Can you outsmart the fallacy that started a witch hunt? - Elizabeth Cox

Prevodilac: Jovana Babic Lektor: Milenka Okuka

Ah, a witch hunt.

Lov na veštice.

Humans are tireless in their pursuit of reason.

Ljudi su neumorni u svojoj potrazi za razumom.

"It’s 1950.

,,Godina je 1950.

Following threats from the communist governments of the Soviet Union and China,

Zbog pretnji od strane komunističkih vlada Sovjetskog Saveza i Kine,

antikomunistički pokret u SAD-u je dostigao vrhunac.

anti-communist sentiment in the United States is at an all-time high.

Senator Joseph McCarthy claims he has a list of 205 communists in the US

Senator Džozef Makarti tvrdi da poseduje listu od 205 komunista u SAD-u

who are influencing government policy."

koji utiču na vladine aktivnosti.”

Didn’t I just change the channel?

Zar ja nisam promenio kanal?

Ah, I see. It’s a different witch hunt.

Aha, sad mi je jasno. U pitanju je drugi lov na veštice.

"The senate forms a committee to investigate McCarthy’s claims.

,,Senat formira odbor koji će istražiti Makartijeve tvrdnje.

McCarthy names his first case:

Makarti imenuje svoj prvi slučaj:

against prominent lawyer, judge, and activist Dorothy Kenyon.

protiv uticajne advokatice, sutkinje i aktivistkinje Doroti Kenjon.

He accuses her of membership to 28 organizations that are communist fronts.

Optužuje je za članstvo u 28 organizacija koje su komunistički paravani.

Novine širom zemlje su joj pritrčale u pomoć,

Newspapers around the country rush to her defense,

pointing out her vocally anti-communist record.

ističući njen jasan antikomunistrički stav.

The senate committee schedules a hearing anyway,

Bez obzira na sve, senat organizuje saslušanje

and she has just five days to prepare."

i daje joj svega pet dana da se pripremi.”

This is too much.

Ovo je previše.

If the government won’t be a voice of reason, I’ll have to.

Ako vlada neće biti glas razuma, ja ću.

That’s better.

Tako je bolje.

I’m surprised you good legislators have agreed to move this hearing forward.

Iznaneđen sam da ste vi dobri zakonodavci odlučili da nastavite sa ovim suđenjem.

You’re falling prey to a type of argument from ignorance:

Pali ste na argument iz neznanja:

assuming that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false.

pretpostavku da je tvrdnja tačna jer nije dokazano da je netačna.

The claim being Senator McCarthy’s accusations against Judge Kenyon,

Ta tvrdnja se odnosi na optužbu Senatora Makartija protiv sutkinje Kenjon,

for which he provided no legitimate evidence.

za koju on nema nikakve legitimne dokaze.

Is that right? I thought so.

Je li ovo istina? Znao sam.

Some of the so-called communist organizations he accused her of joining

Neke od ovih tobože komunističkih organizacija gde je ona navodno član

don’t even exist.

ni ne postoje.

To assume a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false

Ako pretpostavimo da je tvrdnja tačna samo zato što suprotno nije dokazano

ignores many other possibilities:

onda ignorišemo sve druge mogućnosti:

that it hasn’t been proven false yet, that it can’t be proven true or false,

da još nije dokazano da je tačna, da je nemoguće dokazati njenu tačnost

or that it isn’t completely true or completely false, to name a few.

ili da nije potpuno tačna ili potpuno netačna, na primer.

This leads to a handy rule of thumb:

Ovo nas dovodi do jednog praktičnog pravila:

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

teret dokazivanja uvek pada na tužioca.

In other words, you make the claim, you supply the proof.

Drugim rečima, ako ti nešto tvrdiš, ti to i dokazuješ.

If someone told you aliens exist,

Ako ti neko kaže da vanzemaljci postoje,

would you head off to find proof that they don’t exist?

hoćeš li tražiti dokaz da oni ne postoje?

Of course not.

Naravno da ne.

You’d tell that person to show you the UFO.

Tražićeš od te osobe da ti pokaže NLO.

The same applies when someone makes a claim

Ista je situacija kada neko tvrdi nešto

that contradicts an established consensus.

što se kosi sa ustanovljenim konsenzusom.

So when all the available evidence suggests

Dakle kada svi dostupni dokazi ukazuju

that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures,

da ljudi uzrokuju povećanje globalne temperature,

the burden of proof has been fulfilled—

teret dokazivanja je ispunjen-

if you disagree, it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise.

ako se ti ne slažeš, na tebi je da dokažeš suprotno.

Right?

Zar ne?

Ah, I’ve gotten ahead of myself.

Ah, malo sam se zaletio.

You’ll see what I mean soon enough.

Sve će vam biti jasno uskoro.

Anyway, your legal system supposedly recognizes this rule—

U svakom slučaju, vaš pravni sistem navodno poštuje ovo pravilo-

so what are you all doing here?

dakle šta vi sad radite ovde?

"It’s July 17th, 1950,

,,17. je jul, 1950. godine

and the senate subcommittee has officially dismissed all charges against Kenyon."

i senatski pododbor je zvanično odbacio sve tužbe protiv Kenjon.”

As they should!

Tako i treba!

"It’s 1954, and the senate has formally disciplined McCarthy."

,,Godina je 1954, a senat je formalno kaznio Makartija.”

Took them long enough!

Konačno!

"He will serve out the rest of his term,

,,Odslužiće ostatak svog mandata,

but will never again be elected to a public office.

ali nikad neće ponovo biti izabran za javnu funkciju.

Because of his widespread anti-communist influence,

Zbog njegovog obimnog antikomunističkog uticaja,

hundreds of people have been incarcerated, and thousands have lost their jobs."

na stotine ljudi je zatvoreno, a hiljade su izgubile svoj posao.”

Ah! Look what the communists did!

Ah! Vidi šta su komunisti uradili!