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:诉诸人身谬误简介

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies

[intro music]
[前奏]
Hi, my name is Julianne Chung
嗨 我叫朱莉安娜·钟
and I’m a graduate student at Yale University
毕业于耶鲁大学
Today I am going to talk about ad hominem fallacies
今天我要讲的是“ 诉诸人身谬误”
“Ad hominem”is a Latin term
“Ad hominem”是拉丁语
that can be translated into English as “to the man”
翻译成英语就是 “指向个人”
which is a very literal tranlation
这是非常字面的翻译
or “against the person”
或者“针对人身的”
which is a bit more descriptive
这样描述更为贴切
Ad hominem fallacies are also very often called
“诉诸人身谬误”也常被称作
“fallacies of personal attack.”
“人身攻击谬误”
This is because such fallacies are commited
因为这种谬误通常出现在
whenever one attempts to challenge a position
当某人试图通过批判其来源
by criticizing something having to do with its source
来质疑某种立场
thereby shifting attention away from the points at issue
从而转移焦点
and focusing it instead on those who are arguing for them
将注意力集中到辩护人身上
There are many different kinds of ad hominem fallacies
诉诸人身谬误有许多不同的类型
We are going to briefly survey six here
这里简单介绍其中六种
They go by the following names
分别是
First, abusive ad hominem.
一 侮辱型诉诸人身
Second, circumstantial ad hominem
二 因人废言型诉诸人身
Third, tu quoque.
三 诉诸伪善
Fourth, guilt by association
四 关联定罪
Fifth, genetic fallacy
五 起源谬误
And sixth, ad feminam.
以及六 女性偏见谬误
Abusive ad hominem arguments
侮辱型诉诸人身的论点
present personal characteristics of individuals
表现在用某人的个性
as good reasons to discount their ideas.
作为反对其观点的充分理由
However although certain personal characteristics
然而 尽管某些个性
might give us reason for suspicion,
可能会让我们对观点产生怀疑
they do not affect the virtues of claims considered on their own.
但不影响其主张本身的正确性
Here’s an example of such an argument:
举个例子
“We should never think that anything politicians ever say is true
“我们永远不要听信政客们的言论
because they’re all dirty, lying scumbags.”
因为他们都是卑鄙无耻 满口谎言的混蛋”
It should be easy enough to see that
显而易见
this argument does not give us reason
这个论点并没有说明
to discount everything that politicians say.
为什么不要理会政客们的言论
Indeed, even those who are the least admirable
事实上 即使是最令人唾弃的人
likely say true things at least some of the time.
也可能在某些时候说真话
Whereas an abusive ad hominem argument
对比侮辱型诉诸人身
works by attacking an individual directly,
直接攻击个人
a circumstantial ad hominem argument
因人废言型诉诸人身
attempts to challenge a person’s position
意图挑战他人立场的方式则是
by suggesting that she is advancing it
指出 她这么做
merely to serve her own interests.
仅仅是为了一己私利
Although this can be seen as abusive,
虽然也可以看做侮辱
circumstantial ad hominem arguments
但因人废言型诉诸人身
differ from abusive ad hominem arguments
与侮辱型诉诸人身仍有不同
in that they focus on their target’s situations,
因为他们关注目标的背景
rather than on their personal characteristics.
而不是他们的个人特质
Once again, however, although such arguments
但要强调的是 尽管我们有理由
may give us reason to question an individual’s intentions,
去质疑一个的意图
they do not impact whether her claims themselves
但不影响她的主张本身
are nonetheless worth taking seriously.
是否值得严肃看待
Consider this argument:
设想一下这个论点
“Summer vacation should be abolished.
“应该取消暑假”
“Any student who argues otherwise should not be listened to,
“我们应该无视所有反对的学生”
“because he or she stands to benefit from its continuation.”
“因为他们可以从暑假的延续中受益”
Although we might wonder whether a student
虽然我们可能不清楚
who opposes getting rid of summer vacation
反对取消暑假的学生
is doing so solely out of self-interest,
是否完全出自自身利益
that has no bearing on whether it should indeed be eliminated or not,
但这与是否应该取消暑假无关
or whether such a student’s arguments are any good or not.
与这个学生的观点是好是坏也无关
Plenty of excellent positions and arguments
大量优秀的立场和观点
also happen to benefit those advocating them.
恰巧有利于其倡导者
That does not diminish their merit however.
然而 这并没有降低它们的价值
Another tactic that is often used to attack claims
另一种常用于攻击他人观点的策略是
by undermining their advocate’s credibility
破坏倡导者的信誉
involves allegations of a certain kind of hypocrisy.
包括对伪善行为的指控
This fallacy goes by the name “tu quoque,”
这类谬误就是“诉诸伪善”
which in Latin means
在拉丁语中意为
“you too,” or “you also.”
“你也一样”或者“你也是”
When one commits the tu quoque fallacy,
当某人犯了诉诸伪善谬误时
one accuses the person of acting in a manner
会去指责一个人的行为方式
that contradicts some position that she supports,
与她所持立场不一致
and concludes that her view is worthless on account of the fact
从而得出结论说她的观点毫无价值
that she failed to follow her own advice.
因为她没能遵从自己的立场
However, whether someone is acting in a manner
然而 不论一个人的行事方式
that is somehow in tension with the position she is advancing
是否与她所持的立场相左
has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong,
这都和立场本身的对错无关
although it can admittedly strike us
尽管这不可否认地让我们觉得
as somehow dishonest, or less than noble.
这不怎么诚实 也不怎么高尚
Here’s an example:
举个例子
“I can’t believe you’re trying to convince me
“你竟然想劝我
“that I should give more money to charity,
再多捐点钱做慈善
“when you don’t give nearly as much as I do.”
你自己根本没捐那么多”
Whether the person that this argument attacks
不论这个论点所针对的人
(let’s call him “person B”)
(我们称他为B)
gives as much money to charity
是否捐了同样多的钱做慈善
as the person advancing this argument does,
是否和提出观点的人数量一致
(let’s call her “person A”)
(我们称她为A)
has no bearing on whether person A
这都和A
should or should not give more money to charity.
是否应该捐更多钱做慈善没关系
Presumably, that depends on other things besides what B is doing,
这不取决于B的行为 可能取决于其他因素
say, for example, how much money person A makes,
比如 A赚多少钱
how much money person A presently gives, and so on.
A捐多少钱 等等
The guilt by association fallacy is committed
关联定罪谬误出现在
whenever one tries to argue against a certain view
当A讨厌B
by pointing out that some unsavory person is likely to have agreed with it,
从而反对B所持的观点
as in:
就像
“Chocolate chip cookies can’t be any good.
“巧克力曲奇肯定不咋地
“My philosophy professor loves them,”
因为我哲学老师喜欢吃
and she is the meanest teacher I have ever had!”
她是我见过最刻薄的老师了
As we all know, chocolate chip cookies are delicious,
众所周知 巧克力曲奇味道很不错
despite the fact that some mean people think so as well.
尽管某些刻薄的人也会这么觉得
A claim can be true despite its being endorsed by someone we don’t like.
有的主张可能是对的 哪怕是我们讨厌的人提的
However while arguments that commit the guilt by association fallacy
然而对比关联定罪
aim to cast a claim into question
通过批判他人
by condemning someone who is likely to have agreed with it,
来质疑其观点
the genetic fallacy occurs whenever an attempt is made
起源谬误出现在
to cast a claim into question by condemning its origin.
通过质疑论点的起源来质疑该论点
Here’s an example of an argument that commits the genetic fallacy:
举个起源谬误的例子
“The founder of organization X
“X组织的创始人
“served time in prison for embezzlement,
“因挪用公款入狱
“so we can conclude that the organization
“因此我们可以得出
“must still be corrupt.”
X组织一定还是腐败的”
We can imagine this argument being advanced
我们可以设想 提出这个论点
in order to argue against a claim
是为了反驳另一个论点
to the effect that organization X
也就是 X组织
offers many excellent services
服务优秀
and deserves financial support.
应当获得赞助
However, the mere fact that the founder of organization X was a criminal
但X组织的创始人违过法乱过纪的事实
does not show that the organization
不代表X组织
currently acts in a way that is morally unacceptable.
目前的行为仍然有违道德
Things could have changed a lot since then.
情况可能已经发生了很大的变化
As a note, arguments that commit the genetic fallacy
注意 犯了起源谬误的观点
can also be used positively, to support claims
也可以用于支持某些观点
rather than undermine them.
而非诋毁
The last fallacy that I am going to talk about today
今天要讲的最后一个谬误
goes by the name “ad feminam.”
叫做“女性偏见谬误”
Ad feminam arguments attempt to discredit a claim
女性偏见谬误会对某个观点予以否定
on the grounds that a female person it.
仅仅因为这个观点由女性提出
Such arguments often include statements to the effect of:
此类表述通常包括:
“Why should I believe anything you have to say?
“为什么我要相信你的话
“After all, you’re just a woman.”
“毕竟 你只是个女人”
I take it to be more or less obvious
为什么这类观点问题很大
as to why such arguments are deeply problematic.
我认为已经很明显了
How about this example?
看看这个例子
Does it commit one of the fallacies just considered?
有没有犯刚才讲到的谬误?
If so, which one?
如果有 犯了哪个呢?
“Ronald Reagan was in favor of similar policies,
“罗纳德·里根支持过类似的政策
“so they must be the right thing to do.”
“所以这种政策肯定是没错的”

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

此视频描述了诉诸人身谬论的理论介绍,描述了这个理论主张者对人不对事的理念,即此理论主张者针对人,但是不针对这个人的主张,这个人的所作所为。

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

YXG-ce506

审核员

审核员CR

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnbK76m691I

相关推荐