Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 柏陞 郭

“It’s the 4th century BCE,

「現在是西元前四世紀，

and Aristotle has just written a critique of arguments

亞里斯多德剛寫了篇文章

對預先認定結果為真的論點提出批評。」

that take the truth of their conclusion for granted.”

“It’s still the 4th century BCE,

「同樣在西元前四世紀，

and Aristotle has just advanced a new theory:

亞里斯多德剛提出了一個新理論：

that because Earth is the center of the universe,

因為地球是宇宙的中心，

humanity is alone in the universe.”

人類在宇宙中就是孤單的。」

He should listen to himself.

他真該聽聽自己曾説過的話。

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

「現在是 1990 年，

維吉尼亞州聯邦地方法院將要審理

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

一位新生對大學提起的訴訟案。

She has filed a complaint about Virginia Military Institute’s

她控訴維吉尼亞軍校

admissions policy that excludes women.”

將女性排除在外的招生政策。」

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

「維吉尼亞軍校是一所公立大學，

旨在透過獨特而嚴格的方式 培養『公民士兵』：

through a unique and rigorous method:

all students are subjected to an identical regimen

所有學生都要服從同一套生活制度、

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

承受極端的身心壓力，

還會被剝奪隱私。」

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

嗯，我肯定不會因為 被拒於門外而感到遺憾。

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

「維吉尼亞軍校是維吉尼亞州 唯一的單一性別公立大學；

there is no equivalent institution for women.

完全沒有僅招收女性的學術機構。

Because VMI is a government institution,

因爲維吉尼亞軍校是政府機構，

by law, it cannot practice gender-based exclusion

根據法律，它不能根據性別 來排除招生對象，

without ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’

除非有『極具說服力的正當理由』。

It must prove that its single-sex admissions policy

它必須證明只招收男性的政策

is a necessary step to serving important governmental objectives.”

是為了達成重要的政府目標 所必要的手段。」

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

「維吉尼亞州辯稱， 維吉尼亞軍校的教育方法

would be compromised by admitting women.

會因為招收女性而被破壞。

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

該州主張，單一性別的教育 是『重要的政府目標』。

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

不讓女性進入維吉尼亞軍校 是達成目標的必要條件。」

Hmm, considering how much they prize rigor,

嗯，明明他們如此重視嚴謹，

their argument is certainly lacking it.

他們的論述卻如此鬆散。

I’ll have to set them straight.

我必須去指正他們。

Come now, Your Honor.

來吧，法官大人，

Surely you can’t let that argument stand.

你肯定不能讓這個論述成立吧。

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

基本上，維吉尼亞州是在說，

單一性別教育

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

應該被允許，因爲

它是單一性別教育的必要條件。

You might as well say that witch hunts should be encouraged

你甘脆說應該要鼓勵獵巫，

because they fulfill the need for witch hunts.

因爲獵巫能滿足獵巫的需求。

These are examples of circular reasoning,

這些都是循環論證的例子，

sometimes called “begging the question,”

有時也稱為「乞題」。

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

也就是說，得出結論的理由 本身就假設結論是正確的，

rather than explaining why it’s true.

而非解釋爲什麽結論是正確的。

Take the conclusion that witch hunts should be encouraged.

以「應該鼓勵獵巫」這個結論為例，

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

證明結論的證據 是「有獵巫的需求」。

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

但是這個主張和所謂主張背後的證據

leave the same question unanswered:

都沒有回答到同一個問題：

why are witch hunts necessary?

爲什麽獵巫是必要的？

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

事實上，這裡根本沒有任何論據。

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

循環論證聽起來可能很直接， 在某種層面上也的確是。

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

就連人類也可以輕易在 下面的論證中發現循環邏輯：

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

「寶寶出生了是因爲 她的母親生下她。」

Where you run into trouble is when you assume

你會陷入困境，

that an opinion or current state of affairs,

是因為某個觀點或事物的現狀

because it’s so familiar or long-lasting,

過於熟悉或存在已久， 使你認定它是事實。

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

實際上，它只是個假設。

Like the generations of astronomers and mathematicians

就像好幾個世代的天文學家和數學家

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

自圓其說行星軌道的異常，

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

而不是質疑行星繞著 地球運行的前提。

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

你們這些現代人可能了解

行星其實是繞著太陽運轉的，

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

但你們仍然會受到 你們自己其他假設的影響。

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

所以你們可能會聽到： 「男性和女性應該受到不同的對待，

because the law treats them differently”

因為法律用不同的方式對待他們」

and think, well, yes, that makes sense.

就心想，是啊，那很合理。

The law has always treated them differently.

法律向來用不同的方式對待他們。

But that’s merely a statement of fact;

但那只是在陳述事實；

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

並非推斷出來的論證， 無法說明為什麼會有不同對待。

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

就算一件事是真的，

也無法證明它就是對的。

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

還沒被說服？

我相信你身為法官，

won’t mind hearing a bit more evidence.

不會介意再多聽一點證據。

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

「現在是 1996 年，這個案件 已經上訴到美國最高法院。

of the United States.

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

法院以七比一的票數判決

維吉尼亞軍校必須要開始招收女性。

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers the ruling,

大法官露絲‧貝德‧金斯伯格宣判，

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

認為維吉尼亞州是在用循環論證。」

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

請容我把你的邏輯 提供給我的夥伴了解。

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

同時，我也要借用那個。

Now, let’s see.

我們來看看，

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

她指出，維吉尼亞州認為 維吉尼亞軍校可以排除女性的正當理由

gave the means as an end—

其實是把手段當作目的——

that is, it argued that women should be excluded

也就是，該州主張應該要排除女性，

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

因為該軍校的使命 就是單一性別教育。

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

但事實上，

該軍校明定的使命 是要培養公民士兵，

prepared to take on leadership roles in American society—

讓他們準備好在美國社會中 扮演領導角色——

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

金斯伯格大法官堅稱，

這個目標絕對包含女性在內。

Alone in my universe at last.

終於能在我的宇宙中享受寧靜了。