that is, anything other than a rock solid scientific fact,

除了一板一眼的科學事實

is likely to come across the following complaint pretty soon after:

很可能很快就會得到這樣的反駁：

"Who are you to say that?"

「你憑甚麼這麼說？」

You might hear it if, for example,

例如，你可能會聽到

you try to argue that Shakespeare is probably a lot more interesting as a writer than the guy who wrote prose on the back of the cereal packet.

當你想要辯論：莎士比亞比在麥片盒背面上寫小散文的人有趣多了

Or if you say that Louis Kahn Salk Institute is for sure better looking than an average Holiday Inn.

或者你說，路易．康沙克生物研究中心看起來肯定比一般的渡假飯店好看多了

Or that Bach's Mass in B Minor is more technically accomplished than Abba's Super Trouper.

或者，巴哈的 B 小調彌撒曲造詣遠遠超出 ABBA 的主打歌

Or that The Economist is a better news source than the Daily Mirror.

或者，經濟學人比起每日鏡報可靠許多

Quite early on in the discussion,

在這一連串討論中

anyone who doesn't agree is simply likely to shut things down

只要有人不同意你說的，他可能只是把話題就此打斷

by saying that no progress on these questions can ever be made,

並表示這個問題沒有甚麼好進一步討論的

that no one knows how to settle such disputes,

或是，沒有人能定奪這個議題

and that, therefore, anything goes and any further attempt to persuade is just bullying

亦或是，任何試圖說服你的只是一種變相的霸凌

or those electrifying and awkward words "elitist" and "snobbish".

或是那些令人悚然的尷尬字眼，像是「自視甚高」、「勢利眼」

And if you're not careful,

如果你輕忽它

there might also quite quickly be a Twitter deluge coming your way.

你很有可能成為推特上的眾矢之的

To understand why such responses are so common,

若想要了解為何這樣的回覆層出不窮

we have to look back at history

我們要回顧歷史

and some pretty unfortunate developments which have led to a collective trauma

有一些非常不幸的歷史造成了眾人的集體創傷

from which we're still suffering.

我們至今仍然從中受苦著

For most of the history of humanity,

從我們人類的歷史上來看

we're intimidated by some pretty dodgy purveyors of half-baked valued judgments.

因為眾口鑠金的奸商，他們膚淺、半生不熟的評論，讓我們退卻了

Religions used to sell us all sorts of nonsense under the notion that God told us it was so.

宗教過去也曾以上帝之名向我們搬弄是非

Kings and dictators would justify their abuses by spurious notions of their inherent right to authority.

國王與獨裁者，以與生俱來的權力這種詐欺言論，把濫權正當化

And members of elite groups,

菁英份子

like doctors and academics or just wealthy people,

例如，醫生、學者或是富有人士

would justify all manner of odd practices on the basis of their authority and fancy uniforms.

以他們的權力與華而不實的衣著，把陋習正當化

As societies have gradually become more democratic,

當社會漸漸民主化

and people have learned to stand tall in the face of authority,

人們學習如何理直氣平地面對權勢

So too that patience for valued judgments has collapsed.

也因此，上位者不可動搖的地位也隨之崩潰

So much so that now anyone who lays forth an idea with any kind of confidence

所以，當有人以各種的信誓旦旦道出一個概念

or simply says anything about this or that being good or bad,

或只是品頭論足、道長論短

can swiftly re-evoke the worst of the traumatic old days

很快就會喚起人類過去不好的歷史

and will therefore stand to be shut down at once.

會立刻被貼上住嘴的標籤

The only exception to this is science.

唯一的例外是科學

Here, respect remains paramount.

在這方面，尊重最為重要

We'll accept an idea if it's a scientific truth.

只要一種概念是科學事實，我們就會接受

If it's come from a lab result,

如果是實驗室所得到的結果

we'll take it on trust.

我們會深信不疑地接受

But anything else when we're in the area of relativity

不過，討論有關相對性的話題

and, who are you to say that is?

那麼，你有什麼樣的立場說話呢？

Now, unfortunately, this is really problematic,

可惜的是，這因此帶來諸多問題

as there are some very important questions out there

因為在科學領域之外

that lie utterly outside the realm of science

還有更重要的問題

and can't ever be settled with a formula or experiment.

無法靠公式或實驗定奪

For example, you're always going to struggle to mount a scientific argument when trying to make progress with these sorts of questions:

舉例來說，當你試圖討論這類問題時，你需要先和科學根據爭鬥：

What should children learn at school?

孩童該在學校學什麼？

What's a good relationship?

怎樣才是一段好的關係？

How should we build nice cities?

我們該如何打造一座宜人的城市？

What's an attractive building?

一座引人注意的建築，是怎樣的建築？

What should businesses concentrate on?

商業應該注重那些地方？

How should bosses behave towards workers?

勞資雙方應該如何互動？

Unfortunately,

可惜的是

these are essential questions to try to reach intelligent conclusions on.

這些都是要做出明智總結的重要問題

And yet, because by their very nature, these questions admit to doubt and disagreement,

不過，這些問題的本質上，都開放質疑與不同意的各種聲音

it can seem as if nothing solid can ever be said around them.

這些問題似乎無法得到單一的答案

But here's our line:

不過我們有個準則：

That a question can't be answered definitively, with 100% accuracy,

一個無法確切回答，沒有百分之百確切性的問題

shouldn't be a reason not to try and address it.

並不代表我們就不能嘗試去解決這個問題，或不能去討論這個問題

There IS such a thing as a good and a bad argument outside of science.

科學領域之外，優劣兩種爭辯並齊

One can speak better and worse answers to big questions.

一個大問題，都會得到亦優亦劣的答案

No one's talking about trying to impose conclusions on anyone else in the way that the Pope or the emperor used to do.

人們可不是在說要像過去教宗或帝王所做的一樣，將結論加諸他人思想之上

It's all about trying to make sound arguments, proceed logically,

一切都只是為了和平地提出言論、有邏輯地進行討論、

and attempt to persuade others of your cause through reason and a bit of charm.

然後透過理性，加上一點點感化人心的力量，用你的論點去說服他人

Rational, democratic discourse depends on people engaging with one another,

理性、民主的交談取決於人們對彼此的投入

trying to figure out ideas and not running away from complex issues

試著要理出法子，而不是迴避複雜的議題

by dogmatically shutting everything down with the insidious and slippery retort,

獨斷地用這句奸詐狡猾的反駁終止所有言論：

"who are you to say that?"

「你憑什麼這麼說？」