Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox

Prevodilac: Jovana Babic Lektor: Milenka Okuka

“It’s the 4th century BCE,

“Četvrti je vek pre nove ere

and Aristotle has just written a critique of arguments

i Aristotel je upravo napisao kritiku argumenata

that take the truth of their conclusion for granted.”

koji uzimaju zdravo za gotovo istinu svojih zaključaka.”

“It’s still the 4th century BCE,

“I dalje je 4. vek p.n.e.

and Aristotle has just advanced a new theory:

i Aristotel je razvio još jednu teoriju:

that because Earth is the center of the universe,

da, pošto je Zemlja u centru univerzuma,

humanity is alone in the universe.”

čovečanstvo je samo u univerzumu.”

He should listen to himself.

Trebalo bi sam sebe da sluša.

“It’s 1990, and the Federal District Court of Virginia

“Godina je 1990, i Federalni okružni sud Virdžinije

is about to hear a prospective student’s case against a university.

će upravo da čuje tužbu potencijalne studentkinje protiv univerziteta.

She has filed a complaint about Virginia Military Institute’s

Ona je podnela žalbu zbog politike upisa Vojnog instituta u Virdžiniji (VIV)

admissions policy that excludes women.”

koja izuzima žene.

“VMI is a publicly-funded university that aims to produce ‘citizen soldiers’

VIV je državni univerzitet koji nastoji da stvori “građane vojnike”

through a unique and rigorous method:

pomoću jedinstvenih i rigoroznih metoda:

all students are subjected to an identical regimen

svi studenti su podvrgnuti istom fizički i psihički inteznivnom režimu

of extreme physical and mental stress and deprivation of privacy.”

i lišeni su privatnosti.”

Well, I'm certainly not sorry to be excluded.

Pa, meni definitivno ne bi bilo žao da budem izuzet.

“VMI is the only single-sex public university in the state of Virginia;

“VIV je jedini istopolni državni univerzitet u Virdžiniji

there is no equivalent institution for women.

i ne postoji njegov ekvivalent za žene.

Because VMI is a government institution,

Pošto je VIV državna institucija,

by law, it cannot practice gender-based exclusion

po zakonu, ona ne sme da upražnjava diskriminaciju rodova

without ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’

bez validnog argumenta.

It must prove that its single-sex admissions policy

VIV mora dokazati da je politika istopolnog upisa

is a necessary step to serving important governmental objectives.”

nužan korak ka ostvarivanju važnih ciljeva vlade.

“The state of Virginia argues that VMI’s educational methods

“Virdžinija kao država ističe da bi edukativne metode VIV-a

would be compromised by admitting women.

bile kompromitovane ako bi primali i žene.

The state claims single-sex education is an ‘important governmental objective’

Država smatra da je istopolna edukacija važan cilj vlade

and that the exclusion of women from VMI is essential to that objective.”

i da je neprimanje žena neophodno da bi se taj interes ispunio.”

Hmm, considering how much they prize rigor,

Hmm, iako toliko insistiraju na preciznosti

their argument is certainly lacking it.

njihov argument je manjkav.

I’ll have to set them straight.

Moraću da ih ispravim.

Come now, Your Honor.

Ma hajde, poštovani sude.

Surely you can’t let that argument stand.

Sigurno nećete dozvoliti da taj argument stoji.

The state of Virginia is essentially saying that single-sex education

Država Virdžinija u suštini govori da istopolno obrazovanje

should be allowed because it serves the imperative of single-sex education.

treba da bude dozvoljeno jer služi svrsi istopolnog obrazovanja.

You might as well say that witch hunts should be encouraged

Po toj logici, mogli bismo da kažemo da treba podržati lov na veštice

because they fulfill the need for witch hunts.

jer on ispunjava ulogu lova na veštice.

These are examples of circular reasoning,

Ovo su primeri kružne logike,

sometimes called “begging the question,”

ponekad nazivane i “zahteva pitanje”

where the reason given for a conclusion assumes the conclusion is true,

gde razlog za zaključak pretpostavlja da je zaključak tačan

rather than explaining why it’s true.

bez objašnjavanja zašto je tačan.

Take the conclusion that witch hunts should be encouraged.

Uzmimo za primer zaključak da lov na veštice treba podržati.

The evidence given is that there is a need for witch hunts.

Razlog koji je dat u ovom primeru je da postoji potreba za lovom na veštice.

But both the claim and the so-called evidence for the claim

I zaključak i takozvani dokaz za tvrdnju

leave the same question unanswered:

ostavljaju jedno pitanje neodgovorenim:

why are witch hunts necessary?

zašto je lov na veštice neophodan?

There actually isn't an argument made here at all.

Argument za ovo zapravo i ne postoji.

Circular reasoning may sound straightforward, and in a way it is.

Kružna logika može da zvuči očito, i u neku ruku i jeste.

Even a human can easily spot the circular logic in an argument like

Čak i običani ljudi mogu da primete kružnu logiku u okviru argumenta poput-

“the baby was born because her mother gave birth to her.”

beba je rođena jer ju je majka rodila.

Where you run into trouble is when you assume

Problem nastaje kada pretpostavimo

that an opinion or current state of affairs,

da mišljenje ili trenutno stanje stvari,

because it’s so familiar or long-lasting,

samo zato što nam je poznato i odavno ustanovljeno,

is a fact, when really it’s an assumption.

predstavlja činjenicu, iako je zapravo samo pretpostavka.

Like the generations of astronomers and mathematicians

Primer za ovo su generacije astronoma i matematičara

who contorted themselves to explain anomalies in the planets’ orbits,

koji su uprono pokušavali da objasne anomalije u orbitama planeta

rather than questioning the premise that the planets orbited the Earth.

umesto da preispitaju pretpostavku da se druge planete okreću oko Zemlje.

You modern humans may understand that the planets actually orbit the sun,

Vi moderni ljudi možda razumete da se planete zapravo okreću oko Sunca,

but you're still susceptible to assumptions of your own.

ali ste i dalje naivni po pitanju sopstvenih pretpostavki.

So you may hear “men and women should be treated differently

Možda nekad čujete izjavu poput: “muškarce i žene treba tretirati različito

because the law treats them differently”

jer ih zakon tretira različito.”

and think, well, yes, that makes sense.

i pomislite, pa da, to ima smisla.

The law has always treated them differently.

Zakon ih je uvek tretirao drugačije.

But that’s merely a statement of fact;

Međutim, to je samo konstatacija.

it’s not a reasoned argument for why it should to be the case.

Ona nije sama po sebi validan argument zašto bi situacija trebalo da bude takva.

And just because something is true doesn’t make it proof of what is right.

A samo zato što je nešto istinito ne znači da je pravedno.

Not convinced? Well, I’m sure you, as a judge,

Niste ubeđeni? Pa, siguran sam da vama kao sudiji

won’t mind hearing a bit more evidence.

neće smetati da čujete još malo dokaza.

“It’s 1996, and the case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court

“Godina je 1996, i slučaj je stigao do Vrhovnog suda

of the United States.

Sjedinjenih Američkih Država.

The court has ruled 7 to 1 that VMI must begin to admit women.

Sud je glasao 7 prema 1 da VIV mora početi da prima žene.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers the ruling,

Sudija Rut Bejder Ginsberg je donela presudu

calling out the state of Virginia for its circular reasoning.”

i prozvala državu Virdžiniju zbog upotrebe kružne logike.”

If I may, I'd like to bring my companion here up to speed on your logic.

Ako mogu, voleo bih da mog prijatelja informišem o vašoj logici.

And while I’m at it, I’ll borrow that.

Kad se već bavim ovim, pozajmiću to.

Now, let’s see.

Sad, hajde da vidimo.

She points out that Virginia’s justification for excluding women from VMI

Ona ističe da Virdžinijino opravdanje za neprihvatanje žena u VIV

gave the means as an end—

predstavlja sredstvo kao cilj-

that is, it argued that women should be excluded

tj. argument da žene ne bi trebalo primati

because the school’s mission was single-sex education,

jer je istopolno obrazovanje cilj škole,

when in fact the school’s stated mission was to produce citizen soldiers

iako je početni cilj škole bio da obrazuje civilne vojnike

prepared to take on leadership roles in American society—

koji bi kasnije postali vođe američkog društva -

an aim, Justice Ginsburg asserts, that is surely broad enough to include women.

a ovaj cilj, po tvrđenju sudije Ginsberg, dovoljno je obiman da uključi i žene.

Alone in my universe at last.

Najzad sam sam u svom univerzumu.