Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

譯者: Ou Chih-Hong 審譯者: Julia Xu

我叫丹‧柯恩，像剛剛那人說的，我是個學者

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

這也就意味著我經常辯論

And what that means is that I argue.

It's an important part of my life.

辯論是我人生重要的一部分，我喜歡辯論

And I like to argue.

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

我不只是個學者，我也是個哲學家

我常常覺得，我應該很擅長辯論

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

我也喜歡思考辯論

But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

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

在這過程中，我遇到了一些困惑

And one of the puzzles is that,

其中有個是

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

過去這幾年，我一直思考辯論

到現在已經幾十年了 我也是越來越擅長辯論了

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,

但我辯論得越多，辯論得越好

我也就輸得越多，這是我的困惑

the more that I lose.

And that's a puzzle.

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

另一個困惑是，我覺得這無所謂

Why is it that I'm okay with losing

為什麼我覺得輸會無所謂

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

為什麼我又覺得，好的辯論者

應該是更好的輸家？

Well, there are some other puzzles.

嗯……還有其他一些困惑

One is: why do we argue?

其中一個是，我們為何辯論？ 辯論使誰獲益？

Who benefits from arguments?

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

我現在思考辯論時所指的

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

就把它們稱為學術辯論或認知辯論

where something cognitive is at stake:

涉及認知利害關係的

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

這項提議是對的嗎？這是好的理論嗎？

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

如此解釋這項數據或文本，是可行的嗎？

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

諸如此類。我對於辯論某些事情就沒什麼興趣

像是誰要去洗碗、誰要去倒垃圾

or who has to take out the garbage.

Yeah, we have those arguments, too.

雖然我們也會辯論那些事情

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

這些辯論我滿常贏的，因為我知道技巧

但這些不是很重要的辯論

But those aren't the important arguments.

我的興趣在於現今的學術辯論

I'm interested in academic arguments,

下面這些事情給我帶了不少困惑

and here are the things that puzzle me.

第一，辯論高手們贏得辯論時 到底贏得了什麼？

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

What do I win if I convince you

如果我說服你功利主義並不是

that utilitarianism isn't really the right framework

思考道德理論的正確方向，我獲得了什麼？

for thinking about ethical theories?

所以當我們贏得辯論時，我們到底贏了什麼？

What do we win when we win an argument?

甚至在辯論之前，無論你是支持康德或是密爾

Even before that,

what does it matter to me

覺得誰才是對的道德主義者

whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works

or Mill is the right ethicist to follow?

又和我有什麼關係？

無論你認為功能主義 是否為可行的心智理論

It's no skin off my back

whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind.

也是和我沒關係

So why do we even try to argue?

那我們到底為什麼要辯論？

Why do we try to convince other people

為什麼我們要去說服他人

to believe things they don't want to believe,

去相信他們不願相信的事物

and is that even a nice thing to do?

這麼做真的好嗎？

Is that a nice way to treat another human being,

這真的是一種對待他人的好方法嗎？

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

設法讓他們相信他們不願相信的事物？

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

我的答案將會談到

三種辯論模式

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

第一，我們就叫它為對話模式

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

這種模式，雙方把辯論看成戰爭，情況可想而知

雙方會吵鬧，大叫

a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.

也會有輸贏

就辯論而言，這真的不是個有幫助的模式

That's not a very helpful model for arguing,

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

但這種模式卻是很常見，也很強硬的一種模式

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

還有第二種模式，論證式辯論

Think of a mathematician's argument.

想想一個數學家的辯論

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

這是我的論點，講得通嗎？有道理嗎？

Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?

假設可靠嗎？參考數據可信嗎？

結論是否與假設呼應？

Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

No opposition, no adversariality --

沒有反對，沒有對手

not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

不一定有持反對意見的辯論

But there's a third model to keep in mind

還有第三種模式要注意

that I think is going to be very helpful,

我覺得這是很有幫助的一種

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

就是做為表演的辯論

在一群觀眾面前辯論

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

想像一個政治人物，試著表明他的立場

trying to convince the audience of something.

要說服觀眾相信某件事情

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

這個模式中，還有個小轉折我覺得很重要

namely, that when we argue before an audience,

換言之，當我們在觀眾前辯論時

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

觀眾在此過程中擔任更有參與性角色

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

在觀眾前辯論，也就是在陪審團前辯論

who make a judgment and decide the case.

他們下判決，決定案情結果

我們稱之為修辭模式

Let's call this the rhetorical model,

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

因為你要修改論點去迎合現場觀眾

You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

比如在說法語的觀眾面前

tight argument in English before a francophone audience

發表一個有力的論點

just isn't going to work.

是沒有用的

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

所以我們有三種模式分別為－戰爭式辯論

論證式辯論和表演性辯論

and argument as performance.

這三者中，戰爭式辯論一直都是比較強勢的

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

It dominates how we talk about arguments,

它影響著我們談論辯論的方式

it dominates how we think about arguments,

影響著我們思考辯論的方式

and because of that, it shapes how we argue,

因為如此，它也塑造我們辯論的方式

our actual conduct in arguments.

我們在辯論中的言行舉止

Now, when we talk about arguments,

現在，當我們談及辯論

we talk in a very militaristic language.

我們都用很強烈的語氣

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

我們想要站得住腳的論點，有力反擊的論點

arguments that are right on target.

正中要害的論點

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

我們想要加強防守，穩固進攻策略

We want killer arguments.

我們想要場殺手級的論點

That's the kind of argument we want.

這就是我們所想要的

It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

這是看待辯論的主流方式

When I'm talking about arguments,

當我和別人談起辯論時

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

你大概都會想到這種辯論

But the war metaphor,

但是，這種戰爭比喻

the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,

這種戰爭式思考方式

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

就我認為，扭曲了我們的辯論效果

首先，戰爭辯論注重策略而非主旨

First, it elevates tactics over substance.

You can take a class in logic, argumentation.

你可以修一堂邏輯課、辯論課

你會學到所有人們用來贏得辯論的技巧

You learn all about the subterfuges

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

避免出現錯誤

It magnifies the us-versus them aspect of it.

這加強了他我敵對的意味

It makes it adversarial; it's polarizing.

讓雙方關係成為敵我關係，產生極端

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

而唯一能預見的結果

就是輝煌的勝利或是可恥的失敗

or abject, ignominious defeat.

I think those are deforming effects,

這些是扭曲的結果，最糟的是

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

這讓協商、審議以及妥協

or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.

這類情況不會發生

甚至都無法合作

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

試想一下，你有沒有參與過一場辯論

心中想著「讓我們看看有沒有辦法好好討論一下」

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

「而不是想著辯倒對方。」

What can we work out together?"

I think the argument-as-war metaphor

我認為戰爭辯論所代表的是

它遏止了解決問題的其他方法

inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.

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

最後，這是最糟的情況

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

辯論最後沒有帶給我們任何東西

像死胡同，原地打轉一樣

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

像塞車，談話遇到僵局一樣

We don't get anywhere.

我們什麼都沒得到

And one more thing.

身為一個教育家，還有一件事情

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

真正困擾我的事情是：

If argument is war,

如果辯論就是戰爭，也就不會有

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

輸了辯論，學了東西這種事情

And let me explain what I mean.

我再解釋一下我的意思

假設你和我在辯論

Suppose you and I have an argument.

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

你支持 P 提案，我不支持

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

我問「為什麼你支持 P 提案？」

And you give me your reasons.

然後你告訴我你支持的理由

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

我反問「那為什麼....？」

And you answer my objection.

然後你對我的辯解做出回應

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

我又問你「那你說的是什麼意思呢？」

How does it apply over here?"

「這怎麼用在這裡呢？」你仍舊回答我的問題

And you answer my question.

Now, suppose at the end of the day,

假設到了最後

I've objected, I've questioned,

我反對過了，我提問過了

I've raised all sorts of counter counter-considerations

我提出了所有的反向思考

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

而你對我的任何提問都給出了滿意的答案

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

最後我會說

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

我說「你知道嗎？我想你是對的。」

So, I have a new belief.

然後我相信了一個新理論，不是什麽隨便的理論

And it's not just any belief;

是一個條理分明，經過仔細推敲

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

經得起考驗的理論

Great cognitive gain.

認知方面又多了新知，那到底誰贏了辯論？

OK, who won that argument?

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

所以，戰爭辯論的言下之意是告訴我們

雖然你贏了，但我是唯一有獲得新知的人

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

從你說服我的過程中，你得到了什麼嗎？

What did you gain, cognitively, from convincing me?

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

當然，你獲得快樂，你的自尊心可能更強烈

maybe you get some professional status

在那領域你可能又多了點學術地位

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

這傢伙很擅長辯論

But just from a cognitive point of view,

但是，就從認知角度而言，誰是贏家？

who was the winner?

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

戰爭辯論的比喻使得我們認為

你是贏家，我是輸家

even though I gained.

儘管我有學到東西

And there's something wrong with that picture.

但是這樣不對

如果我們有辦法，這正是我想改變的

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

So, how can we find ways

那麼我們要怎樣來辯論

to make arguments yield something positive?

能得到些正向的東西

What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.

我們要的，是一個能有後台下的辯論策略

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

但我們是找不到的

until we have new entry approaches to arguments.

除非我們有了新的途徑去辯論

We need to think of new kinds of arguments.

我們要想出新的辯論類型

為了達到這目標

In order to do that, well --

I don't know how to do that.

恩，我不知道該怎麼做

That's the bad news.

這不是個好消息

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

戰爭式辯論太可怕了

It's just taken up habitation in our mind,

它會充斥我們的思維

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

沒有魔法子彈能夠消滅它

沒有魔法棒來讓它消失

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

我沒有答案

I don't have an answer.

But I have some suggestions.

但我有些建議

Here's my suggestion:

我的建議如下

If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,

如果要想出新的辯論類型

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

我們就需要想出新類別的辯論者

So try this:

這麼說吧

Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.

想想人們在辯論中扮演的所有角色

There's the proponent and the opponent

有支持方以及反對方

in an adversarial, dialectical argument.

存在一個對立、辯證的辯論中

There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

在修辭辯論中，存在著觀眾

There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.

在論證辯論中，存在著推理的人

All these different roles.

這些不同的角色中，你能否想像有一場辯論

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

你同時是辯論者，也是觀眾

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

看著你自己在辯論呢？

Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,

你能否想像當你看著自己在辯論時

就算輸了，在辯論結束後

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

你仍說「這真是一場好棒的辯論。」

"Wow, that was a good argument!"

你可以做到嗎？我想你可以

Can you do that?

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

我認為，如果你能想像這樣的辯論

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

輸掉的一方能對贏的人

觀眾以及陪審團說

"Yeah, that was a good argument,"

「對阿，這是一場很棒的辯論。」

then you have imagined a good argument.

那你所想的就是場好的辯論

And more than that,

此外，我認為你也可以想像

I think you've imagined a good arguer,

一位好的辯論者

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

一個值得你效法的辯論者

Now, I lose a lot of arguments.

我輸過很多次辯論

It takes practice to become a good arguer,

成為一位好的辯論者需要練習

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

也就是能從失敗中學到東西

幸運的是，我有太多，太多的同事

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

他們都願意挺我，為我提供練習機會

and provide that practice for me.

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）