Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

翻译人员: Weichen Cai 校对人员: Wenbo Li

我叫丹·科恩，我是个学者，就像主持人介绍的。

My name is Dan Cohen and I am an academic, as he said.

这意味着我经常需要辩论。

And what that means is that I argue.

It's an important part of my life.

这是我生命中的重要组成部分，同时我喜欢辩论。

And I like to argue.

And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,

我不仅仅是个学者，我也是个哲学家，

所以我觉得是实际上还是挺擅长辩论的。

so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.

但是我也经常思考有关辩论的问题。

But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

And in thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles.

说起辩论，我曾有过一些困惑，

And one of the puzzles is that,

而其中一个困惑是

as I've been thinking about arguing over the years --

我多年前开始考虑如何辩论

至今已有二十多年了，我也变得更善于辩论，

and it's been decades now --

I've gotten better at arguing.

But the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing,

但是越是辩论，我就能从中获取更多，

同时也失去更多。这就是一个困惑。

the more that I lose.

And that's a puzzle.

And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.

而另一个困惑就是我其实觉得这没什么大不了的。

Why is it that I'm okay with losing

为什么我会觉得失去一些什么也无关紧要，

and why is it that I think good arguers are actually better at losing?

为什么好的辩论者

实际上更善于失去？

Well, there are some other puzzles.

好了，其实我还有以下其他困惑。

One is: why do we argue?

例如，我们为什么辩论？而谁又从辩论中获益？

Who benefits from arguments?

When I think about arguments, I'm talking about --

需要指出的是当我谈及辩论时，我所指的，

let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments --

是所谓学术辩论亦或者认知辩论，

where something cognitive is at stake:

就一些我们知之甚少的方面进行辩论。

Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?

例如我们的认知是否正确？这个理论是不是个好理论？

Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text? And so on.

对于某些数据或者文字这是不是一个很好的解释？

I'm not interested really in arguments about whose turn it is to do the dishes

以及很多其他的问题。我无心去争论

今天该谁洗碗或者谁应该倒垃圾。

or who has to take out the garbage.

Yeah, we have those arguments, too.

当然，我们也会为那些问题争论。

I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.

我经常在那类争论争论中胜出，因为我知道一些技巧。

当时那些辩论没有那么重要。

But those aren't the important arguments.

我感兴趣的是那些学术性辩论，

I'm interested in academic arguments,

而接下来这是我感到困惑的事情。

and here are the things that puzzle me.

首先，当人们赢得一场辩论的时候，作为一个优秀的辩论者，他从中学到了什么

First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?

What do I win if I convince you

如果我能说服你

that utilitarianism isn't really the right framework

实用主义不能用来解释道德理论的话，我能从中获得什么呢？

for thinking about ethical theories?

所以我们到底可以从一场辩论中学到什么？

What do we win when we win an argument?

而且在此之前，

Even before that,

what does it matter to me

你是追随康德

whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works

or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?

还是密尔又有跟我什么关系呢？

无论你是否认为

It's no skin off my back

whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind.

功能主义是否是一个可取的思维方式都对我没有什么影响。

So why do we even try to argue?

所以我们为什么会想去辩论？

Why do we try to convince other people

为什么我们要去说服别人

to believe things they don't want to believe,

相信那些他们不愿相信的事情？

and is that even a nice thing to do?

我们到底应不应该这么做？用这种方式去

Is that a nice way to treat another human being,

对待他人，迫使他们

try and make them think something they don't want to think?

去思考一些他们不想去思考的东西？

Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.

好了，为了回答这个问题，

让我们来参照三种不同的辩论方式。

The first model -- let's call it the dialectical model --

第一种模式，让我们称之为辩证模式，

is we think of arguments as war; you know what that's like --

这种模式的辩论更想是打仗，相信你们都经历过。

经常充满了尖叫和大喊

a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.

而且伴有胜负，

这对于辩论来说不是一个很有帮助的方式

That's not a very helpful model for arguing,

but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.

却也是相当常见且”侵略性“的方式。

But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.

这里还有第二种辩论的模式：论证式

Think of a mathematician's argument.

想想数学家的辩论。

Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?

这是我的辩论方式。它有用吗？有什么优点吗？

Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?

我们论证时的前提是正确的吗？我们的推论有效吗？

我们的结论是否由前提推导出来？

Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

No opposition, no adversariality --

没有对立，没有敌意，

not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

辩论并非必须在一个敌对意识下进行。

But there's a third model to keep in mind

但是我们还应该注意到其实还有第三种方式

that I think is going to be very helpful,

我认为它非常有效，

and that is arguments as performances, arguments in front of an audience.

它就是表演式辩论，

如同在观众面前辩论。

We can think of a politician trying to present a position,

我们可以想想一个政客想要竞选一个职位，

trying to convince the audience of something.

或尝试去让他的观众接受他的政见。

But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important;

但是我认为对这个模式的一个曲解有必要指出，

namely, that when we argue before an audience,

亦即当我们在观众面前辩论时，

sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument;

有些时候观众在辩论中起了更重要的参与作用，

that is, arguments are also [performances] in front of juries,

我们的如同面对了一群陪审团，

who make a judgment and decide the case.

他们判断是非，裁定诉案。

让我们称之为修辞模式，

Let's call this the rhetorical model,

where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.

这种模式下你就要像裁缝一样为观众量身定制一场辩论。

You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

你要一场听上去激烈讨论，严谨论证的

tight argument in English before a francophone audience

英语辩论，而听众是一群法国人，

just isn't going to work.

那就是白费力气。

So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof

你看我们有这么多辩论模式－－战争式辩论，

论证式辩论，表演式辩论。

and argument as performance.

在这三种模式中，战争式辩论占了主导。

Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.

It dominates how we talk about arguments,

它使每当我们提起辩论，就是这种模式。

it dominates how we think about arguments,

这种模式基本代表了我们对辩论的理解，

and because of that, it shapes how we argue,

也因此，它影响了我们辩论的方式，

our actual conduct in arguments.

我们在辩论时的表现。

Now, when we talk about arguments,

如今当我们谈起辩论，

we talk in a very militaristic language.

我们就会进入一种军国主义的论调。

We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,

我们需要具有攻击性的辩论，辩论时就如同给对手的脸上来上几拳，

arguments that are right on target.

最好每个论点都直击要害。

We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.

我们想把自己武装起来，组织好策略去应对。

We want killer arguments.

我们想要击败对手。

That's the kind of argument we want.

那就是我们想要的辩论。

It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

这就是一种主流的辩论观。

When I'm talking about arguments,

当我说到辩论的时候，很可能

that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.

你马上想到的就是敌对模式。

But the war metaphor,

战争模式这个比方，

the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,

或者说是对辩论模式的认知，

has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.

在我看来正在削弱我们的辩论。

首先它使辩论的技巧凌驾与观点本身。

First, it elevates tactics over substance.

You can take a class in logic, argumentation.

你可以去上关于逻辑与辩论的课程。

你可以学到所有人们在辩论中可以使用的诡计

You learn all about the subterfuges

that people use to try and win arguments -- the false steps.

以力求去赢得一场辩论，多么愚蠢的方式啊。

It magnifies the us-versus them aspect of it.

这放大了辩论中我们与他们的对立关系。

It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.

这使辩论变得敌对。如同以偏振镜来看问题。

And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph -- glorious triumph --

而唯一可预见的结果

就是胜利，一场欢欣鼓舞的胜利，抑或是卑怯，可耻的失败。

or abject, ignominious defeat.

I think those are deforming effects,

我认为那是一种变形效果，最遭的是，

and worst of all, it seems to prevent things like negotiation

这种变形使这种辩论本身看上去不是那么像谈判，

or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.

审议或妥协

抑或者是一种协作。

Think about that one -- have you ever entered an argument thinking,

在参加辩论的时候，你有没有想过

让我们看看能不能共同敲定一些事情，

"Let's see if we can hash something out, rather than fight it out.

而非由一方说服另一方。有什么是我们可以共同协作的？

What can we work out together?"

I think the argument-as-war metaphor

我觉得辩论如战争的这个比喻

已经盖过了其他的辩论形式。

inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.

And finally -- this is really the worst thing --

最终，最糟糕的是，

arguments don't seem to get us anywhere; they're dead ends.

通过争论我们不会学到什么东西。

这样的辩论就如同一个死胡同。交流中的环状公路

They are like roundabouts or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.

交通阻塞或者一个僵局。

We don't get anywhere.

我们停在原地，到不了任何其他地方。

And one more thing.

噢，其实还有一件事情，作为一个教育工作者，

And as an educator, this is the one that really bothers me:

这里还有一个问题困扰了我很久：

If argument is war,

如果辩论是场战争，那么这也隐含着

then there's an implicit equation of learning with losing.

学习等于失去的意思。

And let me explain what I mean.

让我解释一下我的观点。

比如说，你和我进行了一场辩论。

Suppose you and I have an argument.

You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.

你主张观点，P，但是我不同意。

And I say, "Well, why do you believe P?"

然后我说，“好了，为什么你相信P”

And you give me your reasons.

然后你给出了你的理由。

And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?"

然后我反对并说，“好，那关于。。。？”

And you answer my objection.

然后你回答我的反对。

And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?

然后我提问：“额，你的意思是？

How does it apply over here?"

那么在这个地方他如何解释？” 然后你又回答了我的问题。

And you answer my question.

Now, suppose at the end of the day,

现在，假设一天快结束了，

I've objected, I've questioned,

我反对，我提问，

I've raised all sorts of counter counter-considerations

我给出了所有反对问题，

and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.

然后在所有的问题上你都让我满意了。

And so at the end of the day, I say,

然后在一天快要结束的时候，我说，

"You know what? I guess you're right: P."

”你知道吗？我觉得在P这个观点上你没准是对的。“

So, I have a new belief.

所以我有了新的见解。但是这不仅仅是一个见解，

And it's not just any belief;

而是一个阐述清楚的，经过验证的，

it's well-articulated, examined -- it's a battle-tested belief.

同时也是经得起挑战的见解。

Great cognitive gain.

多好的结果啊。好了。那谁赢了这场辩论呢？

OK, who won that argument?

Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won,

好了，将辩论作为战争的人们会强迫我们承认

提出见解那方赢了，即使我才是那个获得新见解的人。

even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.

那么作为说服我的人，他在获得了什么新的见解吗？

What did you gain, cognitively, from convincing me?

Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,

没错，你从中获得了一些愉悦，或许一些自我安慰

maybe you get some professional status

或许在你的领域里获得了一些专业声誉。

in the field -- "This guy's a good arguer."

这家伙是个辩论好手。

But just from a cognitive point of view,

但是从认知角度而言，仅仅从认识的角度来看，谁是胜利者？

who was the winner?

The war metaphor forces us into thinking that you're the winner and I lost,

视辩论如战争的人们会强迫我们认为

你是胜者而我是败者，

even though I gained.

即使是我也有所得。

And there's something wrong with that picture.

这个认识本身存在一些错误。

同时我也想去改变这个认识。

And that's the picture I really want to change if we can.

So, how can we find ways

所以我们如何去进行辩论

to make arguments yield something positive?

并使之有一些积极的影响呢？

What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.

我们所需要的是一个新的方式来终止一场辩论。

But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments

但是我们没有办法找到一个新的方式去终止辩论，

until we have new entry approaches to arguments.

除非我们可以找到一个新的方式去开始一场辩论。

We need to think of new kinds of arguments.

我们需要一种新的辩论方式。

为了找到这种新的方式，

In order to do that, well --

I don't know how to do that.

可是我不知道应该怎么做。

That's the bad news.

这是个坏消息。

The argument-as-war metaphor is just ... it's a monster.

视辩论如战争的观点本身就如同是一个怪兽。

It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

这已经成为我们的思维定式了，

and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it.

而且也没有什么快速有效的办法可以解决它。

我们没有办法就这样让他消失不见。

There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.

我不知道该怎么解决。

I don't have an answer.

But I have some suggestions.

但是我确实有一些建议，

Here's my suggestion:

这里是我的建议。

If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,

如果我想要创造一种崭新的辩论方式，

what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.

那么我们需要的其实是新的辩论者。

So try this:

所以尝试一下这个。

Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.

想象一下人们在辩论中所扮演的角色。

There's the proponent and the opponent

我需要支持者与反对者

in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

才能进行一场意见相反的，辩证性的辩论。

There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

在修饰性辩论中，我们需要有观众。

There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.

在证明式论证中我们需要推理者。

All these different roles.

所有这些不同角色。现在，你可以想象在一场辩论中，

Now, can you imagine an argument in which you are the arguer,

你既是辩论者，也是观众

but you're also in the audience, watching yourself argue?

看着你自己的表现？

Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,

你能想象你自己看着你自己辩论，

在辩论中落败，却仍然在辩论结束后，

losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument, saying,

觉得，“哦，这是一场不错的辩论。”

"Wow, that was a good argument!"

你能做到吗？我觉得你能。

Can you do that?

I think you can, and I think if you can imagine that kind of argument,

我觉得如果你可以想象一场辩论，

where the loser says to the winner and the audience and the jury can say,

败者可以对胜者，

对观众以及裁判们说

"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

“噢，这是一场不错的辩论，”

then you have imagined a good argument.

即使如此你也已经可以想象一场不错的辩论了。

And more than that,

而且不仅如此，我想你已经可以想象到

I think you've imagined a good arguer,

一个好的辩论者，一个你希望

an arguer that's worthy of the kind of arguer you should try to be.

成为的辩论者。

Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

现在，我输掉了很多辩论。

It takes practice to become a good arguer,

要成为一个好的辩论者是需要练习的

in the sense of being able to benefit from losing, but fortunately,

尤其是从失败中汲取教训这一点。

但是幸运的是，我有很多很多同事

I've had many, many colleagues who have been willing to step up

他们愿意为我参与进来并和我一起练习成为好的辩论者。

and provide that practice for me.

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）