Name: TED】Daniel H. Cohen:(Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake) (【TED】Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake (Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake))
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T06:30:56.000Z
Duration: 9 min 36 s

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

我叫丹‧柯恩，像剛剛那人說的，我是個學者

辯論是我人生重要的一部分，我喜歡辯論

我不只是個學者，我也是個哲學家

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

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.

But I also like to think a lot about arguing.

在這過程中，我遇到了一些困惑

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

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

到現在已經幾十年了 我也是越來越擅長辯論了

我也就輸得越多，這是我的困惑

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

另一個困惑是，我覺得這無所謂

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

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

其中一個是，我們為何辯論？ 辯論使誰獲益？

就把它們稱為學術辯論或認知辯論

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

這項提議是對的嗎？這是好的理論嗎？

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

如此解釋這項數據或文本，是可行的嗎？

諸如此類。我對於辯論某些事情就沒什麼興趣

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

像是誰要去洗碗、誰要去倒垃圾

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

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

這些辯論我滿常贏的，因為我知道技巧

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

下面這些事情給我帶了不少困惑

But those aren't the important arguments.

第一，辯論高手們贏得辯論時 到底贏得了什麼？

思考道德理論的正確方向，我獲得了什麼？

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

所以當我們贏得辯論時，我們到底贏了什麼？

甚至在辯論之前，無論你是支持康德或是密爾

that utilitarianism isn't really the right framework

無論你認為功能主義 是否為可行的心智理論

whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works

whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind.

這真的是一種對待他人的好方法嗎？

設法讓他們相信他們不願相信的事物？

to believe things they don't want to believe,

Is that a nice way to treat another human being,

這種模式，雙方把辯論看成戰爭，情況可想而知

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

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

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

就辯論而言，這真的不是個有幫助的模式

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

但這種模式卻是很常見，也很強硬的一種模式

a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.

That's not a very helpful model for arguing,

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

這是我的論點，講得通嗎？有道理嗎？

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

假設可靠嗎？參考數據可信嗎？

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

Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?

Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

But there's a third model to keep in mind

that I think is going to be very helpful,

想像一個政治人物，試著表明他的立場

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

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

這個模式中，還有個小轉折我覺得很重要

trying to convince the audience of something.

換言之，當我們在觀眾前辯論時

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

觀眾在此過程中擔任更有參與性角色

namely, that when we argue before an audience,

在觀眾前辯論，也就是在陪審團前辯論

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

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

因為你要修改論點去迎合現場觀眾

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

You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,

tight argument in English before a francophone audience

所以我們有三種模式分別為－戰爭式辯論

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

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,

因為如此，它也塑造我們辯論的方式

it dominates how we think about arguments,

and because of that, it shapes how we argue,

我們想要站得住腳的論點，有力反擊的論點

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

我們想要加強防守，穩固進攻策略

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

It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

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

就我認為，扭曲了我們的辯論效果

the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,

首先，戰爭辯論注重策略而非主旨

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

First, it elevates tactics over substance.

你會學到所有人們用來贏得辯論的技巧

You can take a class in logic, argumentation.

字幕列表影片播放

TED】Daniel H. Cohen:(Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake) (【TED】Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake (Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake))

practice

articulate

cognitive

think