Models for Arguments
论证的模式
Good morning, everyone.
大家早上好。
My name is David and I am good at arguing.
我叫大卫，擅长辩论。
So welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation.
欢迎大家来听这次辩论的介绍。
Why do we want to argue?
我们为什么想要辩论？
Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don't want to believe.
为什么我们想要让别人相信他们不愿相信的事情。
And is that even a nice thing to do?
这样做到底好不好？
Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they don't want to think?
这样对待别人，试图让他们思考不想思考的事情，到底合不合适？
Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.
我的答案将涉及到三种辩论模式。
The first model --- let's call this the dialectical model--- is that we think of arguments as war.
第一种模式，我们叫它辩证模式，这种模式中，我们把辩论看作战争。
And you know what that's like.
你也知道那是怎样的情况。
There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.
充斥着扰攘与成败。
And that's not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it's a pretty common and fixed one.
这种模式对辩论帮助不大，却很普遍，很常用。
I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times--- in the street, on the bus or in the subway.
我猜你一定经常看到这种辩论：大街上，公交车上，地铁里。
Let's move on to the second model.
接下来我们看第二种模式。
The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs.
第二种论证模式把争论作为验证过程。
Think of a mathematician's argument.
想想数学家的论证。
Here's my argument.
这是我的论点。
Does it work? Is it any good? Are the premises warranted?
这个论点有效吗？有什么优点吗？前提可以保证为真吗？
Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises?
推断有效吗？结论与前提一致吗？
No opposition, no adversariality--- not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
没有反对方，没有对抗，不需要任何反对的声音与之争论。
And there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances.
还有第三种模式，我觉得非常有用，它把辩论看作表演。
Arguments has been in front of an audience.
辩论被呈现在观众面前。
We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.
说到这里我们可以想到竞争某个职位的政客，试图说服人们相信某些事。
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, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument;
我们在观众面前辩论的时候，观众有时候会参与到辩论中。
that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like juries that make a judgment and decide the case.
你将辩论呈现在观众面前，他们像陪审团一样，做出决定，裁决案件。
Let's call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
我们把这个模式叫作修辞模式，你可以根据面前的观众修改辩论。
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
这三个模式中，将辩论当作战争的模式占主导地位。
It dominates how we talk about arguments, it dominates how we think about arguments,
它使每当我们提起辩论，就是这种模式。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, our actual conduct in arguments.
因此，它也影响着我们论证的方式以及在论证中我们的实际做法。
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target.
我们需要强有力的辩论，直指目标。
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. That's the kind of argument we want.
我们想要击败对手。这是我们想要的辩论。
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, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.
谈到论证，你可能会想到对抗模式。
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue.
但是我认为战争这个隐喻，将论证看作战争的范式或者模式对我们的辩论方式产生了消极作用。