Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox

譯者: Camila Lin 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

Baking apple pie? Discount orange warehouse has you covered!

想烤個蘋果派嗎？

柳丁折扣倉庫助你一臂之力！

A fruit’s a fruit, right?

反正都是水果，對吧？ ［蘋果派──用柳丁來做！］

It’s 1988, and scientist James Hansen has just testified

1988 年，科學家詹姆斯·漢森 對美國國會表示，

to the United States Congress that global warming trends

全球暖化的趨勢

are caused by human activity,

是人類活動所導致，

and will pose an increasing threat to humanity in the future.

並將會越來越嚴峻， 對未來的人類產生威脅。

Well, well. That’s unusually prescient for a human.

哇，哇。

一個人類有這樣的先見之明 可真不尋常。

Looking for a wedding dress? Try a new take on a timeless classic.

在找婚紗嗎？

給永恆經典款一個新的定義。

It’s sleek, flattering and modest— just like the traditional dress.

時髦、合宜、突顯身材優點， 就像傳統婚紗一樣。

Commercials. Could anything be more insufferable?

廣告。

還有甚麼比廣告更討人嫌的嗎？

It’s 1997, and the United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming.

1997 年，美國參議院 舉辦了一場全球暖化聽證會。

Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history

一些專家證人指出， 過往在地球史上的某些時期

were warmer than the 20th century.

實際上比 20 世紀更熱。

Because such variations existed long before humans,

由於這種氣溫變化， 在人類誕生之前早已存在，

the witnesses claim the current warming trend

專家們表示，當今的暖化趨勢，

is also the result of natural variation.

也是自然變化的結果。

Ah, there is something more insufferable than a commercial.

啊，比廣告更讓人難以忍受的東西。

Luckily for the humans, there’s one more expert witness.

對人類來說幸運的是， 這裡還有個專家證人。

（驚呼聲）

［理性惡魔］

What are you looking at? We’re all dressed.

你在看甚麼？

我們都有穿衣服。

At least we are by the logic you just used.

至少根據你們剛剛用的邏輯， 我們都有穿衣服。

It’s as if you were to say apples and oranges are both fruits,

這邏輯就像是， 你們說蘋果跟柳橙都是水果，

therefore they taste the same.

所以它們吃起來的味道都相同。

Or that underwear, wedding dresses, and suits are all clothes,

或者說內衣、婚紗跟西裝都是衣服，

therefore, they’re all equally appropriate attire for a Senate hearing.

所以它們對參議院聽證會來說， 都是同樣體面的衣服。

（驚呼聲）

The European wars of the 19th century and World War I were all wars, right?

19 世紀發生在歐洲的一連串戰爭 跟第一次世界大戰都是戰爭，對吧？

So World War I couldn’t be any more devastating than those other wars,

所以第一次世界大戰， 不會比其他戰爭來得死傷慘重，

could it?

對吧？

Let’s say two people have a fever.

假設這裡有兩個發燒的人。

They must have the same disease that’s causing that fever, right?

他們一定是得到相同的病， 才會同樣都發燒了對吧？

Of course not. One fever could be caused by chicken pox,

當然不是這樣。

其中一個人可能是得了水痘，

the other by influenza, or any number of other infections.

另一個可能是得了流感， 或是任何其他感染。

（驚呼聲）

Like your claim about rising global temperatures,

就像是你們對全球暖化作出的宣稱，

these claims make a false analogy.

這些假設都犯了不當類比的錯誤。

You're assuming that because two phenomena share a characteristic,

你們在這裡對全球暖化做的假設， 奠基在這個邏輯上：

in this case warming, they are analogous in other ways,

只要兩個現象擁有相同特質， 它們的其他特質也會相同。

like the cause of that warming.

所以你們認為暖化的原因也會一樣。

But there’s no evidence that that’s the case.

但根本沒有證據證明， 事實就是如此。

Yes, there have been other warm periods in Earth’s history—

沒錯，地球歷史上有其他高溫的時期，

no one’s disputing that the climate fluctuates.

沒有人否認氣溫會波動。

But let's take a closer look at some of those older examples of global warming,

但讓我們來仔細看看 一些以前的暖化例子吧，

shall we?

好嗎？

The Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse, 92 million years ago,

［白堊紀熱溫室氣候 九千二百萬年前］

was so warm, forests covered Antarctica.

當時非常熱，就連南極洲都長出森林。

Volcanic activity was likely responsible for boosting atmospheric carbon dioxide

很可能因為火山活動， 大氣層中的二氧化碳增加，

and creating a greenhouse effect.

也因此造成溫室效應。

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago,

五千五百萬年前的 古新世－始新世極熱事件

was so warm, crocodiles swam the waters of the Arctic Circle.

當時超級熱，熱到 鱷魚都能在北極圈裡游泳。

This warming may have been caused by the drying of inland seas

可能是因為內陸海乾涸，

and release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas,

和海洋沉積物釋放出甲烷 ──一種強勢的溫室氣體──

from ocean sediments.

才導致暖化。

Even among these other warm periods, you’re making a false analogy.

就算是拿其他暖化時期來比較， 你們的類比也是錯的。

Yes, they had natural causes.

沒錯，它們都是自然因素造成的。

But each had a different cause,

但兩者的原因並不相同，

and involved a different amount and duration of warming.

暖化的程度跟持續的時間也不同。

They’re as dissimilar as they are similar.

它們如此不同又如此相同。

Taking them together, all we can reasonably conclude

同時看兩者，我們能理性得到的結論，

is that the Earth’s climate seems to change

就是地球的氣溫變動，

in response to conditions on the planet.

似乎是被自身條件所影響的。

Today, human activity is a dominant force shaping conditions on your planet,

今天，人類的活動， 是形塑你們星球條件的主要力量。

so the possibility that it’s driving global warming

所以它導致全球暖化的可能性，

can’t be dismissed out of hand.

不能隨意忽視。

I’ll grant that the more complicated something is,

我承認，一件事情越複雜，

the easier it is to make a mistaken analogy.

就越容易做出一個錯誤的類比。

That’s especially true because there are many different types of false analogy:

這是真的，因為錯誤類比有很多種：

that similar symptoms must share a cause,

從相同的結果可能來自於相同的原因，

that similar actions must lead to similar consequences, and countless others.

到相同的行動一定會導致相同的結果， 以及其他數不清的類比。

Most false analogies you’ll come across are far less obvious

你會遇到的大多數不當類比，

都會比「拿蘋果比柳橙」更難以察覺。

than those comparing apples to oranges, and climate is notoriously complex.

其中，氣候的複雜度更是惡名昭彰。

It requires careful, rigorous study and evidence collection—

解析氣候變化，需要 小心、嚴謹的研究和蒐證。

and making a false analogy like this only impedes that process.

而這種不當類比，只會妨礙研究進行。

（驚呼聲）

（貓叫聲）

It’s 2013, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

2013年，

聯合國政府間氣候變遷專門委員會

has found, aggregating decades of research,

匯集數十年來的研究後，委員會發現，

that there is more than a 95% chance the global warming trend

二十世紀中葉後的全球暖化趨勢，

since the mid-20th century has been driven by human activity,

有超過 95% 的機率是由於人類活動。

namely the burning of fossil fuels.

換句話說，就是因為使用化石燃料。

You’re both pets,

你們都是寵物。

and he likes living in water, so you should, too.

他喜歡住在水裡， 所以你應該也要喜歡才對。