“It’s the 4th century BCE, and Aristotle has just written a critique of arguments that take the truth of their conclusion for granted.”
“Četvrti je vek pre nove ere i Aristotel je upravo napisao kritiku argumenata koji uzimaju zdravo za gotovo istinu svojih zaključaka.”
“It’s still the 4th century BCE, and Aristotle has just advanced a new theory: that because Earth is the center of the universe, humanity is alone in the universe.”
“I dalje je 4. vek p.n.e. i Aristotel je razvio još jednu teoriju: da, pošto je Zemlja u centru univerzuma, čovečanstvo je samo u univerzumu.”
He should listen to himself.
Trebalo bi sam sebe da sluša.
“It’s 1990, and the Federal District Court of Virginia is about to hear a prospective student’s case against a university. She has filed a complaint about Virginia Military Institute’s admissions policy that excludes women.”
“Godina je 1990, i Federalni okružni sud Virdžinije će upravo da čuje tužbu potencijalne studentkinje protiv univerziteta. Ona je podnela žalbu zbog politike upisa Vojnog instituta u Virdžiniji (VIV) koja izuzima žene.
“VMI is a publicly-funded university that aims to produce ‘citizen soldiers’ through a unique and rigorous method: all students are subjected to an identical regimen of extreme physical and mental stress and deprivation of privacy.”
VIV je državni univerzitet koji nastoji da stvori “građane vojnike” pomoću jedinstvenih i rigoroznih metoda: svi studenti su podvrgnuti istom fizički i psihički inteznivnom režimu i lišeni su privatnosti.”
Well, I'm certainly not sorry to be excluded.
Pa, meni definitivno ne bi bilo žao da budem izuzet.
“VMI is the only single-sex public university in the state of Virginia; there is no equivalent institution for women. Because VMI is a government institution, by law, it cannot practice gender-based exclusion without ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’ It must prove that its single-sex admissions policy is a necessary step to serving important governmental objectives.”
“VIV je jedini istopolni državni univerzitet u Virdžiniji i ne postoji njegov ekvivalent za žene. Pošto je VIV državna institucija, po zakonu, ona ne sme da upražnjava diskriminaciju rodova bez validnog argumenta. VIV mora dokazati da je politika istopolnog upisa nužan korak ka ostvarivanju važnih ciljeva vlade.
“The state of Virginia argues that VMI’s educational methods would be compromised by admitting women. The state claims single-sex education is an ‘important governmental objective’ and that the exclusion of women from VMI is essential to that objective.”
“Virdžinija kao država ističe da bi edukativne metode VIV-a bile kompromitovane ako bi primali i žene. Država smatra da je istopolna edukacija važan cilj vlade i da je neprimanje žena neophodno da bi se taj interes ispunio.”
Hmm, considering how much they prize rigor, their argument is certainly lacking it. I’ll have to set them straight.
Hmm, iako toliko insistiraju na preciznosti njihov argument je manjkav. Moraću da ih ispravim.
Come now, Your Honor. Surely you can’t let that argument stand. The state of Virginia is essentially saying that single-sex education should be allowed because it serves the imperative of single-sex education. You might as well say that witch hunts should be encouraged because they fulfill the need for witch hunts.
Ma hajde, poštovani sude. Sigurno nećete dozvoliti da taj argument stoji. Država Virdžinija u suštini govori da istopolno obrazovanje treba da bude dozvoljeno jer služi svrsi istopolnog obrazovanja. Po toj logici, mogli bismo da kažemo da treba podržati lov na veštice jer on ispunjava ulogu lova na veštice.
These are examples of circular reasoning, sometimes called “begging the question,” where the reason given for a conclusion assumes the conclusion is true, rather than explaining why it’s true. Take the conclusion that witch hunts should be encouraged. The evidence given is that there is a need for witch hunts. But both the claim and the so-called evidence for the claim leave the same question unanswered: why are witch hunts necessary? There actually isn't an argument made here at all.
Ovo su primeri kružne logike, ponekad nazivane i “zahteva pitanje” gde razlog za zaključak pretpostavlja da je zaključak tačan bez objašnjavanja zašto je tačan. Uzmimo za primer zaključak da lov na veštice treba podržati. Razlog koji je dat u ovom primeru je da postoji potreba za lovom na veštice. I zaključak i takozvani dokaz za tvrdnju ostavljaju jedno pitanje neodgovorenim: zašto je lov na veštice neophodan? Argument za ovo zapravo i ne postoji.
Circular reasoning may sound straightforward, and in a way it is. Even a human can easily spot the circular logic in an argument like “the baby was born because her mother gave birth to her.” Where you run into trouble is when you assume that an opinion or current state of affairs, because it’s so familiar or long-lasting, is a fact, when really it’s an assumption. Like the generations of astronomers and mathematicians who contorted themselves to explain anomalies in the planets’ orbits, rather than questioning the premise that the planets orbited the Earth.
Kružna logika može da zvuči očito, i u neku ruku i jeste. Čak i običani ljudi mogu da primete kružnu logiku u okviru argumenta poput- beba je rođena jer ju je majka rodila. Problem nastaje kada pretpostavimo da mišljenje ili trenutno stanje stvari, samo zato što nam je poznato i odavno ustanovljeno, predstavlja činjenicu, iako je zapravo samo pretpostavka. Primer za ovo su generacije astronoma i matematičara koji su uprono pokušavali da objasne anomalije u orbitama planeta umesto da preispitaju pretpostavku da se druge planete okreću oko Zemlje.
You modern humans may understand that the planets actually orbit the sun, but you're still susceptible to assumptions of your own. So you may hear “men and women should be treated differently because the law treats them differently” and think, well, yes, that makes sense. The law has always treated them differently. But that’s merely a statement of fact; it’s not a reasoned argument for why it should to be the case. And just because something is true doesn’t make it proof of what is right.
Vi moderni ljudi možda razumete da se planete zapravo okreću oko Sunca, ali ste i dalje naivni po pitanju sopstvenih pretpostavki. Možda nekad čujete izjavu poput: “muškarce i žene treba tretirati različito jer ih zakon tretira različito.” i pomislite, pa da, to ima smisla. Zakon ih je uvek tretirao drugačije. Međutim, to je samo konstatacija. Ona nije sama po sebi validan argument zašto bi situacija trebalo da bude takva. A samo zato što je nešto istinito ne znači da je pravedno.
Not convinced? Well, I’m sure you, as a judge, won’t mind hearing a bit more evidence.
Niste ubeđeni? Pa, siguran sam da vama kao sudiji neće smetati da čujete još malo dokaza.
“It’s 1996, and the case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court has ruled 7 to 1 that VMI must begin to admit women. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers the ruling, calling out the state of Virginia for its circular reasoning.”
“Godina je 1996, i slučaj je stigao do Vrhovnog suda Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Sud je glasao 7 prema 1 da VIV mora početi da prima žene. Sudija Rut Bejder Ginsberg je donela presudu i prozvala državu Virdžiniju zbog upotrebe kružne logike.”
If I may, I'd like to bring my companion here up to speed on your logic. And while I’m at it, I’ll borrow that. Now, let’s see. She points out that Virginia’s justification for excluding women from VMI gave the means as an end— that is, it argued that women should be excluded because the school’s mission was single-sex education, when in fact the school’s stated mission was to produce citizen soldiers prepared to take on leadership roles in American society— an aim, Justice Ginsburg asserts, that is surely broad enough to include women.
Ako mogu, voleo bih da mog prijatelja informišem o vašoj logici. Kad se već bavim ovim, pozajmiću to. Sad, hajde da vidimo. Ona ističe da Virdžinijino opravdanje za neprihvatanje žena u VIV predstavlja sredstvo kao cilj- tj. argument da žene ne bi trebalo primati jer je istopolno obrazovanje cilj škole, iako je početni cilj škole bio da obrazuje civilne vojnike koji bi kasnije postali vođe američkog društva - a ovaj cilj, po tvrđenju sudije Ginsberg, dovoljno je obiman da uključi i žene.
Alone in my universe at last.
Najzad sam sam u svom univerzumu.