未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

批判性思维——谬误:乞题

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Begging the Question [HD]

[intro music]
[前奏音乐]
《无线哲学》
Hello, I’m Matthew Harris. I’m a PhD student in Duke University,
嗨 我是杜克大学的博士生马修·哈里斯
and in this video I’ll be discussing
本视频中我们要讨论
the informal logical fallacy called ‘begging the question’,
“乞题”这一非形式逻辑谬误
and the related concept of circular reasoning.
以及与其相关的概念:循环论证
Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy,
乞题是一种非形式逻辑谬误
which means it has to do with a flaw in the argument’s content.
即它的论证内容中存在不合理之处
An argument that begs the question
犯乞题错误的论证
assumes a proposition that’s in need of proof.
所假设的命题有待证据支持
The term itself can be a source of confusion
因为“乞题”可有多种含义
because it’s often used to suggest different things.
所以它本身就易引起概念混淆
Often, we say that an argument begs the question
通常所说的犯乞题谬误的论证
to mean that it’s inherently circular.
论证过程中存在循环论证
In other cases, the same phrase indicates
其他时候 这个词指的是
the presence of a questionable assumption.
论据中存在可被质疑的假设
Sometimes people use it loosely
有时人们以它来
to mean “raising the question.”
宽泛地表述“引发问题”
Accusing someone’s argument of begging the questions
判定某人的论证犯了乞题谬误
suggests that they have unjustly assumed
意味着他错误地假设了
a proposition that is in need of proof.
一个有待证据支持的命题
Think of it like this.
我们可以这么想:
Suppose, instead of arguing, that you and your opponent
假设你和你的对手不是辩论中的正反方
are on opposing teams in a game of tug-of-war.
而是拔河比赛中的敌队双方
Teams A and B are supposed to pull on the rope.
据规则 A队和B队应当拉扯绳子
It’d be cheating if other team was arranged to have the line
如果一队将本该画在AB中间的线
that is supposed to be drawn to divide the two of them
提前画在B队或A队的一侧
already on B’s or A’s side of the divide.
那就是在作弊
Similarly,
相似地
people engaged in an argument can object that their opponent’s premises presuppose
辩论者可通过指控对手乞题来在辩论中反驳说
what’s at stake during the disagreement, by accusing them of begging the question.
对方论证的前提预设(辩论的关键)有误
Statements and arguments can be accused of begging the question in different senses.
陈述与论证中会出现不同类型的乞题谬误
The first sense we’ll look at is when
乞题的第一种含义是指
question-begging concerns a questionable premise.
犯乞题谬误的论证有个可被质疑的前提
Of course, a premise, like the foundation of a house,
当然 前提就像房屋的地基一样
cannot give support to its conclusion if it itself
如果前提本身就站不住脚
is not supported on independent grounds.
则该前提无法为结论提供支持
Next, there’s colloquial sense of begging the question
第二种 通俗意义上的乞题
that can be used very differently.
该词的用法差异很大
This sense is controversial
这个概念是有争议的
because it often is unrelated to the logical fallacy that is the term’s origin.
因为它通常与该术语原初所指的逻辑谬误无关
For example, someone might say in response to a particular statement or argument
例如 某人称某个特定陈述或论证
that it begs the question, to mean that it raises,
犯了乞题谬误 意味着此论述
relates, or introduces some other topic of questions for discussion
在辩论中提出 关联或引入了其它论点
However, the context of conversations are often complicated matters.
然而 讨论的内容往往很复杂
Lastly, we have the most common sense
最后 是乞题最常见的含义
in which the term begging the question is used, which brings us back to circular reasoning.
它把我们带回到循环论证的问题上
When someone says that an argument really is question-begging in this sense,
当有人称某论证犯了这种乞题错误时
they mean that there is a circularity in the chain of reasoning.
他们的意思是 推理链中出现了循环
typically about justification or meaning.
通常是指论证中的循环或含义重复使用
We can distinguish these cases of circularity into two main sorts:
我们可以将循环论证分成两大类:
circularity by equivalency and circularity by dependency.
等价循环和依存循环
In cases of circularity by equivalency,
在等价循环中
one of the premises of an argument asserts a proposition
一个论点的某一前提中提出的命题
that is equivalent to that argument’s conclusion.
与该论点的结论等价
For example, the premise and conclusion might
比方说 前提和结论
express the same proposition twice by substituting
可能通过替换同义词的方法
synonymous words to say the same thing.
来表达同一个命题两次
An example of this would be to argue that
举个等价循环的例子:
music is a superior art to film;
音乐是一种比电影更优秀的艺术
therefore, organized sounds are better than organized images.
因此 经过组织的声音集优于经过组织的图像集
And the other type of circularity, circularity by dependency,
另一种循环论证:依存循环
is the charge that the conclusion and the premise are mutually dependent.
产生依存循环的论证结论和前提相互依存
For example, imagine that Cowboy Ted
举个例子 试想一下 牛仔Ted
is claiming to have a five-thousand-pound horse.
声称他有一匹五千磅重的马
Now, he claims to know that his horse weighs five thousand pounds
而他之所以声称自己的马重达五千磅
because he used a highly accurate scale on his ranch.
是因为他用了他农场高精确度的秤来称量
But he also claims to know that the scale is precise
但是他之所以声称秤是精确的
because he personally calibrated it by the horse’s weight of five thousand pounds.
正是因为他用马的五千磅重量亲自校准了它
This argument is circular by dependency
这种论证就是依存循环
because the extravagant claims about the horse’s weight and the reliability of the scale
因为 关于马的重量和秤的准确性的夸张声明
are mutually dependent upon each other.
是相互依存的
Importantly,
关键是
it is not the presence of circularity that is problematic per se,
”存在循环论证“本身不是问题的关键
but the lack of an independently grounded source of justification.
缺乏独自成立的论据来源才是
If the horse looked like it weighed five thousand pounds,
如果这匹马看起来有五千磅重
you might consider this an independent reason.
这便可被视作一个独自成立的依据
Or even better, if someone from
或者 有更充足的条件:
the Federal Scale Inspection Agency inspected the scale,
该秤通过了联邦计量局人员的检查
we might have stronger independent reasons
我们可能就会有更具说服力的独立依据
to accept his argument.
来接受牛仔的论证
Though the circularity would still exist,
虽然循环将依旧存在
we would not consider it bad.
但是结论依然符合事实
For more videos like this one,
如果您想观看更多类似视频
be sure to check out the rest of the formal and informal fallacies
请不要错过批判性思维部分的
in the critical thinking section.
关于形式和非形式谬误的其他视频
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
字幕由Amara社区提供

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

什么是乞题?乞题有几种含义?

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

Clio

审核员

审核员LJ

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODR5mJMwOU

相关推荐