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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Ah, a witch hunt.

啊，獵女巫。

Humans are tireless in their pursuit of reason.

人類一直孜孜不倦在追求理由。

"It’s 1950.

「時間是 1950 年。

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

接在蘇聯和中國 共產黨政府的威脅之後，

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

美國境內的反共情緒達到了高峰。

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

參議員麥卡錫宣稱

他有張在美國的共產黨員名單， 上面有兩百零五個人，

who are influencing government policy."

這些人在影響政府的政策。」

Didn’t I just change the channel?

我剛不是轉台了嗎？

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

啊，我懂了。這是 另一個獵女巫行動。

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

「參議院成立了一個委員會 來調查麥卡錫的宣稱。

McCarthy names his first case:

麥卡錫點名了他的第一個對象：

against prominent lawyer, judge, and activist Dorothy Kenyon.

知名的律師、法官， 及活動家，多蘿西·凱尼恩。

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

他指控她參與了二十八個 秘密進行共產嘗活的組織。

Newspapers around the country rush to her defense,

全國的報紙緊忙幫她辯護，

pointing out her vocally anti-communist record.

指出她過去有口頭反共的記錄。

The senate committee schedules a hearing anyway,

參議院委員會 還是安排了一次聽證會，

and she has just five days to prepare."

而她只有五天準備。」

This is too much.

這太過份了。

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

如果政府不扮演理智之聲， 那就由我來。

That’s better.

這樣好多了。

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

我很意外你們這些好樣的立法者 會同意將聽證會提前。

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

你們落入了一種出於無知的論點：

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

假設這個宣稱是真的， 因為還沒有證明它是假的。

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

這個宣稱就是參議員麥卡錫 對肯尼恩法官的指控，

for which he provided no legitimate evidence.

他並沒有為這個宣稱 提出合法的證據。

Is that right? I thought so.

對嗎？我想也是。

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

他指控她參與的一些共產黨組織

don’t even exist.

甚至不存在。

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

只因為還沒有證明這個宣稱 是假的，就假設它是真的，

ignores many other possibilities:

忽視其他可能性：

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

比如它只是還沒被證明是假的、 無法證明它是真是假、

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

它不完全是真的或完全是假的等等。

This leads to a handy rule of thumb:

這就帶出了一個好用的經驗法則：

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

做出宣稱的人有舉證責任。

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

換言之，既然你宣稱， 你就要提供證據。

If someone told you aliens exist,

如果有人告訴你外星人存在，

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

你會跑去找證據， 證明外星人不存在嗎？

Of course not.

當然不會。

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

你會叫對方拿出飛碟存在的證明。

The same applies when someone makes a claim

如果你要做出一個 與既存共識矛盾的宣稱，

that contradicts an established consensus.

那麼同樣的道理也適用你。

So when all the available evidence suggests

當所有可得的證據都指出

that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures,

人類造成全球溫度不斷上升，

the burden of proof has been fulfilled—

舉證責任已盡——

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

如果你不同意，

就變成你有責任要去證明你的想法。

Right?

對吧？

Ah, I’ve gotten ahead of myself.

啊，我講太遠了。

You’ll see what I mean soon enough.

你很快就會知道我的意思。

Anyway, your legal system supposedly recognizes this rule—

總之，你的法律體制 應該要知道這條規則——

so what are you all doing here?

所以你們大家在這裡幹嘛？

"It’s July 17th, 1950,

「時間是 1950 年七月十七日，

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

參議院的小組委員會正式撤消 對凱尼恩的所有指控。」

As they should!

他們本來就該這樣做！

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

「時間是 1954 年， 參議院正式懲戒麥卡錫。」

Took them long enough!

也拖得夠久了！

"He will serve out the rest of his term,

「他會做完他的任期，

but will never again be elected to a public office.

但將永遠無法再擔任公職。

Because of his widespread anti-communist influence,

因為他廣大的反共影響力，

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

數百人受到監禁，

數千人失去工作。」

Ah! Look what the communists did!

啊！看看共產黨幹了什麼好事！