick griffin is the leader of the BNP
并且有些人担心移民? and some people worry about immigration?
学生:是 Student: yes
教授:当然可以 不是吗? Prof: off course it could, couldn't it? Okay
这是另一个Von Daniken 你们可能记得 here's another one Von Daniken, you may not even remember him.
他写过关于从宇宙而来的人 He wrote books about people coming from space
建造金字塔 and building the pyramids.
他关于古代宇航员的书毫无价值 His books about ancient astronauts are worthless
因为他相信伪造和迷惘 because he is convicted of forger and embezzlement.
他是实际上一个信服的伪造者和迷惘者 Okay he is actually a convicted forger and embezzler
但是这意味着他的书毫无价值吗? but does that mean his books are worthless?
学生:不 Student: no
教授:这个前提为真 Prof: so could this premise be true and
结论为假有可能吗?是的 this conclusion false? Yes.
前提为真结论为假可能吗? Could this premise be true and the conclusion false?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:所以论点是无价值的 不是吗? Prof: so the argument is useless aren't they?
他们都是无效的 有可能的情境 They are both invalid there are possible situation
前提为真结论为假 where the premise is true and the conclusion false
他们都不是好论点 they are not good arguments.
这是很重要的 当考虑个人偏好谬论的时候 It's very important when thinking about ad hominem fallacies
来区别个人偏好攻击 to distinguish between ad hominem attacks
和个人偏好谬论 and ad hominem fallacies.
他们的不同是 And the difference between them is this,
你可以攻击某人说什么的权利 you can attack somebody's right to say something,
所以你可以攻击说为什么他们说 so you can cast out on saying why they are saying of
他们说的 what they are saying by saying something
关于谁的 你们不能做的 about who they are what you can't do
是攻击他们说的真理 is cast out on the truth of what they are saying.
这在两者间是不同的 That's the difference between the two,
这是个人偏好攻击 here's an ad hominem attack:
Nick Griffin是一个种族主义者 Nick Griffin is a self-professed racist,
所以你们应该小心 so you should take care
当听到关于移民的宣称时 when listening to claims about immigration.
现在这看起来有道理 不是吗? Now that's just seems sensible doesn't it?
这是个人偏好攻击 这不是谬论 that's an ad hominem attack, that's not a fallacy at all.
你们做的就是警告人们 All you're doing is warning somebody that
这个人有兴趣让你们相信什么 this person has a vested interest making you believe something.
所以你们应该把这些论点再加一点盐 so you should take his claims with a extra pinch of salt.
但是这没说任何关于宣称真理的事 But it doesn't say anything about the truth of the claim.
这是唯一一件 Here the only thing that says anything
说任何关于宣称真理的事 about the truth of the claim is that
你们应该注意宣称真理 you should be aware of the truth of the claim
因为这个人想让你们相信 because this person wants you to believe that and
这当然不是一个相信的好理由 that off course is not a good enough reason for believing it.
Nick Griffin是BNP的领导 Nick griffin is the leader of BNP
这是为什么有些人担心移民是垃圾 that's why some people worry about immigration is rubbish
因为这是谬论 because that is a fallacy.
如果你攻击一个人 而不是他的话 If you attack a person instead of what he says and
你对他的攻击实际上是无关于 your attack of that person is actually irrelevant
他说的真理 to the truth of what he says.
换言之 你的攻击可能是个正确的攻击 In other words you attack might be a correct attack,
对于这个人你们没说错 you're not saying something false about this person
但是你们说的真理没有边界 but the truth of what your saying has no barrier at all
关于他所说的 是个谬论 to what he is saying, that's a fallacy.
你们能说的是警告某人 What you could be saying is warning somebody.
我又忘了你的名字 So I forgot your name again.
所以Ashley来找我说 So Ashley comes to me and says so and so came and said
咖啡在休息室 我说 the coffee is ready in the common room and I say,
是的 我知道为什么他告诉你 是因为 yes I know why he told you that that's because
他希望每个人都先去休息室 he likes everyone to go to the common room first and
发现咖啡已经 them discover that the coffee is actually
在楼上做好了 being served upstairs today.
然后他拿走所有的巧克力饼干 So then he gets all the chocolate biscuits.
我是说当我那样做的时候 I mean that when I am doing that,
我给她一个理由 为什么他说 I am giving her a reason for why he said that
这实际上建立在说过的真理上 something it doesn't actually bear on the truth of what's said
但是这是很好的理由 but it's a good reason for what-
来怀疑休息室的咖啡做好了 to be skeptical of the coffee being in the common room.
你可能像和某人检查一下 You may want to check with someone else
休息室的咖啡是否做好了 whether the coffee is in the common room
可能在你去那之前 before you went there perhaps.
或者你不会从你房子下来 Or you wouldn't come down from your house
到休息室取咖啡 to get the coffee from the common room.
在此基础上 Ashley说或者这个人说 On the bases of what Ashley said or what this person says.
这是个人偏好攻击的不同 So that's the difference between ad hominem attack,
我不知道这是否回答了你的问题 I don't know if that answered your question.
个人偏好是攻击某人 An ad hominem is an attack on the person
使论点不在已做论点之上 making the argument not on the argument that he is making.
所以即使攻击是合理的 And therefore even if the attack is justified
也不会问及论点本身 it doesn't question the argument itself.
那些是相关性的谬论 So those with fallacies of relevance,
我们继续讲空百性谬论 moving on to fallacies of vacuity.
首先是循环论点 The first one is circular argument
我们会看到 what we're going to be looking at and what you're-
当你们在一个循环中争论的时候 when you argue in a circle you cite in support of
你们采用支持论点的 所以你们的前提 a conclusion that very conclusion. So your premise-
你们的论点是在前提之间的 your conclusion is amongst your premises here.
第二个谬论是我们这里看的是 Second fallacy we're looking at here is
求问题的谬论 the fallacy of question begging and
第三是自我封闭论点 the thirdly is self sealing argument.
我们来看看循环论点然后回来 Let's look at circular argument and come back
再看看这些 and look at these again.
循环论点的结论是前提之一 A circular argument the conclusion is one of the premises
那和求问题之间的不同 and the difference between that and a question begging argument
是我们在看的结论 is that here we're looking at the conclusion is
实际上是前提之一 是同一件事 actually one of the premises and exactly the same thing.
第二件事是结论 And the second is the conclusion is assumed
由前提之一假设得来 所以你们没有得到结论 by one of the premises, so you haven't actually got a conclusion
在前提中但是你们在前提中 amongst the premises but you've got amongst the premises
一个前提假设的结论 a premise that assumed the conclusion.
这里有个循环论点的例子 So here's an example of a circular argument:
所有的鲸都是哺乳动物 所以所有的鲸都是哺乳动物 All whales are mammals, therefore all whales are mammals.
这个论点有效吗? Now is that argument valid?
学生:是 Student: yes
教授:好 你们对了 有效 Prof: well done, you're absolutely right. It's valid.
循环论点都有效 All circular arguments are valid.
如果前提和结论是同一件事 How can there be a possible situation where that's true
和家的东西是同一件事呢? and that's false if they are the same thing?
如果这为真 那么那就为真 对吗? If that's true then that's got to be true hasn't it?
没有可能这为真所以那为假 there's no possible situation where that's true and
所以 论点有效 that's false therefore, that argument is valid.
所以循环论点都有效 So circular argument is always valid and
告诉你们 好论点 what tells you is that there got to be more
比为真有更多要有的 to a good argument than validity.
有更多的前提 And what's more of premises,
因为这实际上也是真前提 because that is actually a true premise as well.
所以这是个完好的论点 但这不是很好 不是吗? So that's a sound argument but it's not very good is it?
这不会说服任何人任何事 it wouldn't convince anybody of anything.
但是你们记得上周我自己 But do you remember last week I got myself
绕进一个三角中 试图画真值表 in a bit of a tangle trying to draw truth tables in here
说服你们曾经有前提 and convince you that once you've got a premise-
一旦你们在前提里得到结论 once you've got a conclusion in amongst the premises-
不管你们加什么 论点还是有效 it doesn't matter what you add to the argument it remains valid.
这叫做暗含的单调性 This is called the monotonic property of entailment.
如果我加很多其他的前提 If I add a lot of other premises to that
循环性不如现在明显 the circularity of that will not be as obvious as it is now.
会吗?但是你们是敏锐的侦探 Will it? but you are validity detectors, that's what you are.
你们是理性动物 所以学政治的人 You are rational animals, so somebody gets on politics
给出长而复杂的循环论点 and gives a circular argument that is long and combolluted
这是个有效论点 你们听到了 and so on it is a valid argument, and you hear that.
不可能前提为真 There's no possible situation where the premises are true
结论为假 但是你们不明白 and the conclusion false but what you don't see that
因为他循环 所以有效 it is only valid because it's circular.
你们明白了吗? Do you see how it happens?
没人会说出那样的论点 So nobody would put forward an argument like that.
但是如果他们把前提 But if they embed that premise –
抱歉 把结论放到前提里 I'm sorry, that conclusion in with the premises
他们建立起情境 不可能的情境 they set up a situation where there is no possible situation
所有的前提都为真 结论为假 where all the premises are true and the conclusion false.
这会怎样呢?无所谓 How could there be? It doesn't matter
有多少前提?如果所有前提都为真 how many premises are there if all the premises are true
结论肯定也为真 the conclusion must be true as well.
因为结论是前提之一 Because the conclusion is one of the premises.
循环前提都有效 Circular premises are always valid and
循环论点都完好 some circular arguments like this one is sound
这没使它们更好 这更有效 抱歉 that doesn't make them good. There is more to a valid- sorry-
好论点只是完好 good argument then just soundness.
在最终的分析中 论点的关键在于 In the final analysis the point of the argument is
说服某人相信某事 to persuade someone of something.
说服你如果你不相信P so persuade you if you don't believe P and
我相信P 我相信你应该相信 I believe in P and I think you should believe it.
我把它们放到同一个论点中 希望能说服你相信P I put together an argument in hopes of convincing you of P.
所以我想在论点中要更多 so what I want more than anything else in an argument
这应该是有说服力的 好 is that it should be persuasive. Okay.
但是我不想让他因为一些谬论更加有说服力 But I don't want it to be persuasive because of a fallacy
我实际上想让它成为更好的论点 I actually want it to be a good argument as well,
所以我想让他完好有效 so I want it to be sound and valid.
如果完好有效而且没有说服力 这是无用的 If it's sound and valid and not persuasive it's pretty useless
对于任何实际经验来说 for any practical practice.
所以你得不到和某人相同的富有成效的论点 So you can't have a productive argument with somebody
如果你不同意他们的话 if you don't agree with them.
谁能告诉我为什么可能这样呢? Can anyone tell me why that might be the case?
富有成效的不同取决于相同 Productive disagreement always depends on agreement.
这是为什么你要两方面 Which is why if you really got two sides that absolutely
完全不同 你可能忘记 disagrees with everything you might as well forget it.
为什么富有成效的不同取决于相同? why should productive disagreements depend on agreement?
我只能同意如果你接受我的前提 I can only agree with you if you accept my premises.
如果你接受我的前提 我不能从前提中找很多 If you get my premises I can't draw anything from those premises
来说服你 对吧? to convince you of anything can I?
我要说服你我前提之一 I have to convince you of one of my premises to even get started
当然我可能说 Off course what I might do is say
你能为这个论点接受一下这个吗? will you take this for the sake of the argument.
然后你看过论点 但是当然 And then take you through the argument but off course
如果你仍然不能接受前提 if you still don't accept the premise then really
那么你永远不会接受我论点的结论 对吗? you'll never accept the conclusion of my argument are you?
为了有成效地不同意 So in order for you to disagree on something productively
你要同意前提 所以这是循环论点 you have to agree in the premises. So that's a circular argument
这是有效的 但不够好 这不好 it's a valid one but no good. And it's no good
因为这不是可能情境 because there is no possible situation
前提为真结论为假 with the premises are true and the conclusion false
但是这是因为结论是在前提中的 but that's because the conclusion is amongst the premises.
好 我们看看求问题 Okay let's look at begging the question.
这有个论点 谋杀永远是错的 Here's an argument: It is always wrong to murder human beings.
死刑必然导致谋杀 Capital punishment involves murdering human beings.
所以 死刑是错的 Therefore, Capital punishment is wrong.
这个论点求什么问题? What's question begging about this argument?
对 Exactly.
这是谈论死刑 如果有谋杀 It is to talk about capital punishment as if it was murder,
假设死刑是谋杀 just to assume capital punishment is murder is
来假设结论 不是吗? to assume your conclusion isn't it?
很多人会说 死刑不是谋杀 most people would say capital punishment isn't murder
因为谋杀是非法杀害 because murder is illegal killing whereas
而死刑是合法杀害 capital punishment is legal killing.- judicial killing.
如果说死刑和 By talking as if capital punishment is
和谋杀是两个可以互换的概念 murdering human beings are interchangeable here,
你们实际上是在求问题 不是吗? you're actually begging the question aren't you?
你们在求问题 等等 You're begging the question-well hang on a second
为什么我应该相信死刑是错的 why should I believe capital punishment is wrong
在这两个前提的基础上 on the bases of these two premises
我不接受其中的一个 因为你只是假设 I don't accept that one at all because you're just assuming.
这是你的结论 能跟上吗? Your conclusion here are you with me?
当你们说一个论点是谬论的时候 When you say an argument is a fallacy
你们没必要说 you're not necessarily saying that
这是无效的 但是你们说 it's invalid but you are saying that
这有错 there is something wrong with it.
有些错 因为他没有说服性 something wrong with it as it's not persuasive
这不应该说服你 it shouldn't persuade you.
经常这样是因为他无效 但是不经常 Often that will be the case because it's invalid but not always.
当然循环性和求问题 Certainly with circularity and question begging.
不是这样的 好 还有问题吗? That isn't the case. Okay any other question? We'll move on.
求问题的前提在哪? Okay where are the question begging premises
在下面前提中的哪个? 好 我们看看 in each of the following premises? Okay let's do it-um
使人醉的酒应该被禁 Okay Intoxicating beverages should be banned
因为他们使人醉 because they make people drunk.
我们开始做成逻辑课本形式 Let's set out the argument logic book style before we do that.
我们可能需要一个隐含的前提 We might need a suppressed premise.
这里的论点是什么呢? So what is the argument here?
自己想想 然后举手 Think about it yourself and put your hand up
当你们得到逻辑课本形式 when you got the argument logic book style.
醉是不好 那些饮料 Yes being drunk is bad, something like that or beverages that
使人醉的也应该不好 make people drunk should be bad.
这可能是对的 That's probably the right one, beverages that
使人醉的饮料 应该是不好的 应该被禁 make people drunk should be bad-should be banned.
使人醉的饮料使人醉 Intoxicating beverages that make people drunk
应该被禁 所以使人醉的饮料应该被禁 should be band therefore intoxicating beverages should be banned
求什么问题?你们反对哪个前提? What's the question begging bit? Which premise would you reject?
你们可能有使人醉的饮料 You could have a beverage that's intoxicating
没有饮料 without having a beverage
可能使你醉的 that would make you drunk
因为使人醉的饮料实际上是一种饮料 because an intoxicating beverage is exactly an beverage
使你醉 不是吗? that make you drunk. Isn't it?
事实是你不会反对那个论点 the fact is you won't be able to reject that argument
因为这在它的前提中假设结论 because it's assuming its premises in its conclusion.
所以饮料是人们醉 应该被禁 So beverages that make people drunk should be band
使人醉的饮料使人醉 intoxicating beverages make people drunk
所以使人醉的饮料应该被禁 therefore intoxicating beverages should be banned.
这是有效论点 但是这不会说服你 It's a valid argument but it won't ever going to persuade you.
好 我们回来看这个 回来 Okay let's go back to this one. Let's go back to –
你们能看到吗?你们可能支持极刑 can you see that, you might be for capital punishment
或者反对 但是任何做成这个论点的人 or against it but anyone who made this argument
都明确反对极刑 不是吗? is clearly against capital punishment aren't they?
所以他们会做论点来 So they would be making the argument in order to
试图说服支持极刑的某人 try and persuade someone who is for capital punishment
或者支持两者中的一种 or mutual either way to agree with
同意极刑是错的 好吧? capital punishment is wrong, right? Okay
论点的问题是他们提供 and the problem with the argument they offer is that
这不会说服任何人没有 it won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced of
被论点说服 不是吗? 我可能说 the argument isn't it? I might say-
说我支持极刑 我可能说前提 say I am for capital punishment I might have said that premise,
我们的协议开始于我们达到 the starting point of our agreement but soon as
那点 我会说"噢 等等" we get to that one I will say "Oh wait hang on"
不 为什么我要接受呢 No, why should I accept that?
你在假设极刑作为前提 You're assuming that capital punishment is wrong
是错误的 in making that premise. You know
如果前提变成极刑 If change that premise to capital punishment involves
包括谋杀人类 还好 killing human beings, that's fine
但是你的论点就缺乏根据 but then your argument isn't valid.
能使你的论点有根据的唯一方法就是 The only way you can make your argument valid is
你把凶手关起来 那是因为它需要问题 if you put murder in, and that's because it begs the question.
好的 所以这不够具有说服力 确实是相同的方式 Okay therefore it's not persuasive. So in exactly the same way.
比如有人在做同样的论点 Say somebody was making the same argument,
比如我不相信鲸鱼是哺乳动物 say I didn't believe whales were mammals,
我过去认为鲸鱼是鱼 I thought whales are fish,
鲸鱼显然是鱼 不是吗? whales are obviously fish aren't they?
我们之前讨论过这个的 We discussed this before.
所以不管他们怎么告诉我鲸鱼是哺乳动物 So anyways they tell me whales are mammals
我都不相信 I don't believe that whales are mammals and
你在试着说服我 如果你跟我论点 you're trying to convince me, and if you offer me this argument
说这是个证明鲸鱼是哺乳动物的好的论据 and say here's a good argument of whales being mammals
我会否认 这绝对是不是一个好的论据 I would say Nope. Nope that's not a good argument at all.
我为什么必须同意你的那个前提? Why should I agree with you on that premise?
在那个前提下 你只是在假设你的答案 In that premise you're just assuming your answer.
我意思是我对你的结论抱歉 I mean I am sorry your conclusion.
你有很强大的论据 但很遗憾不够说服人 So you've got a valid argument but it's hopelessly unpersuasive.
所以这也算不上一个好的论据 And therefore it's not a good argument.
这一条只是有一点点不同 And this one is only slightly different.
和前提不同的实际上是和结论一致 Instead of the premise actually being the same as the conclusion
从前提可以得出结论 the premise assumes the conclusion.
所以如果你用这个论点反驳我 So if you are using this argument against me
这不会说服我的 不是吗? it's not going to persuade me of anything is it?
这就是错误之处 不是它不够有依据 and that's what's wrong with it. not that it's not valid.
我们来看看空虚谬论 So we are looking at fallacies of vacuity
我们现在已经看过了相关性谬论 we've looked at fallacies of relevance now
我们来看看空白性谬论 we are looking at fallacies of vacuity.
我们首先看看循环论点 We've looked firstly at circular arguments
它的结论也是其中一个前提 where the conclusion is one of the premises.
再告诉我一次 为什么这不能说服任何人 Tell me again why that wouldn't convince anyone
如果你的论据中 结论是在前提中? If you made an argument where the conclusion
因为它很有依据 is amongst the premises? Because it's valid and
结论的事实就在前提中 the fact of the conclusion is amongst the premises
也可能被隐藏在其它各种前提里 may be hidden among all sorts of other premises
所以只是你没注意到结论在那里 so you just don't notice that the conclusion is there.
那我们看看求问题论点的问题 Then we looked at question begging argument
我们给自己打了个结 我给自己打了个结 and we tied ourselves in knots well I tied myself in a knot
但观点其实不是前提 but the idea here is that instead of a premise-
这个前提引出的结论 conclusion being amongst the premises itself
在前提中有一个前提 there is amongst the premises a premise
能假设结论 that assumes the conclusion.
这是那两者的区别之处 That's the difference between those two.
最后我们看看那些 And finally we are going to be looking at arguments
自封式的论点 that are self sealing.
自封式论点:两周后的今天2:45 Okay a self sealing argument: two weeks from today at 2:45
你会做你现在正在做的事情 you are going to be doing exactly what you are doing.
这会是一个真的论述 不是吗? It will be a true statement won't it?
这也不可能为假 对吧? that couldn't be false could it?
但这不是一个能说服人的论点 为什么呢? but it's not a persuasive argument, why not?
它是完全空虚的 它完全没说什么 It's completely vacuous, it says absolutely nothing does it?
没有给你任何的预言 it doesn't give you any predictions
完全没限制可能性 it doesn't limit the possibilities at all.
它只是告诉你你会一直做什么 It just tells you you're going to be doing
任何你肯能会做的事 这不能说服人 whatever you are going to be doing. Not persuasive.
这一个是很多人都认为具有说服力的论点 Here's one that's actually lots of people do think is persuasive
我们必须尊重所有的道德信条 We must respect all moral beliefs,
所以道德相对主义是真实的 therefore moral relativism is true.
这也被称作粗俗的相对论 This is called vulgar relativism by
是由伯纳德 威廉姆斯这个著名的哲学家提出的 chapel Bernard Williams, famous philosopher.
它被称为自封式论点的原因是 The reason that is a self sealing argument is
这是道德的绝对化 我们应该尊重所有的道德信仰 that is a moral absolute, that we must respect all moral beliefs
你不能从道德绝对主义中得出道德相对主义 you cannot derive a moral relativism from a moral absolute.
如果那个前提是真的 那么结论就是假的 If that premise is true then that conclusion is false.
如果结论是真的 那么前提就是假的 And if the conclusion is true then the premise is false.
这不是很好的论点 因为它不断重复 It's a bad argument because it goes around
在自我攻击 in circles its self defeat-actually that's self defeating
而不是自我封闭 rather than self sealing.
事实上 这应该是在一个有些不同的种类 Actually that should be in a slightly different category.
这还有另外一些变化 But here's another that that variance of it
可能会吸引你的注意 may have caught you out at some point off course.
全球经济是由犹太人控制的 Global economy is controlled by Jews
任何相反的现象 (and any appearance to the contrary is
都是犹太人聪明才智的结果 a result of Jewish cleverness.)
女的都是愚蠢的 任何相反的情况都是 Women are stupid and any appearance to the contrary is
因为她们有时很会把这点隐藏得很好 because they are quite good at covering it up over sometimes.
这又是自我封闭式论点 So again this is a self sealing argument
因为你知道自己不会被驳倒 because you know you can't be refuted
因为不管发生了什么 你总能为自己找到解释的原因 because whatever happens you've got some reasons for why
证明你说的是真的 what you're saying is true.
有些自我封闭式论点来回变化 Some self sealing argument move back and forth
从有趣的到错误的宣称 from interesting to false claims.
例如 你可能会说所有的人类都自私 For example you might say all human beings are selfish and
然后你会说等等 也有很多无私的人 then you'll say hang on, lot of people Altruistic,
他们为其他人服务 they do things for other people, then you say
然后你会说 他们这么做是因为他们想这样 Oh yea but they are still doing it because they want to.
德兰修女不会救这么多人 Mother Theresa, she wouldn't have helped all those people
如果她自己不这么想的话 if she hadn't wanted to. Oh know
她这么做是职责所在 你可能会这么说 she did it out of duty and you might say yes
但她自己还是想尽她的职责的 难道不是吗? but she wanted to do her duty didn't she?
她仍想这么做 She still wanted to do what to do.
她做的唯一一件事就是做了她想做的 the only thing she did was what she wanted to do
所以也可以说她和其他人一样自私 so she's selfish as everyone else. I mean blahhhhh.
这里发生的是 What's happening here is.
有人从一个有趣 Someone who is moving from an interesting
但错误的宣称转移到一个真实但空虚的 but false claim to a true but vacuous claim.
你们都是这么来回移动 And you all move backwards and forwards in between
直到把你们自己完全陷入一个结里 in the two until you've got yourself thoroughly tied in a knot.
你们要做的是分开 And what you need to do is separate the two claims
展示的的这两个论点 that are being made and show
为什么即使其中一个是真的也没有意义呢 why one of them is meaningless even if it's true.
所以有三种方式使论点自我封闭 So the three way an argument can be self sealing.
可以有特定的方式反驳批评 It can invent ad hoc ways to dismiss criticisms.
我的预言没有成功 So my predictions didn't work it is
因为他们都是消极的感应 because there were negative vibes in the room. Okay.
都是你的错 它们受到批评因为 All your fault. It can attack it's critics for they were unable
不能看见预言的好处 to see the benefit of the predictions.
使你看不清这个世界的唯一原因是 So the only reason you don't see the world is taken over by
我的犹太人 女人以及所有黑色的这些论断 Jews or women or all blacks or whatever is because
因为你被它们欺骗了 you've been taken in by them or another one
你过去被否认过 there is that you're in denial therefore
所以你不能理解我在说什么 so you don't understand what I am saying
你在恐惧什么 about your appalling desires and what have you..
也能重新定义关键词 it can also redefine key words so it can be selfish
总是只做你想做的事是自私的 to always be doing just what you want to do.
这要取决于你如何解读自己想做的事 Well it depends how you interpret just what you want to do there
如果你解读德兰修女 If you interpret what mother Theresa
只是做她想做的事 was doing just what she wanted to do
那你也许需要重新看看什么是 then you might need to have a another look at what you mean
自私 by the word selfish.
我们最后来看看清晰性谬论 And finally we're going to look at fallacies of clarity
我想留点时间让大家提问 and I want to leave some time for questions.
你有问题 不好意思 Oh I am sorry you've got a question.
学生:你会怎么反驳这些论点? Student: how do you argue against those arguments?
教授:关于这一个 你只要有这种感觉 Prof: well on this one, as soon as you get the feeling
你被两个不同的论点感动 that you are being moved from two different propositions
一个是错误但有趣的 以及另外一个 one of which is false and interesting and the other.
如果你能的话 找一个休息时间 Ask for time out if you can
因为那是你唯一能做的事 because that's the only way you're going to do it
你不能得到并试着去定义 but this is what you won't get and try to identify
这两个论点 what the two propositions are.
所以在这种情况下 你想说自私的意义是 So in this case you want to say the meaning of selfish is
对别人想要的东西没兴趣 being not interested in what anyone else wants.
德兰修女并不自私 In which case mother Theresa wouldn't be selfish
因为她对其他人想要什么感兴趣 because she is interested in what other people wants.
但是然后你可能会说 But then you say, then your claim is that,
人们自私只有在 somebody is selfish only if they –
很抱歉 当人们只做他们想做的任何事时 I am sorry, sufficiently for being selfish somebody acts
已经足够证明他们自私了 on whatever they themselves want.
那经常不是自私的定义 And usually that's not what the definition of selfish is.
所以我试着定义这一狡猾的词语 得到两个定义 So identify the weasel word and get out the two definitions
并展示有的人抛弃一个或另外一个 and show that somebody is flipping one or the other-
是正确的方法 is the way to do that.
堆积谬论 如果你只有一便士 那你不富有 Fallacy of the Heap, if you have only one penny you are not rich
如果你不富裕 我给你一便士 If you are not rich and I give you a penny
那样你还是不会富裕 then you still won't be rich.
我给你多少便士都没用 It doesn't matter how many pennies I give you,
你都不能富裕 这是一个好论点吗? you won't be rich. Okay is that a good argument?
学生:不 Student: no
教授:不是 为假吗? Prof: good why not? Is that false?
学生:不 Student: no
教授:那为假吗? Prof: okay is that false?
学生:不 Student: No
教授:不 不为假 Prof: no its not false is it?
你很伤心地给我 那不好使我富裕 you gave me sadly it wouldn't make rich.
所以那是真的?这有效吗? Okay so that's true and that's true is that true? Is this valid?
有没有一个可能的情况 Is there a possible situation where
就是这两个论点 这是一个为假? those two are both true and this is false?
学生:是的 Student: yes
教授:是的 这完全不是一个有效的论据? Prof: yes. This is not a valid argument at all is it?
事实是很多词语都很模糊 its trading on the fact that many words are vague.
它们承认一个边界线案例 They admit a border line cases.
你能想到像高 胖 聪明这些词 Any words you can think of like tall fat clever
你还能想到其它的词吗? can you think a few others?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:富裕是其中一个 是的 长久贫困 Prof: rich is one of them. Yep. Long poor.
关于程度的词语 Yep any word the admits of degrees,
放出边界线案例 这样你能构建堆积论点 emits border line cases you can construct a heap argument
来实现堆积谬论 for the fallacy of heap.
事实是这些词确实能引发边界线案例 And the fact that the words do admit border line cases
关于区别的这个无意义系列 and the idea of insignificant series of differences
不会导致区别的有意义 can't result in the significant of differences and
不在规定的轨道上 它就是错误的 off course it's this one here that's at fault.
因为无意义的区别系列 Because the series of insignificant differences,
如果我们在舞台这一边使用蓝色 if we take blue in this end of the stage and
另一边使用红色 red in this end of the stage,
它们是两个不同的颜色 不是吗? they are two different color aren't they?
但是我们可以从一边走向另一边 But we can go from one to the other in the series of
在这你会说在每一边都是相同的颜色 degrading where you will say in each case its same color
所以A和B是一样的 same color same color so A and B are the same
B和C是一样的 但A和C不一样 B and C are the same but A and C are not the same okay
它们是不具有传递性的 they are intransitive.
所以当你在做论点时 So when you're making an argument
你应该试着避免那些评等级的词汇 you should try to avoid words that are grading and scaling words.
那你应该怎么样避免这些模糊呢 And how would you stop these being vague if you had.
约翰收入不错 那你应该说什么呢 John has a nice income. What might you can said instead of that?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:很好 约翰是前十的 Prof: good john is the in top 10th percentile of income earners.
可卡因是很危险的药物 okay cocaine is a dangerous drug.
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:可卡因很容易上瘾 Prof: Cocaine is addictive or cocaine is
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授 你也可以说些类似的事情 Prof: You could say the same sort of thing, yep.
你试图在消除模糊 Or what-yes exactly you're trying to eliminate the vagueness
通过更加精确或是其他方法 by being more exact in some way or another.
所以玛丽是一个聪明的女人 So Mary is a clever woman
你可以说玛丽有三个博士学位或者类似的 you can say Mary has 3 degrees in a PhD or something like that.
简是一个很好的网球运动员 Jane is a terrific tennis player, you can say Jane is
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授 很好 很简单 Prof: yes. Okay good. Dead easy.
斜坡谬论 这不是一个关于歧义的谬论 Okay slippery slope fallacy. This is not a fallacy of ambiguity.
确切地说 人类还是很理性的 Human's are rational-sorry in clarity.
人类理性是因为他们行动是有理由的 Humans are rational because they act for reasons.
天冷的时候暖气会打开 Radiators turn themselves on when it is cold therefore
所以暖气也很理性 不要笑 Radiators are rational. Now don't laugh
因为很多人都在尽力说服我这个 because lots of people try to convince me of this.
因为我不相信动物会理性 Because I don't believe animals are rational.
人们总是告诉我要相信 And people always tell me that I should believe
动物很理性 因为它们的行动也有原因 animals are rational because they act for reasons.
有些人想告诉我甚至暖气也理性 And some people want to say even radiators are rational
因为天一冷 它们自己就会打开 because when it's cold they turn themselves on.
给房间供暖 这就是事实 To warm the house. It's usually the case.
因此它相信天一冷 它就有欲望 So therefore it has a belief that it's cold and it has a desire
气温不要这么冷 然后就会行动 that it should not be cold and therefore it acts.
这为什么不是理性呢 Why isn't that rational.
在这里我们做的是一样的 难道不是吗 Be here we're doing the same here aren't we?
这儿暖气的行动有理由 Here are radiators at one end of acting for reasons and
另一头人类的行为也有理由 here are humans up in the other end for acting for reasons
我们认为这两者其实没什么区别 and we're saying there is no difference between the two.
所以任何斜坡理论会造成这种错误 So any slippery slope argument can fall foul of that.
很快的 斜坡谬论依靠 Just quickly, the slippery slope fallacy depends on
我们不应该区别思考 the idea that we shouldn't distinguish between thinks
这不是很有意义的区别 that are not significantly different and the belief that is
A不会和B不同 A is not significantly different from B and
B也不会和C不同 B is not significantly different from C then
A和C也就不会那么显著的不同 A is not significantly different from C.
这也是真的 如果你觉得它们可以传递 and again that's true only if you got something transitive.
有很多不能传递的东西 And there are many many things that are not transitive.
尽管有时候 Although sometimes-
有一种避免斜坡谬论的方法是 I mean one way of avoiding a slippery slope is by
定义一些东西 你有时要用到斜坡谬论 defining something. you have to use slippery slope sometimes
难道不是吗?当我们思考 don't we? When we think about
为什么我们需要在16岁才能结婚 why should we have the age to be able to marry at 16
才不需要父母的准许?或者类似的问题 without your parent's permission? Or whatever it is.
比如能够喝酒的年龄 Or the age of being able to drink whatever it is,
实际上我不太清楚 可能是18岁还是多少的 对 actually I have no idea what it is. 18 is it? right.
你17岁的最后一天发生了什么 What happens in the last day of you being 17 and
还有你18岁地第一天呢 the first day of you being 18.
在你能喝酒和不能喝酒这两天发生了什么 What happens in between that you can drink one day
这很傻 不是吗? and not drink in the other legally. This is just daft isn't it?
这很傻 但你仍需要做个截止点 well it is daft but here you have to make a cutoff point
在某种程度上 斜坡是 at some point. And what the slippery slope is
没有显著的区别 there isn't an obvious difference and
但我们需要在某些地方制造不同 we have to make a difference somewhere or
把其中一个作为我的规则 we can make one my regulation or whatever
斜坡在这一特殊问题上需要权衡 but slippery slope trade off on this particular problem.
这是另外一个 玛丽有一只小羊羔 Here's another one; Mary had a little lamb;
他跟着她去上学 he followed her to school.
玛丽有一只小羊羔和一个小西兰花 Mary had a little lamb then she had a little broccoli.
你可以看见这就是模糊之处 actually not clear what equivocation it's on is it?
实际上并不清楚模糊在哪 And you see that's an equivocation of –
是这只羊羔?是有?还是小呢? Is it lamb or is it had and little actually isn't it?
在第一句里强调的是占有 Had being possessed whereas in the first one,
第二句里强调吃 不是吗? and the second one it means ate doesn't it?
第一句中的小羊羔也和第二句中的 and little lamb on the first one is a bit different from
有一些不同 little lamb on the second one and so on.
这就是模糊的地方 Okay here's an equivocation. Yep.
羽毛很轻(与"亮"是同一个词) 它就不会黑 A feather is light what is light cannot be dark;
因此羽毛不黑 therefore a feather cannot be dark.
这里的歧义在哪呢? What's the equivocation there?
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:轻这个词 Prof: the word light.
第一句中是指羽毛很轻 In the first case it means light as a feather,
在重量方面的 第二句是 weight wise and in the second case we're talking about
与黑相对的亮 这就是模糊谬论 light as opposed to dark. So that's the fallacy of equivocation.
有三种歧义 词汇的 There are three types of ambiguity. Lexical,
那么这一种问题在哪呢 so what's wrong with that one?
词语本身就很模糊 Is the word rum itself is ambiguous.
一个词可以指很多东西 A word that can mean different things.
第二个是伯特是一个胖的养畜者 The second one Bert was a fat stock breeder.
这儿的歧义是什么呢 What is the ambiguity there,
给我关于这个术语的两种理解 give me the two understanding of that term.
学生:胖这个词 Student: the word fat
教授:是的 要么伯特很胖 要么他养的牲畜很胖 Prof: Yes either Bert was fat or the stock was fat.
这就要看胖的范围了 伯特胖 So is the scope of fat, just that Bert was fat
伯特又是个养畜者 and Bert was a stock breeder.
还是说胖是伴随着养畜者的 Or is it that fat goes with stock breeder and
伯特是个胖的养畜者 这就需要最后价差对照 Bert was a Fat stock breeder. And finally cross reference.
我妻子的姐妹和她的前夫订婚了 My wife's cousin is engaged to her former husband.
这里的歧义在哪?要么是我妻子的姐妹 What's the ambiguity there? So either my wife's cousin,
与我妻子的前夫 要么是我妻子的姐妹 my wife's former husband, or my wife's cousin is engaged to
和她自己的前夫 the cousin-she-the wife's cousin had before and
也就是和同一个人第二次结婚 she was married for the second time to the same person.
所以解释这句话中的歧义 这些句子 So explain the ambiguity of this sentence. These sentences.
没有人喜欢牛津和剑桥的学生 很好 No one likes Oxford and Cambridge students. Okay good.
没人喜欢牛津 和剑桥的学生还是 Nobody likes oxford and Cambridge students or
没人喜欢牛津的学生和剑桥的学生 nobody like oxford students and nobody likes Cambridge students.
学生:(无声) Student: Inaudible
教授:还是没人喜欢牛津以及 Prof: or no one likes Oxford and
没人喜欢剑桥的学生 No one likes Cambridge students.
每个好女孩都喜欢一个水手 事实上 And every nice girl likes a sailor. Actually
如果你能使事情正式化 if you were able to formalize things you would
你会找到很简单的方法 find it very easy to do this.
这可能是一个水手 This could be there is a sailor in which
每个好女孩都喜欢他 every nice girl likes him.
或者是每个好女孩都喜欢有一个她爱着的水手 Or every nice girl likes that there is a sailor who she loves.
你能理解我 所以总有一个水手 You're with me. So there is a sailor in which
是每一个女生喜爱的 或者说每一个女生都爱一些水手 every girl loves him or every nice girl loves some sailor.
在第二种情况里 会有不同的水手 Okay so in the second case there are lots of different sailors
而第一个例子里 只有一个水手 in the first one there's only one sailor
被所有的女生喜爱 这就是结构歧义 who is loved by all the girls. So that's a structural ambiguity.
我们的鞋子可以保证适合你 Our shoes are a guaranteed to give you a fit.
我看得出你已经得到一个了 I can see you've got that one.
应该禁止激怒小孩 Irritating children should be banned.
我们到底是禁止什么呢?所有的小孩吗? That's right what are we banning? All the children?
还是激怒小孩这件事?最后一个怎么样? Or the irritating of children? What about the last one?
谁能告诉我这儿的歧义在哪吗? Can anyone tell me the ambiguity that is here?
这更加困难 你要斥责你自己 This is more difficult. You'll kick yourselves
但你可能还会认为我骗了你 but you'll also think that I have cheated you.
燕子为什么冬天会南飞呢? Why do swallows fly south for winter?
燕子为什么冬天会"飞"呢? Why do swallows FLY for winter?
燕子为什么冬天会飞向"南方"呢? Why do swallows fly SOUTH for winter?
燕子为什么会"向南边飞"呢?这些问句模糊吗? Why so swallows FLY SOUTH for winter? Is that ambiguous?
这全部是语调问题 And all it was is the intonation there.
我成功给它赋予了很多不同的意义 I manage to give it lots of different meanings.
你不应该认为歧义是在 You shouldn't think that the ambiguity might just be
词汇 结构或者价差参照上面 in the lexicon and the structure and the cross references
有时只是在语气和 sometimes you can put it just by the tone
你在使用的词语重读上 and the emphasizes you give on the words that you use.
这就是我的演讲 谢谢大家 Right okay that's it for the lecture. Thank You.
感谢你们 Thank you. Well Thank you too.