Most of the bad ideas you believe don't actually sound stupid. After all, if they did, they wouldn't fool so many people. Instead, the truly dangerous ideas imitate good reasoning so convincingly that you often simply just can't tell the difference.
你相信的大多数糟糕想法其实听起来并不愚蠢。毕竟，如果它们听起来很愚蠢，就不会骗到那么多人了。相反，真正危险的想法会模仿好的推理，逼真到让你往往根本分辨不出区别。
And more than 2,300 years ago, Aristotle wrote about how this happens in his book On Sophistical Refutations. And it became a central part of the tradition used to train generations of formidable thinkers.
早在2300多年前，亚里士多德就在他的著作《辩谬篇》中论述了这种现象的发生原理。它成为传统中的一个核心部分，被用来培养一代又一代令人敬畏的思想家。
Over my more than 13 years as a period reviewed scholar and educator, I've identified five of its techniques that remain especially relevant. And once you learn them, you'll be able to spot them and defeat them on command.
在我超过13年的作为期刊评审学者和教育家的经历中，我识别出了它的五种技巧，它们至今仍然特别 relevant。一旦你学会了它们，你就能随时发现并击败它们。
So, let's start with the first technique. Freeze the meaning of every important word. Consider the following argument. A scientific theory is merely a guess. Evolution is a scientific theory.
那么，让我们从第一个技巧开始。冻结每个重要词语的含义。考虑以下论点。科学理论仅仅是一种猜测。进化论是一种科学理论。
Therefore, evolution is merely a guess. You see, the word theory appears to hold the argument together, but it's actually being used in two very different senses. In everyday conversation, a theory can mean an unsupported speculation.
因此，进化论仅仅是一种猜测。你看，理论这个词似乎支撑着整个论证，但实际上它被用在两种截然不同的意义上。在日常对话中，理论可以指一种没有依据的推测。
But in science, a theory is a well-supported explanatory framework that has been tested again and again and again. Therefore, the word stayed the same while its meaning secretly changed.
但在科学中，理论是一个得到充分支持的解释框架它已经一次又一次地被检验。因此，这个词保持不变而它的含义却悄然改变了。
And this happens so often in conversation, yet so few people ever notice it. Aristotle called this equivocation. But you see, the most effective examples are rarely this obvious. Think, for instance, about a person claiming that a product must be safe because it's natural.
这种情况在对话中经常发生，但很少有人注意到它。亚里士多德称之为歧义。但你看，最有效的例子很少如此明显。比如，想想一个人声称产品一定是安全的，因为它是天然的。
Natural might initially mean that something exists in nature, but the conclusion depends upon natural meaning healthy or safe. But poisonous mushrooms are natural, too, now, aren't they?
“天然的”最初可能指某物存在于自然界中，但结论取决于“天然的”含义是健康或安全的。但毒蘑菇也是天然的，对吧？
And so, the argument moves from one definition to another, often even without the speaker themselves noticing that they're using the word in two different senses. And think about how many words people do this with every single day.
于是，论证从一个定义滑向另一个定义，说话者本人甚至常常没有注意到自己是在用两种不同的含义使用这个词。想想人们用多少个词来做这件事每一天。
For instance, words such as freedom, justice, harm, evidence, intelligence, educated, or even effective. One person uses freedom, for instance, to mean freedom from government interference, and another person uses it to mean something like possessing the actual resources required to act.
例如，像自由、正义、伤害、证据、智力、受过教育的，甚至有效的这样的词。一个人使用自由，例如，表示不受政府干预的自由，而另一个人用它来表示类似拥有采取行动所需的实际资源。
And they can then waste hours apparently disagreeing about freedom, while in reality, they're simply defending two very different concepts. So, when an argument feels persuasive, yet strangely slippery, perform what you might call a substitution test.
然后他们可能会浪费几个小时表面上是在争论自由而实际上他们只是在捍卫两个截然不同的概念。所以，当一个论点听起来很有说服力却又莫名地难以捉摸时不妨做一个你可以称之为替换测试的操作。
Replace the important word with its complete definition every time it appears. If the first premise uses natural to mean occurring without human manufacture, well, insert that definition.
把那个重要的词替换成它的完整定义每次它出现的时候。如果第一个前提将natural定义为无需人工制造而自然发生的，那么，就采用这个定义。
If the conclusion requires natural to mean beneficial to human health, well, then insert that one, too. In other words, force yourself and others to be painfully clear in their use of language, even though you might feel like you're being needlessly pedantic at first.
如果结论要求natural意味着有益于人类健康，那么，就采用那个定义，也是如此。换句话说，强迫自己和他人在语言使用上做到极其清晰，即使你一开始可能会觉得自己显得不必要地吹毛求疵。
Because, after all, this attention to language was part of what made Aristotle's book so powerful. In fact, he divided his 13 sophistical refutations into those dependent upon language and those not dependent upon language.
因为，毕竟，这种对语言的关注正是让亚里士多德的书如此有力量的部分原因。事实上，他将自己的13种诡辩反驳划分为依赖于语言的和不依赖于语言的。
Equivocation was only one of six linguistic forms, but it captured a larger lesson. Before you test whether an inference is valid, make sure the meanings of its words have remained stable from premise to conclusion.
歧义只是六种语言形式之一，但它揭示了一个更重要的教训。在你检验一个推理是否有效之前，要确保其词语的含义从前提道结论始终保持稳定。
And that brings us to a second kind of rhetorical move that is often even harder to notice. One caused not by a word changing its meaning, but this time by something else in the statement being omitted altogether.
这就引出了第二种修辞手法它往往更难被察觉。一种并非由词语改变含义所引起，而是这一次由其他东西所导致即陈述中被完全省略的内容。
And that is technique number two, restore the qualification. Aristotle classified this among his seven fallacies independent of language. It's traditionally called secundum quid, treating something true only in a certain respect as though it were true absolutely.
这就是技巧二：恢复限定条件。亚里士多德将其归入他的七种谬误之中独立于语言。它传统上被称为secundum quid，把仅在某一特定方面为真的事物当作绝对为真。
For instance, imagine that a study finds a particular learning method improved test performance among 20 university students over eight weeks. Well, by the time the study reaches social media, you know that claim has become something like science proves this is the best way to learn.
例如，假设一项研究发现一种特定的学习方法在20名大学生中提高了考试成绩在八周内。嗯，等到这项研究传到社交媒体上时，你知道那个说法已经变成了某种像是科学证明这是最佳学习方式之类的东西。
Yet, notice what happened here. We lost who was studied, what outcome was measured, what the method was compared against, how long the effect lasted, how uncertain the estimate was, and so on.
然而，注意这里发生了什么。我们丢失了研究对象是谁，衡量了什么结果，该方法是与什么进行比较的，效果持续了多久，估计值有多不确定，等等。
And this qualified truth was gradually converted into an absolute one. It's often why people look at one headline that says coffee is good for you, another one that says it's bad for you, and then wrongfully start to mistrust scientific studies altogether.
而这个有条件的真理逐渐被转化为绝对的真理。这常常是人们看到一条标题说咖啡对你有益，另一条说对你有害，然后错误地开始不信任科学研究的原因。
But this happens outside scientific research, too. Confidence helps performance becomes confidence is always rational. A business succeeded after adopting a four-day work week becomes every company should adopt a four-day work week.
但这种情况也发生在科学研究之外。信心有助于表现，就变成了信心总是理性的。一家企业采用四天工作制后取得了成功就变成了每家公司都应该采用四天工作制。
One person was harmed by a medication becomes the medication is dangerous for everyone. And you see, none of these conclusions has to be false. The problem is simply that the original evidence does not establish the absolute version.
一个人因药物受到了伤害就变成了这种药物对所有人都是危险的。你看，这些结论都不一定是错的。问题仅仅在于原始证据并不能确立绝对版本。
Aristotle understood that the difference between this is true and this is true in this particular respects can be linguistically tiny while being logically enormous. And so, when you encounter a broad claim, ask for whom is this true?
亚里士多德明白，以下两者之间的区别“这是真的”与“这在这个特定方面是真的”在语言上可能微不足道，但在逻辑上却极其巨大。因此，当你遇到一个宽泛的论断时，问问这对谁来说是真的？
Compared to what? Under which conditions? At what dosage or intensity? Over what period of time? And with what exceptions? But now, how about when you're dealing with multiple claims at once?
与什么相比？在哪些条件下？以何种剂量或强度？在多长时间内？以及有哪些例外？但现在，当你同时处理多个断言时该怎么办？
Well, that brings us to technique number three. Separate the questions that have been bundled together. Suppose someone asks, was the company's decision unethical and financially disastrous?
这就引出了第三个技巧。把捆绑在一起的问题分开。假设有人问，公司的决定是否不道德并且在财务上是灾难性的？
A yes commits you to both claims, while a bare no leaves it unclear whether you reject the first claim, the second, or both. For instance, you might believe the decision lost money without believing it was unethical.
回答“是”意味着你同时认同这两个说法，而简单回答“不”则不清楚你是拒绝第一个说法，第二个，还是两者都拒绝。例如，你可能认为这个决定亏了钱却不认为它是不道德的。
Or believe it was unethical even if it made enormous profits. And Aristotle called this the fallacy of many questions. Multiple predications are treated as though they formed one question requiring one answer.
或者认为即使它带来了巨额利润，也是不道德的。亚里士多德称之为多问谬误。多个论断被当作好像它们构成了一个需要一个答案的问题。
And modern loaded questions are closely related because they often hide an unaccepted assumption inside the question itself. And how many times have you heard this in, I don't know, a political debate for instance.
而现代诱导性问题与此密切相关因为它们常常隐藏着一个未被接受的假设就在问题本身之中。你在多少次听到过这样的话，在，我不知道，比如说一场政治辩论中。
For instance, why are educated people so easily manipulated? Already assumes that they are. Do you admit that your strategy was careless and ineffective? Combines carelessness with ineffectiveness.
例如，为什么受过教育的人如此容易被操纵？已经假定他们是了。你承认你的策略既草率又无效吗？将草率与无效结合在一起。
Have you finally stopped ignoring your employees? Asks about stopping while assuming that you were ignoring them before. And this often works so effectively because conversations move quickly.
你终于不再无视你的员工了吗？在假设你之前一直在无视他们的情况下询问是否停止了。而这往往非常有效因为对话进展得很快。
After all, rejecting the structure of the question can make you look evasive. While answering it directly can force you to concede something you never believed in at all. And so, the defense against this is to simply slow the exchange down and simply say something like, "Those are separate questions."
毕竟，拒绝问题的结构会让你显得在回避。而直接回答又可能迫使你承认一些你根本从不相信的东西。因此，应对之道是简单地放慢交流节奏然后简单地说些类似这样的话：“那些是分开的问题。”
Then divide the bundle into individual propositions. Was the decision financially unsuccessful? What evidence establishes that? Was it unethical? According to which principle? Did I ignore employees?
然后把捆绑在一起的问题拆成一个个单独的命题。这个决定在经济上不成功吗？有什么证据能证明这一点？这是否不道德？根据哪项原则？我忽视员工了吗？
What behavior are you referring to? And this is more than just a debate tactic. In fact, it can actually improve your own decision making. Is this job prestigious and good for my future?
你指的是什么行为？而这不仅仅是一种辩论策略。事实上，它实际上可以改善你自己的决策。这份工作是否有声望并且对我的未来有利？
Might conceal two questions with very different answers. Is this relationship difficult and unhealthy? Potentially treats difficulty as evidence of harm. And so, when you separate the questions, you often discover that the dilemma controlling you was created by language rather than by actual reality.
可能掩盖了两个答案截然不同的问题。这段关系是否艰难且不健康？可能将困难视为伤害的证据。因此，当你把问题分开来看时，你常常会发现，控制你的那个两难困境是由语言造成的，而不是由现实本身造成的。
And by the way, if you want to work with me personally to develop these and other critical thinking skills to become more effective in your everyday life, then be sure to check out my Critical Thinking Academy at the link in the pinned comment below.
顺便说一句，如果你想和我本人合作来培养这些以及其他批判性思维技能，从而在日常生活中变得更加高效，那么一定要去看看我的批判性思维学院链接就在下方置顶评论中。
But now, there's yet another really dangerous form of reasoning that works its way into so many conversations, which brings us to technique number four. Make the premise earn the conclusion.
但现在，还有一种非常危险的推理方式渗透到了许多对话中，这就引出了第四个技巧。让前提来支撑结论。
And this technique addresses one of the most widely named yet least understood fallacies, what is called begging the question. People often say that something begs the question when they mean it raises another question, but Aristotle's idea was much more specific than this.
这个技巧针对的是最常被提及却最不被理解的一个谬误，也就是所谓的“乞题”。人们常说某事有乞题之嫌他们的意思是这引出了另一个问题，但亚里士多德的想法比这具体得多。
Begging the question occurs when you assume the proposition you were supposed to prove in the first place. The conclusion is hidden inside a premise and then presented as though it has received independent support from the outside.
乞题发生在当你假设了你原本应该首先证明的命题时。结论隐藏在前提之中然后被呈现得好像它已经获得了独立的支持来自外部。
For instance, consider the claim, "This policy is unjust because it violates the requirements of justice." You see, this reason almost sounds authoritative, but it simply translates the conclusion into different wording.
例如，考虑这个主张，“这项政策是不公正的，因为它违反了正义的要求。”你看，这个理由听起来几乎很有权威性，但它只是把结论换成了不同的措辞。
Nothing, in fact, has been demonstrated at all. But everyday circular arguments are often even more insidious than this. For instance, someone might say, "This source is trustworthy because it reports only accurate information."
事实上，根本没有任何东西得到证明。但日常的循环论证往往比这更加隐蔽。例如，有人可能会说，“这个来源是可信的，因为它只报道准确的信息。”
But when asked how they know its information is accurate, they answer that it comes from a trustworthy source. Each claim borrows its credibility from the other, yet neither receives support from outside that circle.
但当被问及他们如何知道其信息是准确的时，他们回答说，这来自一个可信的来源。每个说法都从另一个说法那里借来可信度，但两者都没有从这个循环之外获得支持。
And moral and political arguments are especially vulnerable to circularity because emotionally powerful words can simply disguise the true underlying repetition. For instance, "This restriction is oppressive because it illegitimately restricts freedom."
而道德和政治论点尤其容易陷入循环论证因为情感强烈的词语可以轻易掩盖其背后真正的重复。例如，“这一限制是压迫性的因为它不正当地限制了自由。”
might contain a genuine argument, but only if the speaker independently explains what makes the limitation illegitimate. If illegitimate simply means oppressive, then do you see how we've actually said basically nothing here?
可能包含一个真正的论证，但只有当说话者独立解释是什么使这一限制不合法时，才成立。如果不合法仅仅意味着压迫，那么你明白我们实际上基本上什么都没说吗？
So, here's how to get around this. Write the conclusion at the bottom of a page and the supporting premises above it. Then imagine someone who sincerely rejects the conclusion, but understands every word you're using.
所以，这里是如何绕过这一点。把结论写在页面的底部把支持性前提写在上面。然后想象一个真诚地拒绝这个结论的人，但理解你使用的每一个词。
Could that person accept the premises? If the only reason to accept the premise is that you already accept the conclusion, then the argument might just be circular. But once you learn to look out for this mistake, you're then ready for Aristotle's deepest test, which brings us to technique number five.
那个人能接受这些前提吗？如果接受前提的唯一理由是你已经接受了结论，那么这个论证可能只是循环论证。但一旦你学会留意这个错误，你就可以准备好接受亚里士多德最深刻的考验了，这就把我们带到了第五个技巧。
Check whether the argument hits its target. With this technique, you want to write down the exact claim being disputed and then check whether the argument actually addressed it. The later Latin tradition called this ignoratio elenchi, a translation of Aristotle's idea of ignorance of what a reputation is.
检查论证是否击中了目标。运用这个技巧，你要写下正在争论的确切主张，然后检查论证是否真正针对了它。后来的拉丁传统称之为ignoratio elenchi，这是对亚里士多德关于对什么是反驳一无所知这一思想的翻译。
You see, an argument can be valid, impressive, and even establish something true while failing to contradict the position it claims to have defeated. And once you learn this, you're going to start noticing it all the time.
你看，一个论证可以是有效的，令人印象深刻，甚至能确立某种真实的东西，却未能反驳它所声称已经击败的立场。而一旦你学会了这一点，你就会开始时时刻刻注意到它。
For instance, imagine the question is whether a particular teaching method transfers critical thinking skills into everyday life. Someone responds by presenting evidence that students using the method earned higher course grades.
例如，设想问题是某个特定的教学方法是否能将批判性思维技能迁移到日常生活中。有人通过提供证据来回应使用该教学方法的学生获得了更高的课程成绩。
And that finding might be completely real, but academic performance and real-world transfer are not identical outcomes. The response established something adjacent to the target and then behaved as though it had actually hit that target.
这个发现可能完全真实，但学业表现和现实世界的迁移并不是相同的结果。该回应建立了与目标相邻的东西然后表现得好像它真的击中了那个目标。
And we see this constantly, don't we? For instance, ask whether a workplace policy increases productivity and someone explains that employees enjoy it. Ask whether an accusation is supported by evidence and someone just explains that the accused person has behaved badly before.
我们经常看到这种情况，不是吗？例如，问某项工作场所政策是否提高了生产力然后有人解释说员工很喜欢它。询问一项指控是否有证据支持而有人只是解释说被指控的人以前行为不端。
Ask whether an argument is true and someone reveals that the person making that argument is just a hypocrite. Enjoyment, prior behavior, and hypocrisy might actually matter in some respects, for sure, but none automatically answers the original question.
询问一个论点是否属实，而有人却揭露提出该论点的人只是个伪君子。乐趣、过往行为，以及虚伪在某些方面可能确实重要，确实如此，但这些都不能自动回答最初的问题。
And this is precisely why even very intelligent people can argue with each other for hours without actually getting through to each other. One person is defending whether a policy is fair, for instance, and the other is attacking whether it's effective.
而这正是为什么即使是非常聪明的人也会争论彼此争论数小时却无法真正说服对方。一个人在为某项政策是否公平辩护，比如，而另一个人在攻击它是否有效。
And one is discussing, let's say, the average effects, whereas the other keeps bringing up individual exceptions. One might be arguing about intentions, and the other is arguing about consequences.
一个人在讨论，比如说，平均效应，而另一个人却不断提起个别例外。一方可能在争论意图，而另一方在争论后果。
In other words, every statement may be relevant to some question, but not necessarily the same question. And often this goes completely unnoticed within most of our really important conversations.
换句话说，每个陈述都可能与某个问题相关，但不一定是同一个问题。而这往往完全被忽视在我们大多数真正重要的对话中。
So then, what's your best defense against this? Well, before evaluating an argument, write the disputed claim in one sentence. Then write its precise negation. If the claim is this program increased employee productivity, well, then its negation is this program did not increase employee productivity.
那么，你对此最好的辩护是什么？嗯，在评估一个论点之前，用一句话写下有争议的主张。然后写下它的精确否定。如果该主张是这个项目提高了员工生产力，那么，它的否定就是该项目没有提高员工生产力。
Now, ask which of these two statements does the evidence help establish? If it establishes neither, well, the argument missed its target. But let me qualify this a bit. This doesn't mean only directly conclusive evidence matters.
现在，问一问这两个陈述中哪一个是证据有助于确立的？如果它两个都无法确立，那么，这个论证就没有击中目标。但让我稍微限定一下。这并不意味着只有直接确凿的证据才重要。
After all, evidence can support a claim indirectly. But the point is you should be able to state the actual bridge connecting the evidence to the conclusion. If employee enjoyment matters, for instance, because satisfied employees remain longer and retention affects long-term productivity, then fair enough.
毕竟，证据可以间接支持一个主张。但关键是，你应该能够陈述连接证据与结论的实际桥梁。例如，如果员工的愉悦感很重要，因为满意的员工留任更久而留任率影响长期生产力，那就说得过去。
But explain and support that chain of reasoning explicitly. Again, clarity is key. You see, this final technique truly unifies Aristotle's treatment of the 13 fallacies. In chapter 6, he attempts to show that all the sophistical refutations ultimately fail to satisfy some requirement of a genuine refutation.
但要明确地解释并支持这一推理链条。再次强调，清晰是关键。你看，这最后一种技巧真正统一了亚里士多德对13种谬误的论述。在第6章中，他试图表明所有诡辩式反驳最终都无法满足真正反驳的某些要求。
Did we contradict the same claim about the same thing in the same respect, manner, and time? Did the conclusion actually follow without assuming the original point? And this is precisely what made the book so formative for so many generations of great thinkers.
我们是否在同一事物、同一方面同一方式和时间上反驳了同一个主张？结论是否真的成立而没有预设原本的观点？而这正是这本书对那么多代伟大思想家如此具有塑造力的原因。
It trained them in the habits of disputation. State the question, define the terms, draw the distinction, expose the faulty step, and answer precisely what was argued. Aristotle's logic was taught for centuries, and on Sophistical Refutations became part of the Logica Nova that built generations upon generations of the greatest minds in history.
它训练了他们争辩的习惯。陈述问题，界定术语，划清区别，揭示错误步骤，并精确回答所争论的内容。亚里士多德的逻辑学被教授了数个世纪，以及《辩谬篇》成为《新逻辑》的一部分一代又一代地培养出历史上最伟大的头脑。
If you want to keep leveling up your critical thinking to make a massive impact not only on your own life, but also on the lives of countless others, then be sure to watch this next video.
如果你想继续提升你的批判性思维，不仅对你自己的生活产生巨大影响，也对无数他人的生活产生巨大影响，那么一定要观看下一个视频。
