評論
打印
Models for Arguments
論證的模式
Good morning, everyone.
大家早上好。
My name is David and I am good at arguing.
我叫大衛，擅長辯論。
So welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation.
歡迎大家來聽這次辯論的介紹。
Why do we want to argue?
我們為什么想要辯論？
Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don't want to believe.
為什么我們想要讓別人相信他們不愿相信的事情。
And is that even a nice thing to do?
這樣做到底好不好？
Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they don't want to think?
這樣對待別人，試圖讓他們思考不想思考的事情，到底合不合適？
Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
我的答案將涉及到三種辯論模式。
The first model --- let's call this the dialectical model--- is that we think of arguments as war.
第一種模式，我們叫它辯證模式，這種模式中，我們把辯論看作戰爭。
And you know what that's like.
你也知道那是怎樣的情況。
There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.
充斥著擾攘與成敗。
And that's not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it's a pretty common and fixed one.
這種模式對辯論幫助不大，卻很普遍，很常用。
I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times--- in the street, on the bus or in the subway.
我猜你一定經常看到這種辯論：大街上，公交車上，地鐵里。
Let's move on to the second model.
接下來我們看第二種模式。
The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs.
第二種論證模式把爭論作為驗證過程。
Think of a mathematician's argument.
想想數學家的論證。
Here's my argument.
這是我的論點。
Does it work? Is it any good? Are the premises warranted?
這個論點有效嗎？有什么優點嗎？前提可以保證為真嗎？
Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises?
推斷有效嗎？結論與前提一致嗎？
No opposition, no adversariality--- not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
沒有反對方，沒有對抗，不需要任何反對的聲音與之爭論。
And there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances.
還有第三種模式，我覺得非常有用，它把辯論看作表演。
Arguments has been in front of an audience.
辯論被呈現在觀眾面前。
We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.
說到這里我們可以想到競爭某個職位的政客，試圖說服人們相信某些事。
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important;
但是我認為對這個模式的一個曲解有必要指出，
namely, that when we argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument;
我們在觀眾面前辯論的時候，觀眾有時候會參與到辯論中。
that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like juries that make a judgment and decide the case.
你將辯論呈現在觀眾面前，他們像陪審團一樣，做出決定，裁決案件。
Let's call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
我們把這個模式叫作修辭模式，你可以根據面前的觀眾修改辯論。
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
這三個模式中，將辯論當作戰爭的模式占主導地位。
It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments,
它使每當我們提起辯論，就是這種模式。這種模式基本代表了我們對辯論的理解，
and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments.
因此，它也影響著我們論證的方式以及在論證中我們的實際做法。
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target.
我們需要強有力的辯論，直指目標。
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
我們想把自己武裝起來，組織好策略去應對。
We want killer arguments. That's the kind of argument we want.
我們想要擊敗對手。這是我們想要的辯論。
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
這就是一種主流的辯論觀。
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.
談到論證，你可能會想到對抗模式。
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue.
但是我認為戰爭這個隱喻，將論證看作戰爭的范式或者模式對我們的辯論方式產生了消極作用。
