《TED英语演讲：辩论一定要分出胜负》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《TED英语演讲：辩论一定要分出胜负（10页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、此资料由网络收集而来，如有侵权请告知上传者立即删除。资料共分享，我们负责传递知识。TED英语演讲：辩论一定要分出胜负我们为什么辩论?为了驳倒我们的反对者，证明他们是错的，最主要的是，为了赢!;没错吧?哲学家丹尼尔;H;科恩向我们展示了辩论最普遍的形式;一定要分出胜负的战争式辩论，即把辩论当作战斗，胜者为王败者寇的方式，使我们失去了在持有不同见解是所能获得的真正益处。下面是小编为大家收集关于TED英语演讲：辩论一定要分出胜负，欢迎借鉴参考。TED英语演讲：辩论一定要分出胜负!演说者：Daniel H. CohenMy name isDan Cohen, and I am academic, as
2、 he said. And what that means is that I argue.Its an important part of my life, and I like to argue. And Im not just anacademic, Im a philosopher, so I like to think that Im actually pretty goodat arguing. But I also like to think a lot about arguing.我叫丹;科恩，我是个学者，就像主持人介绍的。这意味着我经常需要辩论。这是我生命中的重要组成部分，同
3、时我喜欢辩论。我不仅仅是个学者，我也是个哲学家，所以我觉得是实际上还是挺擅长辩论的。但是我也经常思考有关辩论的问题。And thinking about arguing, Ive come across somepuzzles, and one of the puzzles is thatas Ive been thinking about arguing overthe years, and its been decades now, Ive gotten better at arguing, but themore that I argue and the better I get at
4、arguing, the more that I lose. Andthats a puzzle. And the other puzzle is that Im actually okay with that. Whyis it that Im okay with losing and why is it that I think that good arguersare actually better at losing?说起辩论，我曾有过一些困惑，而其中一个困惑是我多年前开始考虑如何辩论，至今已有二十多年了，我也变得更善于辩论，但是越是辩论，我就能从中获取更多，同时也失去更多。这就是一个
5、困惑。而另一个困惑就是我其实觉得这没什么大不了的。为什么我会觉得失去一些什么也无关紧要，为什么好的辩论者实际上更善于失去?Well, theres some other puzzles. One is, why do weargue? Who benefits from arguments?And when I think about arguments now, Imtalking about, lets call them academic arguments or cognitive arguments, wheresomething cognitive is at stake. Is
6、this proposition true? Is this theory agood theory? Is this a viable interpretation of the data or the text? And soon. Im not interested really in arguments about whose turn it is to do thedishes or who has to take out the garbage. Yeah, we have those arguments too. Itend to win those arguments, bec
7、ause I know the tricks. But those arent theimportant arguments. Im interested in academic arguments today, and here arethe things that puzzle me.好了，其实我还有以下其他困惑。例如，我们为什么辩论?而谁又从辩论中获益? 需要指出的是当我谈及辩论时，我所指的，是所谓学术辩论亦或者认知辩论，就一些我们知之甚少的方面进行辩论。例如我们的认知是否正确?这个理论是不是个好理论?对于某些数据或者文字这是不是一个很好的解释?以及很多其他的问题。我无心去争论今天该谁洗
8、碗或者谁应该倒垃圾。当然，我们也会为那些问题争论。我经常在那类争论争论中胜出，因为我知道一些技巧。当时那些辩论没有那么重要。我感兴趣的是那些学术性辩论，而接下来这是我感到困惑的事情。First, what do good arguers win when they win anargument? What do I win if I convince you that utilitarianism isnt really theright framework for thinking about ethical theories? So what do we win when wewin an
9、 argument? Even before that, what does it matter to me whether you havethis idea that Kants theory works or Mills the right ethicist to follow? Itsno skin off my back whether you think functionalism is a viable theory of mind.So why do we even try to argue? Why do we try to convince other people tob
10、elieve things that they dont want to believe? And is that even a nice thingto do? Is that a nice way to treat another human being, try and make them thinksomething they dont want to think?首先，当人们赢得一场辩论的时候，作为一个优秀的辩论者，他从中学到了什么?如果我能说服你实用主义不能用来解释道德理论的话，我能从中获得什么呢?所以我们到底可以从一场辩论中学到什么?而且在此之前，你是追随康德还是密尔又有跟我什么
11、关系呢?无论你是否认为,功能主义是否是一个可取的思维方式都对我没有什么影响。所以我们为什么会想去辩论?为什么我们要去说服别人相信那些他们不愿相信的事情?我们到底应不应该这么做?用这种方式去对待他人，迫使他们去思考一些他们不想去思考的东西?Well, my answer is going to make reference to threemodels for arguments. The first model, lets call this the dialectical model,is that we think of arguments as war, and you know wha
12、t thats like. Theres alot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing, and thats not really avery helpful model for arguing but its a pretty common and entrenched modelfor arguing.好了，为了回答这个问题，让我们来参照三种不同的辩论方式.第一种模式，让我们称之为辩证模式，这种模式的辩论更想是打仗，相信你们都经历过。经常充满了尖叫和大喊而且伴有胜负，这对于辩论来说不是一个很有帮助的方式却也是相当常见且”;侵略性
13、”;的方式。But theres a second model for arguing: arguments asproofs. Think of a mathematicians argument. Heres my argument. Does it work?Is it any good? Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does theconclusion follow from the premises? No opposition, no adversariality, notnecessarily any
14、 arguing in the adversarial sense.这里还有第二种辩论的模式：论证式 想想数学家的辩论。这是我的辩论方式.它有用吗?有什么优点吗?我们论证时的前提是正确的吗?我们的推论有效吗?我们的结论是否由前提推导出来?没有对立,没有敌意，辩论并非必须在一个敌对意识下进行。But theres a third model to keep in mind that I thinkis going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances, argumentsas being in front of an
15、audience. We can think of a politician trying topresent a position, trying to convince the audience of something. But theresanother twist on this model that I really think is important, namely that whenwe argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatoryrole in the argument, that is, arguments are also audiences in front of jurieswho make a judgment and decide the case. Lets call this the rhetorical model,where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand. You know,presenting a sound, well-argued, tight argument in E
