“It’s the 4th century BCE, and Aristotle has just written a critique of arguments that take the truth of their conclusion for granted.”
「現在是西元前四世紀, 亞里斯多德剛寫了篇文章 對預先認定結果為真的論點提出批評。」
“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.”
「同樣在西元前四世紀, 亞里斯多德剛提出了一個新理論: 因為地球是宇宙的中心, 人類在宇宙中就是孤單的。」
He should listen to himself.
他真該聽聽自己曾説過的話。
“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.”
「現在是 1990 年, 維吉尼亞州聯邦地方法院將要審理 一位新生對大學提起的訴訟案。 她控訴維吉尼亞軍校 將女性排除在外的招生政策。」
“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.”
「維吉尼亞軍校是一所公立大學, 旨在透過獨特而嚴格的方式 培養『公民士兵』: 所有學生都要服從同一套生活制度、 承受極端的身心壓力, 還會被剝奪隱私。」
Well, I'm certainly not sorry to be excluded.
嗯,我肯定不會因為 被拒於門外而感到遺憾。
“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.”
「維吉尼亞軍校是維吉尼亞州 唯一的單一性別公立大學; 完全沒有僅招收女性的學術機構。 因爲維吉尼亞軍校是政府機構, 根據法律,它不能根據性別 來排除招生對象, 除非有『極具說服力的正當理由』。 它必須證明只招收男性的政策 是為了達成重要的政府目標 所必要的手段。」
“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.”
「維吉尼亞州辯稱, 維吉尼亞軍校的教育方法 會因為招收女性而被破壞。 該州主張,單一性別的教育 是『重要的政府目標』。 不讓女性進入維吉尼亞軍校 是達成目標的必要條件。」
Hmm, considering how much they prize rigor, their argument is certainly lacking it. I’ll have to set them straight.
嗯,明明他們如此重視嚴謹, 他們的論述卻如此鬆散。 我必須去指正他們。
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.
來吧,法官大人, 你肯定不能讓這個論述成立吧。 基本上,維吉尼亞州是在說, 單一性別教育 應該被允許,因爲 它是單一性別教育的必要條件。 你甘脆說應該要鼓勵獵巫, 因爲獵巫能滿足獵巫的需求。
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.
這些都是循環論證的例子, 有時也稱為「乞題」。 也就是說,得出結論的理由 本身就假設結論是正確的, 而非解釋爲什麽結論是正確的。 以「應該鼓勵獵巫」這個結論為例, 證明結論的證據 是「有獵巫的需求」。 但是這個主張和所謂主張背後的證據 都沒有回答到同一個問題: 爲什麽獵巫是必要的? 事實上,這裡根本沒有任何論據。
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.
循環論證聽起來可能很直接, 在某種層面上也的確是。 就連人類也可以輕易在 下面的論證中發現循環邏輯: 「寶寶出生了是因爲 她的母親生下她。」 你會陷入困境, 是因為某個觀點或事物的現狀 過於熟悉或存在已久, 使你認定它是事實。 實際上,它只是個假設。 就像好幾個世代的天文學家和數學家 自圓其說行星軌道的異常, 而不是質疑行星繞著 地球運行的前提。
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.
你們這些現代人可能了解 行星其實是繞著太陽運轉的, 但你們仍然會受到 你們自己其他假設的影響。 所以你們可能會聽到: 「男性和女性應該受到不同的對待, 因為法律用不同的方式對待他們」 就心想,是啊,那很合理。 法律向來用不同的方式對待他們。 但那只是在陳述事實; 並非推斷出來的論證, 無法說明為什麼會有不同對待。 就算一件事是真的, 也無法證明它就是對的。
Not convinced? Well, I’m sure you, as a judge, won’t mind hearing a bit more evidence.
還沒被說服? 我相信你身為法官, 不會介意再多聽一點證據。
“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.”
「現在是 1996 年,這個案件 已經上訴到美國最高法院。 法院以七比一的票數判決 維吉尼亞軍校必須要開始招收女性。 大法官露絲‧貝德‧金斯伯格宣判, 認為維吉尼亞州是在用循環論證。」
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.
請容我把你的邏輯 提供給我的夥伴了解。 同時,我也要借用那個。 我們來看看, 她指出,維吉尼亞州認為 維吉尼亞軍校可以排除女性的正當理由 其實是把手段當作目的—— 也就是,該州主張應該要排除女性, 因為該軍校的使命 就是單一性別教育。 但事實上, 該軍校明定的使命 是要培養公民士兵, 讓他們準備好在美國社會中 扮演領導角色—— 金斯伯格大法官堅稱, 這個目標絕對包含女性在內。
Alone in my universe at last.
終於能在我的宇宙中享受寧靜了。