什么是論證？
“論證”這個詞有好幾個含義，所以我們第一個任務(wù)就是澄清并注意到它們之間的區(qū)別。一個通常的含義是“爭吵”，就像句子里的說法“他們正在激烈的爭吵，就像在比賽誰的聲音更尖銳。”因為爭吵表達(dá)出的情緒多過思考，自我的沖突常常將爭吵退化成毫無意義的胡言亂語，這個定義上的論證和批判性思維毫無關(guān)系。那么，基于我們的目標(biāo)，論證不是爭吵。
論證的另一個含義是“在兩個人或更多人之間交換意見”，就像一個正規(guī)的辯論會上發(fā)生的。從這個單詞的這個含義上看，論證是一個理想的由不同意見人共同工作，努力合作，以達(dá)成對議題更深刻、更精確、更好的理解。在這些努力中，自我被控制住，并且每個人雖然要成為正確的，但還是愿意被證明自己是錯的。既然每個人都處在這個更高洞見的過程中，沒有失敗者。哎，自我沒有那么容易被壓制。另外，我們大多數(shù)已經(jīng)習(xí)慣了認(rèn)為在每一個論證中必須有勝利者和失敗者，就像在運(yùn)動員比賽。于是我們經(jīng)常更多地聚焦在相對我們的“對手”的“得分點(diǎn)”，而不是知識和智慧的增長，結(jié)果，即使我們竭盡全力，也常常不能達(dá)到這種理想狀態(tài)。
雖然作為“在兩個人或更多人之間交換意見”，論證和批判性思維相關(guān)，這個單詞的另一個含義更為重要——挑戰(zhàn)成為批判性思考者。在這個含義上，論證意味著“支持一個判斷的推理思路”。當(dāng)我們說，“約翰關(guān)于死刑議題的論證比莎莉的更有說服力，”我們關(guān)注的是在整體考量中他個人貢獻(xiàn)的質(zhì)量。因為我們這一章，和全本書的主要關(guān)注點(diǎn)是評估個人的論證，你自己的和他人的一樣對待，這個定義是我們將要關(guān)注的。
將論證看作沒有數(shù)學(xué)符號的語言等式會有幫助。一個數(shù)學(xué)等式是這樣的形式1 + 1 =2 或者 2 - 1 =1。語言等式在不使用減號、加號或者等于號情況下表達(dá)相似的關(guān)系。這有個案例：
法律禁止老師在公立學(xué)校帶領(lǐng)學(xué)生禱告。
維諾娜在她的公立學(xué)校教室中帶領(lǐng)學(xué)生禱告，因此，維諾娜違法了。
就像數(shù)學(xué)等式，論證可以簡單，也可能復(fù)雜。就像數(shù)學(xué)等式可以由很多數(shù)字組成一樣（342+186+232+111+871），論證的結(jié)果可能從很多前提（判斷）而來。就像一個列式中錯誤的數(shù)字導(dǎo)致錯誤的結(jié)果一樣，有一個錯誤的斷言會導(dǎo)致錯誤的結(jié)論。在課堂中禱告的論證中，如果我們錯誤地認(rèn)為法律允許老師帶領(lǐng)學(xué)生禱告，我們的結(jié)論就是維諾娜沒有違反法律，那這個結(jié)論就是錯誤的。
當(dāng)然，數(shù)學(xué)等式和論證不完全一樣。一個重要的區(qū)別就是論證通常更復(fù)雜并且難以測試。維他命C可以預(yù)防普通感冒還是減輕它的癥狀？電視暴力會促進(jìn)真實(shí)的暴力嗎？約翰F肯尼迪的死亡是一個簡單的暗殺嗎？以色列在2006年轟炸黎巴嫩是公正的嗎？在這些和其他事務(wù)中，證據(jù)要么不完整，要么沒有公開解釋。
注：對于argument一詞，我最開始翻譯成爭論，非常不恰當(dāng)。看到中譯本（作者：顧肅、董玉榮）后，改成“論證”。
原文：
What Is Argument?
The word argument has several meanings, so our first task is to clarify each and note how it differs from the others. One common meaning is “a quarrel,” as in the sentence “They had a heated argument, a real screaming match.” Because a quarrel consists less of thought than of emotion, a clash of egos that frequently degenerates into mindless babble, this definition of argument has little relevance to critical thinking. For our purposes, therefore, an argument is not a quarrel.
Another meaning of argument is “the exchange of opinions between two or more people,” as occurs in a formal debate. In this sense of the term, an argument is ideally a cooperative endeavor in which people with different viewpoints work together to achieve a deeper, more accurate, understanding of an issue. In such an endeavor egos are controlled and everyone, though wanting to be right, is willing to be proved wrong. Since everyone emerges from the process with greater insight, no one loses. Alas, egos are not easily suppressed. Besides, most of us have been conditioned to believe there must be a winner and a loser in every argument, just as in every athletic contest. Thus we often focus more on “scoring points” against our “opponent” than on growing in knowledge and wisdom, so even our best efforts tend to fall short of the ideal.
Although argument as “the exchange of opinions between two or more people” is relevant to critical thinking, another meaning of the term is even more relevant to the challenge of becoming a critical thinker. Argument, in this sense, means “the line of reasoning that supports a judgment.” When we say, “John’s argument on the issue of capital punishment was more persuasive than Sally’s,” we are focusing on the quality of his individual contribution to the overall deliberation. Because our main concern in this chapter, as throughout this book, is the evaluation of individual arguments, your own as well as other people’s, this definition is the one we will focus on.
It can be helpful to think of an argument as a kind of verbal equation
without mathematical symbols. Anumerical equation has the form 1 + 1 =2 or 2 - 1 =1. A verbal equation expresses similar relationships without using minus, plus, or equal signs. Here is an example:
The law prohibits teachers from leading class prayers in public schools.
Wynona leads students in prayer in her public school classroom. Therefore, Wynona is breaking the law.
Like numerical equations, arguments may be complex as well as simple. Just as the sum in a numerical equation may be composed of many numbers (342 + 186 +232 + 111+ 871), so the conclusion of an argument may proceed from many premises (assertions). And just as having an incorrect number in a column of figures will result in a wrong total, so having an incorrect assertion will lead to a wrong conclusion.* In the class prayer argument, if we mistakenly think that the law permits teachers to lead students in prayer, our conclusion would be that Wynona is not breaking the law, and that conclusion would be wrong.
Numerical equations and arguments are not, however, entirely similar. One important difference is that an argument is often more complex and difficult to test. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold or lessen its severity? Does television violence cause real violence? Was John F. Kennedy killed by a single assassin? Was Israel justified in bombing Lebanon in 2006? In these and many other matters, the evidence is either not yet complete or is open to interpretation.
