How to see past your own perspective and find truth | Michael Patrick Lynch

譯者: Szu-Wen Kung 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

So, imagine that you had your smartphone miniaturized

想像你的智慧型手機被縮小，

and hooked up directly to your brain.

直接連上你的腦袋，

If you had this sort of brain chip,

如果你的頭內植入晶片，

you'd be able to upload and download to the internet

你能彈指間在網路上，

at the speed of thought.

下載和上傳資料。

Accessing social media or Wikipedia would be a lot like --

使用社群媒體或維基，

直接從腦中存取，

well, from the inside at least --

like consulting your own memory.

就像參考自己的記憶那樣。

It would be as easy and as intimate as thinking.

搜尋資料就像思考般親密和簡單，

But would it make it easier for you to know what's true?

但這會讓你更容易辨別真相嗎？

Just because a way of accessing information is faster

只因擷取資訊更迅速，

it doesn't mean it's more reliable, of course,

當然不代表更就會可靠，

and it doesn't mean that we would all interpret it the same way.

不代表每個人的解讀會一致，

And it doesn't mean that you would be any better at evaluating it.

也不代表，你比別人更會評估資訊。

In fact, you might even be worse,

實際上，搞不好更糟糕，

because, you know, more data, less time for evaluation.

因為資訊愈多，評估的時間愈短。

Something like this is already happening to us right now.

這樣的事情，目前已經發生了。

We already carry a world of information around in our pockets,

我們已將全球資訊裝在口袋裡，

but it seems as if the more information we share and access online,

但似乎我們線上接觸、分享得愈多，

the more difficult it can be for us to tell the difference

就越難釐清真實與虛假。

between what's real and what's fake.

It's as if we know more but understand less.

我們變得知道越多，懂得卻越少。

Now, it's a feature of modern life, I suppose,

這現象，似乎成為現代生活的特徵。

that large swaths of the public live in isolated information bubbles.

一堆人活在孤立的資訊泡泡裡，

We're polarized: not just over values, but over the facts.

我們對價值觀和事實皆過度兩極化。

One reason for that is, the data analytics that drive the internet

其中一個原因是

數據分析讓網路給我們更多的資訊，

get us not just more information,

but more of the information that we want.

遠多於我們所想要的資訊量。

Our online life is personalized;

我們的網路生活已經個人化。

everything from the ads we read

我們所瀏覽的，從廣告

to the news that comes down our Facebook feed

到臉書動態總匯上出現的新聞，

is tailored to satisfy our preferences.

都經過調整以滿足個人的喜好。

And so while we get more information,

在我們獲取更多資訊的同時，

a lot of that information ends up reflecting ourselves

不少資訊到最後反映我們自身喜好，

as much as it does reality.

如同調整過而反映出的事實。

It ends up, I suppose,

我想，到最後

inflating our bubbles rather than bursting them.

我們所處的被孤立泡泡 只會過度膨脹，而非爆破。

And so maybe it's no surprise

所以我們處在矛盾的處境裡，

that we're in a situation, a paradoxical situation,

一點也不令人訝異，

of thinking that we know so much more,

我們知道的這麼多，

and yet not agreeing on what it is we know.

但我們到底知道甚麼，卻看法不一。

So how are we going to solve this problem of knowledge polarization?

所以該如何解決知識極端化的問題？

One obvious tactic is to try to fix our technology,

最顯著的策略是，試著修復科技，

to redesign our digital platforms,

重新設定數位平台，

so as to make them less susceptible to polarization.

減少知識被兩極化的現象。

And I'm happy to report

很高興能跟各位說，

that many smart people at Google and Facebook are working on just that.

谷歌和臉書裡優秀的人才， 正朝此方向努力。

And these projects are vital.

這些計畫很重要。

I think that fixing technology is obviously really important,

我認為修復科技顯然至關重要，

but I don't think technology alone, fixing it, is going to solve the problem

但我不認為光靠修復科技，

就能解決知識極端化的問題。

of knowledge polarization.

I don't think that because I don't think, at the end of the day,

我不這麼認為，是因為到頭來，

終究不是科技的問題，

it is a technological problem.

I think it's a human problem,

而是人的問題，

having to do with how we think and what we value.

跟我們如何思考、 和所重視的價值有關。

In order to solve it, I think we're going to need help.

為了解決問題，我們需要各方協助，

We're going to need help from psychology and political science.

需要心理學與政治科學的幫忙。

But we're also going to need help, I think, from philosophy.

不過，我們也需要哲學的協助，

Because to solve the problem of knowledge polarization,

因為想要解決知識對立的問題，

we're going to need to reconnect

我們必需重新思考

with one fundamental, philosophical idea:

一個最基本的哲學問題:

that we live in a common reality.

我們活在普遍的現實裡。

The idea of a common reality is like, I suppose,

活在普遍的現實裡的想法，

a lot of philosophical concepts:

與眾多哲學概念類似：

說起來簡單，

easy to state

but mysteriously difficult to put into practice.

但做起來，卻莫名困難。

想真正地接受，

To really accept it,

I think we need to do three things,

我們有三件事要做，

each of which is a challenge right now.

目前，每一項都具有挑戰性。

First, we need to believe in truth.

首先，我們必須相信真相。

You might have noticed

大家可能注意到

that our culture is having something of a troubled relationship

我們的文化和這個概念

with that concept right now.

似乎有所衝突。

It seems as if we disagree so much that,

我們如此地不同意，

as one political commentator put it not long ago,

正如一位政治評論員不久前說的，

it's as if there are no facts anymore.

彷彿真相不再存在一般。

But that thought is actually an expression

但這種想法，實際上只是種表達方式，

of a sort of seductive line of argument that's in the air.

一種充斥在空氣裡、引人入勝的論述。

It goes like this:

論述是這樣的:

we just can't step outside of our own perspectives;

我們就是無法跳脫自我的觀點，

we can't step outside of our biases.

我們也無法放下偏見，

Every time we try,

每次我們試著這麼做，

we just get more information from our perspective.

就只是從自我的觀點得到更多資訊。

So, this line of thought goes,

順著這種思路，

we might as well admit that objective truth is an illusion,

我們乾脆承認，客觀事實只是假象，

or it doesn't matter,

不痛不癢，

because either we'll never know what it is,

因為，要不就是我們無從得知真相，

or it doesn't exist in the first place.

要不就是真相根本就不存在。

That's not a new philosophical thought --

這不是新興的哲學思想——

skepticism about truth.

真相懷疑論。

During the end of the last century, as some of you know,

在上世紀末，可能有人知道，

懷疑論在特定學術圈廣受歡迎。

it was very popular in certain academic circles.

But it really goes back all the way to the Greek philosopher Protagoras,

這真可追溯到希臘哲學家 普羅泰格拉，

if not farther back.

如果不是更早的話。

Protagoras said that objective truth was an illusion

普羅泰格拉認為 客觀的事實只是假象。

because "man is the measure of all things."

因為「人是所有事物的衡量標準」。

Man is the measure of all things.

人是所有事物的衡量標準。

That can seem like a bracing bit of realpolitik to people,

這話聽來像是權力政治中的支撐點，

or liberating,

或是一種解放，

because it allows each of us to discover or make our own truth.

因為這讓每個人探索 或創造屬於自己的真相。

But actually, I think it's a bit of self-serving rationalization

但我覺得這其實是

disguised as philosophy.

喬裝為哲理的自我合理化。

It confuses the difficulty of being certain

它使確定的難度

with the impossibility of truth.

與真理的不可能性互相混淆。

Look --

看哪，

of course it's difficult to be certain about anything;

對所有事感到有把握，並不容易。

we might all be living in "The Matrix."

我們可能活在《駭客任務》的世界裡。

You might have a brain chip in your head

你的腦中也許植有晶片，

feeding you all the wrong information.

將錯誤的資訊灌輸給你。

But in practice, we do agree on all sorts of facts.

但事實上，我們認同各式各樣的事實。

We agree that bullets can kill people.

我們認同子彈能殺人，

We agree that you can't flap your arms and fly.

我們認同人類不能振翅高飛，

We agree -- or we should --

我們認同，或是我們應該認同，

that there is an external reality

客觀的外在現實世界的存在，

and ignoring it can get you hurt.

若你漠視的話，可能會因此受傷。

Nonetheless, skepticism about truth can be tempting,

但懷疑真相其實很誘人，

because it allows us to rationalize away our own biases.

因為這能讓我們把偏見合理化。

When we do that, we're sort of like the guy in the movie

當我們這麼做，就像電影中的人物，

who knew he was living in "The Matrix"

知道他自己活在《駭客任務》裡，

but decided he liked it there, anyway.

卻喜歡住在那裏。

After all, getting what you want feels good.

畢竟，得到你想要的讓你快樂。

Being right all the time feels good.

你總是對的，讓你自我感覺良好。

So, often it's easier for us

所以，通常我們更容易

to wrap ourselves in our cozy information bubbles,

將自己包裹在舒適的資訊泡泡中，

不信任地活著，

live in bad faith,

and take those bubbles as the measure of reality.

還把這些泡泡 當作所有事物的衡量標準。

An example, I think, of how this bad faith gets into our action

一個這種不信任 如何滲入我們行動的例子

is our reaction to the phenomenon of fake news.

是我們對假新聞現象的反應。

The fake news that spread on the internet

在 2016 年美國總統大選期間，

during the American presidential election of 2016

散佈於網路上的假新聞，

was designed to feed into our biases,

被設計來餵養我們的偏見，

designed to inflate our bubbles.

膨脹我們的泡泡。

But what was really striking about it

但真正令人訝異的，

was not just that it fooled so many people.

不只是假新聞愚弄了許多人，

What was really striking to me about fake news,

真正令我訝異的是

the phenomenon,

假新聞的現象

is how quickly it itself became the subject of knowledge polarization;

快速成為知識對立的議題，

so much so, that the very term -- the very term -- "fake news"

「假新聞」這個詞，

now just means: "news story I don't like."

現在的意思僅是:「我討厭的新聞。」

That's an example of the bad faith towards the truth that I'm talking about.

這就是我所說的 「不相信真相」的例子。

But the really, I think, dangerous thing

不過我想懷疑真相的真正危險

about skepticism with regard to truth

is that it leads to despotism.

是它會導致專制。

"Man is the measure of all things"

「人是所有事物的衡量標準」，

inevitably becomes "The Man is the measure of all things."

無可避免地變成「『個人』 是所有事物的衡量標準」，

Just as "every man for himself"

就像是「人人只顧自己」，

always seems to turn out to be "only the strong survive."

結局總是「適者生存」。

At the end of Orwell's "1984,"

在英國作家喬治·歐威爾的 小說《一九八四》的結尾，

the thought policeman O'Brien is torturing the protagonist Winston Smith

思想警察歐布萊恩 虐待主角史密斯，

into believing two plus two equals five.

讓主角相信二加二等於五。

What O'Brien says is the point,

歐布萊恩說到重點，

is that he wants to convince Smith that whatever the party says is the truth,

他想說服史密斯相信， 凡是黨說的就是真相，

and the truth is whatever the party says.

真相就是黨說了算。

And what O'Brien knows is that once this thought is accepted,

歐布萊恩知道，一旦接受這個思想，

critical dissent is impossible.

思想異議者就不可能存在。

You can't speak truth to power

如果權力詮釋甚麼是真相，

if the power speaks truth by definition.

你就不能跟權力說，甚麼才是事實。

I said that in order to accept that we really live in a common reality,

為了徹底接受我們活在現實裡，

we have to do three things.

必須做三件事情。

The first thing is to believe in truth.

第一就是相信事實，

The second thing can be summed up

第二，則能用一句拉丁文總結，

by the Latin phrase that Kant took as the motto for the Enlightenment:

康德視之為啟蒙時期的座右銘

"Sapere aude,"

「Sapere aude」，

or "dare to know."

或是「勇於求知」，

Or as Kant wants, "to dare to know for yourself."

亦或康德的說法「為自己勇於求知」。

I think in the early days of the internet,

在網路的早期

a lot of us thought

有許多人認為，

that information technology was always going to make it easier

資訊科技總能

讓我們簡易地去自己求知，

for us to know for ourselves,

and of course in many ways, it has.

當然從很多面相來說，確實如此。

But as the internet has become more and more a part of our lives,

不過，當網路愈融入人們的生活，

our reliance on it, our use of it,

人們依賴網路、

has become often more passive.

使用網路的方式變得更被動。

Much of what we know today we Google-know.

現今人們所知的，大多全靠谷歌搜尋。

We download prepackaged sets of facts

我們下載事先包裝的事實，

and sort of shuffle them along the assembly line of social media.

沿著社群媒體裝配線重新組裝分享。

Now, Google-knowing is useful

谷歌搜尋有用乃是歸功於

precisely because it involves a sort of intellectual outsourcing.

它匯集所有外部的智能資源。

We offload our effort onto a network of others and algorithms.

我們把自己該下的功夫卸載到

演算法和其他人的網路上。

And that allows us, of course, to not clutter our minds

這當然能讓我們的腦袋，

with all sorts of facts.

不被各類事實所淹沒。

We can just download them when we need them.

我們能夠只在需要時才下載資訊，

And that's awesome.

這是很棒的事情。

But there's a difference between downloading a set of facts

但下載各類事實與透徹辨別這些真相

and really understanding how or why those facts are as they are.

兩者之間是有差別的。

Understanding why a particular disease spreads,

了解為何某個疾病會散播、

or how a mathematical proof works,

如何證明某數學公式，

or why your friend is depressed,

或你的朋友為何憂鬱，

involves more than just downloading.

這些都遠超過單純的下載動作。

It's going to require, most likely,

反而更需要的是，

doing some work for yourself:

你自己也下點功夫，

having a little creative insight;

多一點創造巧思、

using your imagination;

運用想像力、

getting out into the field;

起身而行、

doing the experiment;

做點小實驗、

working through the proof;

引經據典驗證、

talking to someone.

與人聊聊。

Now, I'm not saying, of course, that we should stop Google-knowing.

當然我不是要大家停用谷歌搜尋，

I'm just saying

我是說，

we shouldn't overvalue it, either.

我們也不該過度倚重谷歌。

We need to find ways of encouraging forms of knowing that are more active,

我們需要找到方法 鼓勵更積極地形成知識，

and don't always involve passing off our effort into our bubble.

而不總是將該盡的心力， 塞進資訊泡泡裡，

Because the thing about Google-knowing is that too often it ends up

因為谷歌搜尋最後多半變成

being bubble-knowing.

泡泡搜尋，

And bubble-knowing means always being right.

而泡泡搜尋代表不會出錯。

But daring to know,

但是勇於求知、

daring to understand,

勇於理解，

means risking the possibility that you could be wrong.

意味著你有搞錯的可能，

It means risking the possibility

意味著到頭來有可能

that what you want and what's true are different things.

你想要的和事實真相有出入。

Which brings me to the third thing that I think we need to do

第三件我們必須做的事，

if we want to accept that we live in a common reality.

如果我們想接受， 活在普遍的現實世界的話。

That third thing is: have a little humility.

那就是謙卑一點，

By humility here, I mean epistemic humility,

我指的是知識上的謙卑。

which means, in a sense,

也就是說，

knowing that you don't know it all.

明白你其實不是萬事通。

But it also means something more than that.

但這也進一步意味著，

It means seeing your worldview as open to improvement

藉由佐證與他人的經驗

來看待你可改進的世界觀。

by the evidence and experience of others.

Seeing your worldview as open to improvement

藉由佐證與他人的經驗

by the evidence and experience of others.

來看待你可改進的世界觀。

這不只是打開心門、擁抱改變，

That's more than just being open to change.

It's more than just being open to self-improvement.

也不只是打開心門、自我進步，

It means seeing your knowledge as capable of enhancing

而是看到自己的知識，

能透過他人的貢獻，有所提升增長。

or being enriched by what others contribute.

That's part of what is involved

這就是認同現實世界存在，

in recognizing there's a common reality

必須經歷的一個過程，

that you, too, are responsible to.

那就是，你也要負起責任。

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say

我不認為這樣說太超過，

that our society is not particularly great at enhancing or encouraging

我們的社會不擅於提升或激勵

that sort of humility.

我剛剛提到的謙卑，

That's partly because,

部分原因是

well, we tend to confuse arrogance and confidence.

我們有分不清自大與自信的傾向，

And it's partly because, well, you know,

還有部分是

自大比自信來得容易。

arrogance is just easier.

It's just easier to think of yourself as knowing it all.

認為自己是萬事通，可簡單多了，

It's just easier to think of yourself as having it all figured out.

認為自己摸懂一切，也簡單多了。

But that's another example of the bad faith towards the truth

但這是我剛才提到，

不相信真相的另一個例子。

that I've been talking about.

So the concept of a common reality,

所以現實世界的概念

like a lot of philosophical concepts,

與很多哲學概念雷同，

can seem so obvious,

是那麼的顯眼，

that we can look right past it

我們卻視而不見，

and forget why it's important.

並忘掉其重要性。

Democracies can't function if their citizens don't strive,

若人民不努力，民主就會失能，

at least some of the time,

至少有時候是這樣，

to inhabit a common space,

就是如果人民不努力，

a space where they can pass ideas back and forth

不在共有的時空裡交流意見，

when -- and especially when --

尤其當大家的想法不一致時。

they disagree.

But you can't strive to inhabit that space

但如果你還沒接受 大家活在同一現實裡，

if you don't already accept that you live in the same reality.

你就無法力圖守著那個現實空間。

To accept that, we've got to believe in truth,

想要接受就必須相信真相，

we've got to encourage more active ways of knowing.

我們必須鼓勵更積極的求知方法，

And we've got to have the humility

也必須謙卑，

to realize that we're not the measure of all things.

才能認知，我們不是 所有事物的衡量標準。

We may yet one day realize the vision

也許腦袋裡配備網路的想法，

of having the internet in our brains.

會有實現的一天。

But if we want that to be liberating and not terrifying,

但若希望它如釋重負而非恐怖嚇人，

if we want it to expand our understanding

希望它擴展我們的理解

and not just our passive knowing,

而不僅是添加被動的知識，

we need to remember that our perspectives,

我們就必須謹記

我們的觀點是如此奇妙美麗，

as wondrous, as beautiful as they are,

are just that --

純粹只關注於單一的現實上。

perspectives on one reality.

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲)