評論
打印
I hid my exasperation. "Polly, it's a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion."
“波莉，”我強壓怒火。“這是一種謬誤，這個結論下的太草率了，能支持這種結論的證據太少。”
"Know any more fallacies?" she asked breathlessly. "This is more fun than dancing even."
“還有其他的謬誤嗎？”她屏住呼吸，“這比跳舞有意思多啦！”
I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with this girl absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing if not persistent. I continued.
我克制自己，不要灰心。這個姑娘，咋教不會，就是不明白。可是，要是不堅持，就會一事無成。我繼續講下去。
"Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let's not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains."
“下一種是牽強附會。是這樣：我們不能帶比爾去野餐。每次帶他去，都下雨。”
"I know somebody like that," she exclaimed. "A girl back home-Eula Becker, her name is. It never falls. Every single time we take her on a picnic—"
“有這樣的人，”她驚叫，“我們家那兒有個女孩，尤拉·貝克。那才準呢，每次我們帶她去野餐……”
"Polly," I said sharply, "it's a fallacy. Eula Becker doesn't cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker."
“波莉，”我嚴厲地說，”這是謬誤。下雨不是尤拉·貝克造成的，下雨與她沒有任何關系。如果把下雨賴到尤拉·貝克身上，你就是牽強附會。”
"I'll never do that again," she promised contritely. "are you mad at me?"
“我再不怨她了，”她懊悔地保證說，“你生氣了嗎？”
I sighed deeply. "No, Polly, I'm not mad."
我深深地嘆了口氣：“不，波莉，沒生氣。”
"Then tell me some more fallacies."
“那就講講還有哪些謬誤！”
"All right. Let's try Contradictory Premises."
“好，現在說說矛盾前提。”
"Yes, let's," she chirped, blinking her eyes happily.
“行，好呀！”她喳喳叫著，快樂地眨著眼睛。
I frowned, but plunged ahead. "Here's an example of Contradictory Premises: If Cod can do anything, can He make a stone so heavy that He won't be able to lift it?"
我皺了下眉頭，繼續說：“有一個矛盾前提的例子——如果上帝是萬能的，他能造出一塊連他自己也搬不動的大石頭嗎？”
"Of course," she replied promptly.
“當然能！”她當即答道。
"But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone," I pointed out.
“但是如果他是萬能的，他就能搬動那塊石頭。”我提醒說。
"Yeah," she said thoughtfully. "Well, then I guess He can't make the stone."
“是呀！”她思索著，“那么，我想他造不出那樣的石頭。”
"But He can do anything," I reminded her.
“可他是萬能的。”我進一步提醒。
She scratched her pretty, empty head. "I'm all confused," she admitted.
她撓了撓她那漂亮的空腦袋。“我想不明白。”她承認。
"Of course you are. Because when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?"
“你確實不明白。如果一個結論與前提互為矛盾，那么這種結論就不能成立。假如有不可抗拒的力量，就不存在不可移動的物體；假如存在不可移動的物體，就不可能有不可抗拒的力量。懂了嗎？”
