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:模棱两可

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Equivocation [HD]

Hello. I’m Joseph Wu,
大家好 我是Joseph Wu
and I’m a Philosophy graduate student at the University of Cambridge.
一名剑桥大学哲学系的研究生
In this video, I’ll be explaining the informal fallacy known as equivocation,
本视频中 我会介绍一种常见的非形式谬误
a fallacy that comes up all the time.
模棱两可
Before we look at some more problematic examples,
在看一些问题示例之前
let’s start off with a simple one, to see how it works.
我们先从一个简单的例子开始 看它是怎样出现的
Consider the following argument:
请思考下面的论证过程
Premise one:
前提一:
All stars are exploding balls of gas.
所有的恒星都是会爆炸的气体球
Premise two:
前提二:
Miley Cyrus is a star.
麦莉·赛勒斯是一个明星
Conclusion:
结论:
Therefore, Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas.
因此 麦莉·赛勒斯也是个会爆炸的气体球
Wow, this is clearly a terrible argument!
天哪 显然这个论证过程糟透了
The form of this argument appears to be valid,
这种论证形式看似合理
and each of the premises, when considered individually, is true.
每个前提单独看来都是正确的
You might recall from a previous video
你可能会想起往期视频中
that an argument with a valid form and true premises is considered sound.
形式有效 前提真实的论证视为合理
You might also recall that a sound argument
你也可能会想到一个合理的论证过程
necessarily has a true conclusion.
必然有一个正确的结论
But you’re probably not convinced that Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas.
但你肯定不信 麦莉·赛勒斯是一个会爆炸的气体球
And you’re right to think that the logic is flawed.
然后自然就想到 这个逻辑存在缺陷
So what’s wrong with this argument?
那么这个论证错在哪了呢?
This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.
这个论证犯了模棱两可谬误
Here, the word “star” is used with different meanings in the two premises.
在这里 star一词在两个前提中拥有不同的含义
In the first premise, star is intended to mean something like:
前提一中 star所表达的意思是:
a celestial sphere of plasma.
等离子体的天体
But then the meaning of star shifts in the second premise,
但是 前提二中star的意思发生了改变
where star refers to a famous person.
这里它指的是一个名人
The premises equivocate between two meanings of the word “star.”
两个前提中 单词star的含义是模棱两可的
To be precise,
确切地说
equivocation occurs when the same word
当同一单词在论证中表达不同含义时
is used to express different meanings through out an argument.
就会出现模棱两可的情况
The arguer is committing a fallacy,
这个论证者犯了一个错误
because he or she uses the word
因为他/她把这个词
as if that word have the same meaning.
当做同一个意思来用
and so the argument would appear to be valid,
好让这个论点看起来是正确的
even though it actually is not.
但实际上不是
Equivocation results from ambiguities in language.
模棱两可是由语言歧义导致的
Since many words can have more than one meaning, we need to be cautious
由于许多词可以有多个含义 我们需要保证
that key terms are not shifting meaning during the course of an argument.
在论证过程中 关键术语的含义不会发生改变
Since equivocation results from multiple meanings of a single term,
由于模棱两可源于一个术语的多重含义
a helpful strategy to expose this fallacy
揭露这种谬误的一个有用的策略是
is to restate the premises of the argument
重新陈述论证的前提
but without the ambiguous term.
但不用模棱两可的词语
For example, let’s substitute our definitions of the word “star”
比如 让我们将star用同义词替换到
into the premises of the previous example.
前面的示例的前提中
Premise one:
前提一:
All celestial spheres of plasma are exploding balls of gas.
等离子体的所有天体都是会爆炸的气体球
Premise two:
前提二:
Miley Cyrus is a famous person.
麦莉·赛勒斯是个名人
Conclusion:
结论:
Therefore, Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas.
因此 麦莉·赛勒斯是一个会爆炸的气体球
Clearly, this argument isn’t valid,
一旦我们摆脱了模棱两可的词“star”
once we got rid of the ambiguous term, “star”.
这个论证显然是无效的
Even though both of the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow.
尽管这两个前提都是正确的 但结论并不成立
This example is surely far fetched.
这个示例比较离谱
After all, no one has ever equivocated Miley being a fomous person
毕竟 从来没有人模棱两可地认为麦莉是一个名人
with Miley being an exploding ball of gas.
同时麦莉又是一个爆炸的气体球
But now that we understand how this fallacy generally works,
既然我们明白这个谬论是如何产生的
let’s look at two examples that are not so easy to spot.
让我们来看两个不容易发现的示例
Suppose a respectable newspaper was criticized for spreading celebrity gossip.,
假设一份体面的报纸 因散布名人八卦而受到批评
and suppose that, in response, the editor gave the following argument:
并假设 作为回应 编辑给出了以下论证:
Premise one:
前提一:
Newspapers have a duty to print stories that are in the public interest.
报纸有责任刊登符合公众利益的报道
Premise two:
前提二:
The public has great interest in rumors about celebrities,
公众对名人的谣言很感兴趣
since circulation increases when newspapers print such stories.
因为报纸刊登这样的报道时 它的发行量就会增加
Conclusion:
结论:
It’s not wrong for respectable newspapers to pass on rumors
体面的报纸散布关于名人的谣言
about celebrities.
没有错
As with our Miley Cyrus example, this argument appears to be valid.
与我们的麦莉·赛勒斯范例一样 论证似乎成立
But is it actually?
但事实是真的吗?
The key term that shows in both premises of this argument
在此论点的前提中所用的关键词
is “interest”.
是“interest”
So let’s focus on how it is used.
因此 让我们关注它是如何被使用的
In the first premise, interest is used to mean
在前提一中 interest是用来
the benefit of a person or a group,
指一个人或一个群体的利益
like in the sentence:
像这个句子中:
It is in your interest to keep your bank account information private.
保证银行帐户信息的私密性是为了您的利益
In the second premise,
在前提二中
interest is used to mean an activity one enjoys doing,
interest是用来指一个人喜欢做的活动
like in the sentence:
如在句子中:
My interests are swimming, hiking, and reading.
我的兴趣是游泳 徒步旅行和读书
Since the meaning of the term “interest”
由于“interest”一词
has shifted between the first and second premises,
在两个前提之间发生改变
this editor has committed the fallacy of equivocation,
这位编辑同样犯了模棱两可的谬论
his argument isn’t valid.
他的论证是无效的
Here’s another example.
还有另外一个示例
Suppose your friend tells you this:
假设你的朋友告诉你
Organic compounds contain carbon,
有机化合物含有碳
and organic foods are better for the environment,
有机食品对环境更有利
so when you’re grocery shopping,
所以当你在杂货店购物时
you should look for foods that contain carbon in it,
你应该寻找含有碳的食物
as these foods are better for the environment.
因为这些食物更有利于环境
The absurdity of the conclusion should alert us
结论的荒谬性提醒我们
that something has gone wrong in this argument.
这个论证出了问题
So let’s take a closer look at how the term “organic” is being used.
让我们仔细看看 “organic” 是如何被使用的
The statement “organic compounds contain carbon” is true.
他的陈述 “有机化合物含有碳” 是真的
This is the scientific definition of “organic” used by chemists.
这是化学家对的 “organ”的科学定义
The next statement:,”organic foods are better for the environment,” is also true.
下一个说法“有机食品对环境更有利” 也是事实
But note that, now, the definition of organic refers to the methods
但请注意 现在organic的定义是
by which that food was produced and processed.
食品生产和销售的方式
The term “organic” is now used in an agricultural sense,
“organic”现在是用在农业上
rather than a scientific one.
而不是科学意义上的
This argument equivocates between two different meanings of organic,
这个论证在有机的两种不同含义之间模棱两可
so it isn’t valid.
所以它是不成立的
It’s worth noting that
值得注意的是
even if we limit the term “organic” to its agricultural sense,
即使我们将 “organic”一词限定在农业方面
the thread of equivocation still looms, due to the ambiguity of the term.
由于词意的模糊性 模棱两可的可能性依旧存在
For instance, different countries have different standards for what counts as organic.
例如 不同的国家对有机产品有不同的标准
Different foods also adhere to different standards.
不同的食物也遵循不同的标准
And in the United States, there are various categories for labeling organic products,
在美国 有机产品有各种类别
ranging from a product made with 100 % organic ingredients,
从100%有机成分制成的产品
to a product made with at least 70 % organic ingredients.
到至少70%的有机成分制成品不等
If you’re ever suspicious that an argument is guilty of equivocation,
如果你怀疑一个论证是模棱两可的
try the method we used in the first example of this video:
尝试我们在本视频的第一个示例中使用的方法:
First, distinguish the potential meanings of the ambiguous term in an argument.
首先 区分论证中 模棱两可术语的潜在含义
Then, restate the argument without the ambiguous term,
然后 在明确的术语的情况下重陈述论证
so that the premises are still true.
使前提仍然成立
Finally, evaluate the translated argument.
最后 评估已替换后的论证
Is it valid?
成立吗?
If not, then the argument has committed the fallacy of equivocation.
如果不成立 那么这个论证就犯了非形式谬误
Subtitles by the Amara.org community
Amara.org社区的字幕

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

一种常见的非形式谬误:模棱两可

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

好礼物

审核员

审核员CR

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmIqWT7qMj4

相关推荐