Can you outsmart the slippery slope fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox

翻译人员: Gia Hwang 校对人员: Carol Wang

On the plains of the Serengeti, a dung beetle

（电视）：在塞伦盖蒂平原上，

一只蜣螂将完美雕刻的粪球 滚离竞争对手；

rolls his perfectly sculpted ball of dung away from competitors.

In this Canadian river, a beaver rushes to reinforce her dam

在这条加拿大河流中， 一只海狸急着加固她的坝，

as it threatens to burst.

因为坝体有破裂的危险；

As the snowball thunders down the mountainside,

当雪球轰隆作响滚落山坡，

gaining momentum, the arctic foxes run for cover—

不断加快，北极狐奔跑寻掩护......

I can't stand these nature programs.

推理怪：真受不了这些自然节目。

Always the same story, and not a rational actor in sight. What else is on?

总是同一个故事， 看不到一个理性角色。

还有其它节目可看吗？

It’s April 1954, and Vietnamese nationalists are on the verge of victory

（电视）：1954 年 4 月， 越南民族主义者

against French forces fighting for control of Vietnam.

反对法军控制越南之战即将胜利。

Their victory could lead to an independent Vietnam

他们的胜利可能导致

under communist leader Ho Chi Minh.

越南在共产党领导人 胡志明的领导下获得独立。

The United States President, Dwight D. Eisenhower,

美国总统德怀特·D·艾森豪威尔

is holding a press conference to comment on these developments.

正在召开新闻发布会， 就事态发展发表评论。

Well, if you really must.

推理怪：好吧，如果你必须开的话。

Eisenhower claims that by virtue of what he calls the “falling domino principle,”

（电视）：艾森豪威尔声称，根据 他说的“多米诺骨牌倒塌原则”，

communist control of Vietnam would be the “beginning of a disintegration”

共产主义对越南的控制 将是“分裂的开始”，

that would be certain to cause “incalculable loss.”

定会造成“无法估量的损失”。

The beetles and beavers may be beyond my reach,

推理怪：我管不了甲虫和海狸的事，

but surely here's someone I can reason with.

但肯定要和此人比试一下推理。

(推理怪穿越到电视新闻发布会)

（观众窃窃私语）

（推理怪小施魔法抢来总统西装）

Now, Mr. President, let’s take a deep breath, shall we?

推理怪：现在，总统先生， 让我们深吸一口气，好吗？

It’s a big leap—or, one might say, a long slide—

从越南的共产主义治理 到专制共产主义政权全球蔓延，

from communist governance of Vietnam

这是巨大飞跃，

to the global spread of authoritarian communist regimes.

或者有人可能会说是个长滑坡。

It’s as if we were to say you were clothed,

就好比如果我们说你刚才穿着衣服，

now you’re in your underwear,

而现在你只穿着内衣，

so soon everyone in the world will be completely naked.

那么，很快世界上的每个人 都将完全赤身裸体一样。

Don’t worry, I may have that power, but I promise not to use it.

别担心，我可能有那种力量， 但我保证不会使用它。

Now, as I was saying, this kind of argument,

现在，正如我所说，这种争论，

where one step, let’s call it A, kicks off a string of events

其中一个步骤，我们称之为 A， 是一系列事件的开始，

that inevitably culminates in an extreme scenario,

A 不可避免地以极端情况告终， 我们称之为 Z，

let’s call it Z, is known as a slippery slope.

被称为滑坡谬误。

Many such arguments focus on catastrophe,

许多这样的论点集中在最终灾难上，

but the slope to an extreme positive outcome can be just as slippery.

但极端正向结果的斜坡 可能也同样很滑(不靠谱）。

The trouble with this kind of argument is that,

这种论点的问题在于，

in presenting Z is the inevitable outcome of A,

在呈现 Z 是 A 的必然时，

it almost always overstates the likelihood that Z will happen

几乎总是夸大 Z 发生的可能性，

if A happens.

如果 A 发生的话。

Why?

为什么？

Allow me to trouble you with some math.

容我用一些数学来解释。

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that, taken individually,

为了论证，每步单独考虑的话，

each step between A and Z is independent from the others

让我们假设 A 和 Z 之间 每一步都相互独立，

and very likely— 99%.

并且很可能发生——概率 99%。

So the probability that A causes B, that B causes C,

所以， A 导致 B，B 导致 C ，

that C causes D, and so on, is each 99%.

C 导致 D，依此类推， 每一步概率都是 99%。

Even so, each additional step adds an opportunity to alter the outcome,

即便如此，每个额外步骤 都会增加改变结果的可能，

and A is only 78% likely to lead to Z—

使 A 导致 Z 只有 78%的可能性，

far from an inevitability.

远非必然结果。

If there’s a 95% likelihood of each step,

如果每步都有 95% 的可能，

the chance that A leads to Z plummets to about 28%.

A 导致 Z 的可能性 则骤降至约 28%。

If there’s a 90% likelihood at each step—

若每步都有 90% 的可能性——

still very likely by most standards—

按大多数标准，仍然很有可能——

the chance that A leads to Z is only 7%.

A 导致 Z 的概率仅为 7%。

And if 24 of the 25 steps between A and Z are 99% likely,

如果 A 和 Z 间的 25 个步骤中 有 24 个有 99% 的可能性，

and one is 50% likely,

一个是 50% 的可能性，

the chance that A leads to Z

A 导致 Z 的机会

goes down from 78% to 39%.

从 78% 下降到 39%。

Back to your situation.

再回到您说的的情况，

I won’t deny you have reason to be concerned.

我不否认你有理由担心。

You’re warily watching as powerful authoritarian communist regimes

你警惕看着强大专制的共产主义政权

in the Soviet Union and China try to spread their form of governance.

在苏联和中国试图传播其治理形式，

But let’s take a look at the chain of events you suggest:

但让我们来看看你说的事件链：

You say that the countries surrounding Vietnam

你说越南周边的国家

would all soon fall under communist rule;

很快会落入共产主义统治之下，

that this would result in a loss of essential trade

因为与其他国家合作，

with these countries for others;

将导致与这些国家的基本贸易损失，

that with no non-communist nations left to trade with,

导致没有非共产主义国家 可以与之进行贸易，

Japan would be pressured towards communism

日本将被迫走向共产主义，

and that this, in turn, would threaten Australia and New Zealand.

而这反过来又会威胁到 澳大利亚和新西兰。

Your ultimate fear, if I may presume,

如果我可以假设的话，

is that this will in turn threaten the United States.

你的终极恐惧就是 这会反过来威胁美国。

Is this a possibility? Sure.

（总统点头）

有这种可能吗？当然，

Where I take issue is with your comparison to dominos.

但我不同意你拿多米诺骨牌做比较。

These complex real-world events are not, in fact, like dominoes,

事实上，这些复杂的现实事件 并不像多米诺骨牌，

where when the first one falls,

即当第一个倒下时，

it becomes a certainty that the last will fall.

最后一个肯定会倒下。

For any one of these events, a number of possible outcomes could result,

对于这些事件中的任何一个， 都可能导致许多可能的结果，

each affecting the other events in different ways.

每个都以不同方式影响其他事件。

The possibilities are not a chain, they’re a web.

可能性不是连锁，而是一张网。

It’s 1975, and after 20 years of conflict, and several million lives lost,

（电视）：1975 年，历经 20 年冲突，数百万人丧生，

North Vietnamese forces have taken control of the capital of South Vietnam.

北越军队控制了南越的首都，

The war is over, and all of Vietnam is under communist control.

战争结束，整个越南 都在共产党的控制之下。

Communist regimes have come to power in neighboring Laos and Cambodia,

共产主义政权在邻国 老挝和柬埔寨上台，

where the regime will be responsible

政权更替

for the deaths of an estimated quarter of all Cambodians.

造成约 1/4 柬埔寨人死亡。

（总统和观众惊讶声）

Wait, there's more.

推理怪：等等，还有更多。

That first step you were trying to avoid happened,

电视：(1985年)你极力避免的 第一步还是发生了，

but the end result you predicted did not.

（1991年，）但你预测的 最终结果却没出现。

As for the steps between, a few happened; many did not.

（2021年）至于中间的步骤， 发生了一些，但许多并未发生。

Decades afterward, your fellow humans are still debating

几十年后，你的人类同胞仍在争论

why events unfolded the way they did.

为什么事件会以这种方式展开。

And this is the trouble with slippery slope arguments.

这就是滑坡谬误的麻烦之处。

They focus exclusively on extreme outcomes,

他们只关注极端结果，

assigning those outcomes a degree of certainty or inevitability

为这些结果分配一定程度的 （100%）确定性或必然性，

that rarely corresponds to reality.

这很少符合现实。

They divert attention from other, more likely possibilities,

他们将注意力从其他 更有可能的可能性上转移开来，

foreclosing discussions that might be more productive.

排除可能更有成效的讨论，

And that’s when they’re made in good faith.

那正是他们的用意所在。

Slippery slope arguments can also be intentionally structured

滑坡谬误也可以有意构建

to take advantage of people’s fears—

去利用人们的恐惧——

whatever your position on an issue,

无论你在某个问题上的立场如何，

it’s easy to come up with an extreme outcome that suits your aims.

很容易得出适合你目标的极端结果。

Best to avoid them entirely, eh?

最好完全避免它们，是吧？

（推理怪把西服变回总统身上）

(推理怪穿越回电视前)