On the plains of the Serengeti, a dung beetle rolls his perfectly sculpted ball of dung away from competitors.
(电视):在塞伦盖蒂平原上, 一只蜣螂将完美雕刻的粪球 滚离竞争对手;
In this Canadian river, a beaver rushes to reinforce her dam as it threatens to burst.
在这条加拿大河流中, 一只海狸急着加固她的坝, 因为坝体有破裂的危险;
As the snowball thunders down the mountainside, gaining momentum, the arctic foxes run for cover—
当雪球轰隆作响滚落山坡, 不断加快,北极狐奔跑寻掩护......
I can't stand these nature programs. Always the same story, and not a rational actor in sight. What else is on?
推理怪:真受不了这些自然节目。 总是同一个故事, 看不到一个理性角色。 还有其它节目可看吗?
It’s April 1954, and Vietnamese nationalists are on the verge of victory against French forces fighting for control of Vietnam. Their victory could lead to an independent Vietnam under communist leader Ho Chi Minh. The United States President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, is holding a press conference to comment on these developments.
(电视):1954 年 4 月, 越南民族主义者 反对法军控制越南之战即将胜利。 他们的胜利可能导致 越南在共产党领导人 胡志明的领导下获得独立。 美国总统德怀特·D·艾森豪威尔 正在召开新闻发布会, 就事态发展发表评论。
Well, if you really must.
推理怪:好吧,如果你必须开的话。
Eisenhower claims that by virtue of what he calls the “falling domino principle,” communist control of Vietnam would be the “beginning of a disintegration” that would be certain to cause “incalculable loss.”
(电视):艾森豪威尔声称,根据 他说的“多米诺骨牌倒塌原则”, 共产主义对越南的控制 将是“分裂的开始”, 定会造成“无法估量的损失”。
The beetles and beavers may be beyond my reach, but surely here's someone I can reason with.
推理怪:我管不了甲虫和海狸的事, 但肯定要和此人比试一下推理。 (推理怪穿越到电视新闻发布会) (观众窃窃私语) (推理怪小施魔法抢来总统西装)
Now, Mr. President, let’s take a deep breath, shall we? It’s a big leap—or, one might say, a long slide— from communist governance of Vietnam to the global spread of authoritarian communist regimes. It’s as if we were to say you were clothed, now you’re in your underwear, so soon everyone in the world will be completely naked.
推理怪:现在,总统先生, 让我们深吸一口气,好吗? 从越南的共产主义治理 到专制共产主义政权全球蔓延, 这是巨大飞跃, 或者有人可能会说是个长滑坡。 就好比如果我们说你刚才穿着衣服, 而现在你只穿着内衣, 那么,很快世界上的每个人 都将完全赤身裸体一样。
Don’t worry, I may have that power, but I promise not to use it. Now, as I was saying, this kind of argument, where one step, let’s call it A, kicks off a string of events that inevitably culminates in an extreme scenario, let’s call it Z, is known as a slippery slope. Many such arguments focus on catastrophe, but the slope to an extreme positive outcome can be just as slippery. The trouble with this kind of argument is that, in presenting Z is the inevitable outcome of A, it almost always overstates the likelihood that Z will happen if A happens. Why? Allow me to trouble you with some math.
别担心,我可能有那种力量, 但我保证不会使用它。 现在,正如我所说,这种争论, 其中一个步骤,我们称之为 A, 是一系列事件的开始, A 不可避免地以极端情况告终, 我们称之为 Z, 被称为滑坡谬误。 许多这样的论点集中在最终灾难上, 但极端正向结果的斜坡 可能也同样很滑(不靠谱)。 这种论点的问题在于, 在呈现 Z 是 A 的必然时, 几乎总是夸大 Z 发生的可能性, 如果 A 发生的话。 为什么? 容我用一些数学来解释。
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that, taken individually, each step between A and Z is independent from the others and very likely— 99%. So the probability that A causes B, that B causes C, that C causes D, and so on, is each 99%. Even so, each additional step adds an opportunity to alter the outcome, and A is only 78% likely to lead to Z— far from an inevitability. If there’s a 95% likelihood of each step, the chance that A leads to Z plummets to about 28%. If there’s a 90% likelihood at each step— still very likely by most standards— the chance that A leads to Z is only 7%. And if 24 of the 25 steps between A and Z are 99% likely, and one is 50% likely, the chance that A leads to Z goes down from 78% to 39%.
为了论证,每步单独考虑的话, 让我们假设 A 和 Z 之间 每一步都相互独立, 并且很可能发生——概率 99%。 所以, A 导致 B,B 导致 C , C 导致 D,依此类推, 每一步概率都是 99%。 即便如此,每个额外步骤 都会增加改变结果的可能, 使 A 导致 Z 只有 78%的可能性, 远非必然结果。 如果每步都有 95% 的可能, A 导致 Z 的可能性 则骤降至约 28%。 若每步都有 90% 的可能性—— 按大多数标准,仍然很有可能—— A 导致 Z 的概率仅为 7%。 如果 A 和 Z 间的 25 个步骤中 有 24 个有 99% 的可能性, 一个是 50% 的可能性, A 导致 Z 的机会 从 78% 下降到 39%。
Back to your situation. I won’t deny you have reason to be concerned. You’re warily watching as powerful authoritarian communist regimes in the Soviet Union and China try to spread their form of governance. But let’s take a look at the chain of events you suggest: You say that the countries surrounding Vietnam would all soon fall under communist rule; that this would result in a loss of essential trade with these countries for others; that with no non-communist nations left to trade with, Japan would be pressured towards communism and that this, in turn, would threaten Australia and New Zealand. Your ultimate fear, if I may presume, is that this will in turn threaten the United States. Is this a possibility? Sure. Where I take issue is with your comparison to dominos. These complex real-world events are not, in fact, like dominoes, where when the first one falls, it becomes a certainty that the last will fall. For any one of these events, a number of possible outcomes could result, each affecting the other events in different ways. The possibilities are not a chain, they’re a web.
再回到您说的的情况, 我不否认你有理由担心。 你警惕看着强大专制的共产主义政权 在苏联和中国试图传播其治理形式, 但让我们来看看你说的事件链: 你说越南周边的国家 很快会落入共产主义统治之下, 因为与其他国家合作, 将导致与这些国家的基本贸易损失, 导致没有非共产主义国家 可以与之进行贸易, 日本将被迫走向共产主义, 而这反过来又会威胁到 澳大利亚和新西兰。 如果我可以假设的话, 你的终极恐惧就是 这会反过来威胁美国。 (总统点头) 有这种可能吗?当然, 但我不同意你拿多米诺骨牌做比较。 事实上,这些复杂的现实事件 并不像多米诺骨牌, 即当第一个倒下时, 最后一个肯定会倒下。 对于这些事件中的任何一个, 都可能导致许多可能的结果, 每个都以不同方式影响其他事件。 可能性不是连锁,而是一张网。
It’s 1975, and after 20 years of conflict, and several million lives lost, North Vietnamese forces have taken control of the capital of South Vietnam. The war is over, and all of Vietnam is under communist control. Communist regimes have come to power in neighboring Laos and Cambodia, where the regime will be responsible for the deaths of an estimated quarter of all Cambodians.
(电视):1975 年,历经 20 年冲突,数百万人丧生, 北越军队控制了南越的首都, 战争结束,整个越南 都在共产党的控制之下。 共产主义政权在邻国 老挝和柬埔寨上台, 政权更替 造成约 1/4 柬埔寨人死亡。
Wait, there's more.
(总统和观众惊讶声)
推理怪:等等,还有更多。
That first step you were trying to avoid happened, but the end result you predicted did not. As for the steps between, a few happened; many did not. Decades afterward, your fellow humans are still debating why events unfolded the way they did.
电视:(1985年)你极力避免的 第一步还是发生了, (1991年,)但你预测的 最终结果却没出现。 (2021年)至于中间的步骤, 发生了一些,但许多并未发生。 几十年后,你的人类同胞仍在争论 为什么事件会以这种方式展开。
And this is the trouble with slippery slope arguments. They focus exclusively on extreme outcomes, assigning those outcomes a degree of certainty or inevitability that rarely corresponds to reality. They divert attention from other, more likely possibilities, foreclosing discussions that might be more productive. And that’s when they’re made in good faith. Slippery slope arguments can also be intentionally structured to take advantage of people’s fears— whatever your position on an issue, it’s easy to come up with an extreme outcome that suits your aims. Best to avoid them entirely, eh?
这就是滑坡谬误的麻烦之处。 他们只关注极端结果, 为这些结果分配一定程度的 (100%)确定性或必然性, 这很少符合现实。 他们将注意力从其他 更有可能的可能性上转移开来, 排除可能更有成效的讨论, 那正是他们的用意所在。 滑坡谬误也可以有意构建 去利用人们的恐惧—— 无论你在某个问题上的立场如何, 很容易得出适合你目标的极端结果。 最好完全避免它们,是吧?