TEDxColbyCollege
Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake
丹尼爾‧柯恩: 辯論的目的
Filmed:
Readability: 4.3
1,613,190 views
為什麼要辯論？為了證明自己比對手有理，證明對手是錯的，最重要的，就是贏得辯論！...對嗎？哲學家丹尼爾‧柯恩告訴我們最常見的辯論類別——戰爭辯論，雙方一定要有輸有贏。然而，這卻忽略了參與辯論所該得到的真正好處。（拍攝於 TEDxColbyCollege）
Daniel H. Cohen - Philosopher
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason. Full bio
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:12
My name is Dan Cohen, and I am academic, as he said.
0
452
3432
我叫丹‧柯恩，像剛剛那人說的，我是個學者
00:15
And what that means is that I argue.
1
3884
3760
這也就意味著我經常辯論
00:19
It's an important part of my life, and I like to argue.
2
7644
2600
辯論是我人生重要的一部分，我喜歡辯論
00:22
And I'm not just an academic, I'm a philosopher,
3
10244
3717
我不只是個學者，我也是個哲學家
00:25
so I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at arguing.
4
13961
2990
我常常覺得，我應該很擅長辯論
00:28
But I also like to think a lot about arguing.
5
16951
3174
我也喜歡思考辯論
00:32
And thinking about arguing, I've come across some puzzles,
6
20125
3541
在這過程中，我遇到了一些困惑
00:35
and one of the puzzles is that
7
23666
1836
其中有個是
00:37
as I've been thinking about arguing over the years,
8
25502
2150
過去這幾年，我一直思考辯論
00:39
and it's been decades now, I've gotten better at arguing,
9
27652
3555
到現在已經幾十年了
我也是越來越擅長辯論了
我也是越來越擅長辯論了
00:43
but the more that I argue and the better I get at arguing,
10
31207
3570
但我辯論得越多，辯論得越好
00:46
the more that I lose. And that's a puzzle.
11
34777
3310
我也就輸得越多，這是我的困惑
00:50
And the other puzzle is that I'm actually okay with that.
12
38087
3171
另一個困惑是，我覺得這無所謂
00:53
Why is it that I'm okay with losing
13
41258
2115
為什麼我覺得輸會無所謂
00:55
and why is it that I think that good arguers
14
43373
1431
為什麼我又覺得，好的辯論者
00:56
are actually better at losing?
15
44804
2132
應該是更好的輸家？
00:58
Well, there's some other puzzles.
16
46936
1921
嗯……還有其他一些困惑
01:00
One is, why do we argue? Who benefits from arguments?
17
48857
3585
其中一個是，我們為何辯論？
辯論使誰獲益？
辯論使誰獲益？
01:04
And when I think about arguments now, I'm talking about,
18
52442
2000
我現在思考辯論時所指的
01:06
let's call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments,
19
54442
2758
就把它們稱為學術辯論或認知辯論
01:09
where something cognitive is at stake.
20
57200
1906
涉及認知利害關係的
01:11
Is this proposition true? Is this theory a good theory?
21
59106
3192
這項提議是對的嗎？這是好的理論嗎？
01:14
Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text?
22
62298
3883
如此解釋這項數據或文本，是可行的嗎？
01:18
And so on. I'm not interested really in arguments about
23
66181
2524
諸如此類。我對於辯論某些事情就沒什麼興趣
01:20
whose turn it is to do the dishes or who has to take out the garbage.
24
68705
3463
像是誰要去洗碗、誰要去倒垃圾
01:24
Yeah, we have those arguments too.
25
72168
2336
雖然我們也會辯論那些事情
01:26
I tend to win those arguments, because I know the tricks.
26
74504
2488
這些辯論我滿常贏的，因為我知道技巧
01:28
But those aren't the important arguments.
27
76992
1191
但這些不是很重要的辯論
01:30
I'm interested in academic arguments today,
28
78183
2168
我的興趣在於現今的學術辯論
01:32
and here are the things that puzzle me.
29
80351
2170
下面這些事情給我帶了不少困惑
01:34
First, what do good arguers win when they win an argument?
30
82521
5265
第一，辯論高手們贏得辯論時
到底贏得了什麼？
到底贏得了什麼？
01:39
What do I win if I convince you that
31
87786
2334
如果我說服你功利主義並不是
01:42
utilitarianism isn't really the right framework for thinking about ethical theories?
32
90120
3375
思考道德理論的正確方向，我獲得了什麼？
01:45
So what do we win when we win an argument?
33
93495
2230
所以當我們贏得辯論時，我們到底贏了什麼？
01:47
Even before that, what does it matter to me
34
95725
3101
甚至在辯論之前，無論你是支持康德或是密爾
01:50
whether you have this idea that Kant's theory works
35
98826
3241
覺得誰才是對的道德主義者
01:54
or Mill's the right ethicist to follow?
36
102067
2835
又和我有什麼關係？
01:56
It's no skin off my back whether you think
37
104902
2699
無論你認為功能主義
是否為可行的心智理論
是否為可行的心智理論
01:59
functionalism is a viable theory of mind.
38
107601
2597
也是和我沒關係
02:02
So why do we even try to argue?
39
110198
2232
那我們到底為什麼要辯論？
02:04
Why do we try to convince other people
40
112430
1821
為什麼我們要去說服他人
02:06
to believe things that they don't want to believe?
41
114251
1868
去相信他們不願相信的事物
02:08
And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way
42
116119
2590
這麼做真的好嗎？
02:10
to treat another human being, try and make them
43
118709
1728
這真的是一種對待他人的好方法嗎？
02:12
think something they don't want to think?
44
120437
3094
設法讓他們相信他們不願相信的事物？
02:15
Well, my answer is going to make reference to
45
123531
2993
我的答案將會談到
02:18
three models for arguments.
46
126524
1690
三種辯論模式
02:20
The first model, let's call this the dialectical model,
47
128214
1960
第一，我們就叫它為對話模式
02:22
is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that's like.
48
130174
2598
這種模式，雙方把辯論看成戰爭，情況可想而知
02:24
There's a lot of screaming and shouting
49
132772
1885
雙方會吵鬧，大叫
02:26
and winning and losing,
50
134657
1243
也會有輸贏
02:27
and that's not really a very helpful model for arguing
51
135900
2451
就辯論而言，這真的不是個有幫助的模式
02:30
but it's a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.
52
138351
2758
但這種模式卻是很常見，也很強硬的一種模式
02:33
But there's a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.
53
141109
3600
還有第二種模式，論證式辯論
02:36
Think of a mathematician's argument.
54
144709
2218
想想一個數學家的辯論
02:38
Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?
55
146927
2734
這是我的論點，講得通嗎？有道理嗎？
02:41
Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?
56
149661
4205
假設可靠嗎？參考數據可信嗎？
02:45
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
57
153866
2736
結論是否與假設呼應？
02:48
No opposition, no adversariality,
58
156602
2704
沒有反對，沒有對手
02:51
not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.
59
159306
5617
不一定有持反對意見的辯論
02:56
But there's a third model to keep in mind
60
164923
1932
還有第三種模式要注意
02:58
that I think is going to be very helpful,
61
166855
1486
我覺得這是很有幫助的一種
03:00
and that is arguments as performances,
62
168341
3533
就是做為表演的辯論
03:03
arguments as being in front of an audience.
63
171874
2044
在一群觀眾面前辯論
03:05
We can think of a politician trying to present a position,
64
173918
3032
想像一個政治人物，試著表明他的立場
03:08
trying to convince the audience of something.
65
176950
2360
要說服觀眾相信某件事情
03:11
But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important,
66
179310
3151
這個模式中，還有個小轉折我覺得很重要
03:14
namely that when we argue before an audience,
67
182461
3962
換言之，當我們在觀眾前辯論時
03:18
sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,
68
186423
4240
觀眾在此過程中擔任更有參與性角色
03:22
that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries
69
190663
4502
在觀眾前辯論，也就是在陪審團前辯論
03:27
who make a judgment and decide the case.
70
195165
2825
他們下判決，決定案情結果
03:29
Let's call this the rhetorical model,
71
197990
1820
我們稱之為修辭模式
03:31
where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.
72
199810
3943
因為你要修改論點去迎合現場觀眾
03:35
You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,
73
203753
2497
比如在說法語的觀眾面前
03:38
tight argument in English before a francophone audience
74
206250
3430
發表一個有力的論點
03:41
just isn't going to work.
75
209680
1903
是沒有用的
03:43
So we have these models -- argument as war,
76
211583
2523
所以我們有三種模式分別為－戰爭式辯論
03:46
argument as proof, and argument as performance.
77
214106
3794
論證式辯論和表演性辯論
03:49
Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.
78
217900
4300
這三者中，戰爭式辯論一直都是比較強勢的
03:54
It dominates how we talk about arguments,
79
222200
2861
它影響著我們談論辯論的方式
03:57
it dominates how we think about arguments,
80
225061
2198
影響著我們思考辯論的方式
03:59
and because of that, it shapes how we argue,
81
227259
2862
因為如此，它也塑造我們辯論的方式
04:02
our actual conduct in arguments.
82
230121
1778
我們在辯論中的言行舉止
04:03
Now, when we talk about arguments,
83
231899
1481
現在，當我們談及辯論
04:05
yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.
84
233380
2072
我們都用很強烈的語氣
04:07
We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch,
85
235452
3467
我們想要站得住腳的論點，有力反擊的論點
04:10
arguments that are right on target.
86
238919
1898
正中要害的論點
04:12
We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.
87
240817
2935
我們想要加強防守，穩固進攻策略
04:15
We want killer arguments.
88
243752
2398
我們想要場殺手級的論點
04:18
That's the kind of argument we want.
89
246150
2966
這就是我們所想要的
04:21
It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.
90
249116
2048
這是看待辯論的主流方式
04:23
When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably
91
251164
1983
當我和別人談起辯論時
04:25
what you thought of, the adversarial model.
92
253147
3337
你大概都會想到這種辯論
04:28
But the war metaphor, the war paradigm
93
256484
3537
但是，這種戰爭比喻
04:32
or model for thinking about arguments,
94
260021
1769
這種戰爭式思考方式
04:33
has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.
95
261790
3158
就我認為，扭曲了我們的辯論效果
04:36
First it elevates tactics over substance.
96
264948
3347
首先，戰爭辯論注重策略而非主旨
04:40
You can take a class in logic, argumentation.
97
268295
2481
你可以修一堂邏輯課、辯論課
04:42
You learn all about the subterfuges that people use
98
270776
2504
你會學到所有人們用來贏得辯論的技巧
04:45
to try and win arguments, the false steps.
99
273280
1989
避免出現錯誤
04:47
It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.
100
275269
3877
這加強了他我敵對的意味
04:51
It makes it adversarial. It's polarizing.
101
279146
3245
讓雙方關係成為敵我關係，產生極端
04:54
And the only foreseeable outcomes
102
282391
3233
而唯一能預見的結果
04:57
are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.
103
285624
5746
就是輝煌的勝利或是可恥的失敗
05:03
I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,
104
291370
2683
這些是扭曲的結果，最糟的是
05:06
it seems to prevent things like negotiation
105
294053
2755
這讓協商、審議以及妥協
05:08
or deliberation or compromise
106
296808
2531
這類情況不會發生
05:11
or collaboration.
107
299339
2981
甚至都無法合作
05:14
Think about that one. Have you ever entered an argument
108
302320
1996
試想一下，你有沒有參與過一場辯論
05:16
thinking, "Let's see if we can hash something out
109
304316
3224
心中想著「讓我們看看有沒有辦法好好討論一下」
05:19
rather than fight it out. What can we work out together?"
110
307540
3075
「而不是想著辯倒對方。」
05:22
And I think the argument-as-war metaphor
111
310615
2296
我認為戰爭辯論所代表的是
05:24
inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation.
112
312911
4342
它遏止了解決問題的其他方法
05:29
And finally, this is really the worst thing,
113
317253
2827
最後，這是最糟的情況
05:32
arguments don't seem to get us anywhere.
114
320080
1857
辯論最後沒有帶給我們任何東西
05:33
They're dead ends. They are roundabouts
115
321937
2576
像死胡同，原地打轉一樣
05:36
or traffic jams or gridlock in conversation.
116
324513
3801
像塞車，談話遇到僵局一樣
05:40
We don't get anywhere.
117
328314
1842
我們什麼都沒得到
05:42
Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator,
118
330156
2313
身為一個教育家，還有一件事情
05:44
this is the one that really bothers me:
119
332469
2111
真正困擾我的事情是：
05:46
If argument is war, then there's an implicit equation
120
334580
3719
如果辯論就是戰爭，也就不會有
05:50
of learning with losing.
121
338299
3617
輸了辯論，學了東西這種事情
05:53
And let me explain what I mean.
122
341916
1920
我再解釋一下我的意思
05:55
Suppose you and I have an argument.
123
343836
2616
假設你和我在辯論
05:58
You believe a proposition, P, and I don't.
124
346452
4024
你支持 P 提案，我不支持
06:02
And I say, "Well why do you believe P?"
125
350476
1847
我問「為什麼你支持 P 提案？」
06:04
And you give me your reasons.
126
352323
1669
然後你告訴我你支持的理由
06:05
And I object and say, "Well, what about ...?"
127
353992
2031
我反問「那為什麼....？」
06:08
And you answer my objection.
128
356023
1862
然後你對我的辯解做出回應
06:09
And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?
129
357885
2225
我又問你「那你說的是什麼意思呢？」
06:12
How does it apply over here?" And you answer my question.
130
360110
3598
「這怎麼用在這裡呢？」你仍舊回答我的問題
06:15
Now, suppose at the end of the day,
131
363708
1428
假設到了最後
06:17
I've objected, I've questioned,
132
365136
1963
我反對過了，我提問過了
06:19
I've raised all sorts of counter-considerations,
133
367099
3039
我提出了所有的反向思考
06:22
and in every case you've responded to my satisfaction.
134
370138
3762
而你對我的任何提問都給出了滿意的答案
06:25
And so at the end of the day, I say,
135
373900
2590
最後我會說
06:28
"You know what? I guess you're right. P."
136
376490
3850
我說「你知道嗎？我想你是對的。」
06:32
So I have a new belief. And it's not just any belief,
137
380340
3657
然後我相信了一個新理論，不是什麽隨便的理論
06:35
but it's a well-articulated, examined,
138
383997
4574
是一個條理分明，經過仔細推敲
06:40
it's a battle-tested belief.
139
388571
2982
經得起考驗的理論
06:43
Great cognitive gain. Okay. Who won that argument?
140
391553
4001
認知方面又多了新知，那到底誰贏了辯論？
06:47
Well, the war metaphor seems to force us into saying
141
395554
2961
所以，戰爭辯論的言下之意是告訴我們
06:50
you won, even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain.
142
398515
3449
雖然你贏了，但我是唯一有獲得新知的人
06:53
What did you gain cognitively from convincing me?
143
401964
3873
從你說服我的過程中，你得到了什麼嗎？
06:57
Sure, you got some pleasure out of it, maybe your ego stroked,
144
405837
2805
當然，你獲得快樂，你的自尊心可能更強烈
07:00
maybe you get some professional status in the field.
145
408642
3109
在那領域你可能又多了點學術地位
07:03
This guy's a good arguer.
146
411751
1588
這傢伙很擅長辯論
07:05
But cognitively, now -- just from a cognitive point of view -- who was the winner?
147
413339
4254
但是，就從認知角度而言，誰是贏家？
07:09
The war metaphor forces us into thinking
148
417593
1979
戰爭辯論的比喻使得我們認為
07:11
that you're the winner and I lost,
149
419572
2940
你是贏家，我是輸家
07:14
even though I gained.
150
422512
2282
儘管我有學到東西
07:16
And there's something wrong with that picture.
151
424794
2201
但是這樣不對
07:18
And that's the picture I really want to change if we can.
152
426995
2816
如果我們有辦法，這正是我想改變的
07:21
So how can we find ways to make arguments
153
429811
4814
那麼我們要怎樣來辯論
07:26
yield something positive?
154
434625
2759
能得到些正向的東西
07:29
What we need is new exit strategies for arguments.
155
437384
3738
我們要的，是一個能有後台下的辯論策略
07:33
But we're not going to have new exit strategies for arguments
156
441122
3206
但我們是找不到的
07:36
until we have new entry approaches to arguments.
157
444328
3136
除非我們有了新的途徑去辯論
07:39
We need to think of new kinds of arguments.
158
447464
3434
我們要想出新的辯論類型
07:42
In order to do that, well,
159
450898
3058
為了達到這目標
07:45
I don't know how to do that.
160
453956
2183
恩，我不知道該怎麼做
07:48
That's the bad news.
161
456139
1416
這不是個好消息
07:49
The argument-as-war metaphor is just, it's a monster.
162
457555
3080
戰爭式辯論太可怕了
07:52
It's just taken up habitation in our mind,
163
460635
2352
它會充斥我們的思維
07:54
and there's no magic bullet that's going to kill it.
164
462987
1999
沒有魔法子彈能夠消滅它
07:56
There's no magic wand that's going to make it disappear.
165
464986
2566
沒有魔法棒來讓它消失
07:59
I don't have an answer.
166
467552
1653
我沒有答案
08:01
But I have some suggestions,
167
469205
1110
但我有些建議
08:02
and here's my suggestion.
168
470315
3154
我的建議如下
08:05
If we want to think of new kinds of arguments,
169
473469
2129
如果要想出新的辯論類型
08:07
what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguers.
170
475598
4080
我們就需要想出新類別的辯論者
08:11
So try this.
171
479678
2814
這麼說吧
08:14
Think of all the roles that people play in arguments.
172
482492
4610
想想人們在辯論中扮演的所有角色
08:19
There's the proponent and the opponent
173
487102
3001
有支持方以及反對方
08:22
in an adversarial, dialectical argument.
174
490103
2330
存在一個對立、辯證的辯論中
08:24
There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.
175
492433
2007
在修辭辯論中，存在著觀眾
08:26
There's the reasoner in arguments as proofs.
176
494440
3916
在論證辯論中，存在著推理的人
08:30
All these different roles. Now, can you imagine an argument
177
498356
3677
這些不同的角色中，你能否想像有一場辯論
08:34
in which you are the arguer, but you're also in the audience
178
502033
3739
你同時是辯論者，也是觀眾
08:37
watching yourself argue?
179
505772
2148
看著你自己在辯論呢？
08:39
Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue,
180
507920
2960
你能否想像當你看著自己在辯論時
08:42
losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument,
181
510880
3369
就算輸了，在辯論結束後
08:46
say, "Wow, that was a good argument."
182
514249
4576
你仍說「這真是一場好棒的辯論。」
08:50
Can you do that? I think you can.
183
518825
3110
你可以做到嗎？我想你可以
08:53
And I think, if you can imagine that kind of argument
184
521935
1998
我認為，如果你能想像這樣的辯論
08:55
where the loser says to the winner
185
523933
1643
輸掉的一方能對贏的人
08:57
and the audience and the jury can say,
186
525576
1921
觀眾以及陪審團說
08:59
"Yeah, that was a good argument,"
187
527497
1983
「對阿，這是一場很棒的辯論。」
09:01
then you have imagined a good argument.
188
529480
1803
那你所想的就是場好的辯論
09:03
And more than that, I think you've imagined
189
531283
1819
此外，我認為你也可以想像
09:05
a good arguer, an arguer that's worthy
190
533102
3370
一位好的辯論者
09:08
of the kind of arguer you should try to be.
191
536472
3089
一個值得你效法的辯論者
09:11
Now, I lose a lot of arguments.
192
539561
2682
我輸過很多次辯論
09:14
It takes practice to become a good arguer
193
542243
2575
成為一位好的辯論者需要練習
09:16
in the sense of being able to benefit from losing,
194
544818
1937
也就是能從失敗中學到東西
09:18
but fortunately, I've had many, many colleagues
195
546755
2676
幸運的是，我有太多，太多的同事
09:21
who have been willing to step up and provide that practice for me.
196
549431
3219
他們都願意挺我，為我提供練習機會
09:24
Thank you.
197
552650
1193
謝謝
09:25
(Applause)
198
553843
4109
（掌聲）
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Daniel H. Cohen - PhilosopherPhilosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason.
Why you should listen
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen specializes in argumentation theory, the study of how we use reason (both verbally and in social contexts) to put forth potentially controversial standpoints. Cohen goes beyond just looking at how we plain ol' argue and looks specifically at the metaphors we use for this systematic reasoning. In his work Cohen argues for new, non-combatative metaphors for argument.
Cohen is a Professor of Philosophy at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
Daniel H. Cohen | Speaker | TED.com