牛津逻辑推理入门 - 1.论证的特性.

视频全文转录（中英双语）

以下为完整中英双语转录，已加标点。英文在前，中文在后，逐段对照。

由 Groq Whisper 转录 → M3 B 方案整文标点 + 分段 → M3 段号保留翻译 → 逐段对照。

[段 1]

Hello there, I’m Marianne Talbot, I’m Director of Studies in Philosophy at Oxford University’s Department of Continuing Education. We’re about to start a six-week course called Critical Reasoning for Beginners, and we’re going to go through looking at how to recognise an argument, what arguments are, the different types of arguments, that’s deduction and induction, and we’ll be looking at how to set out arguments logic book style, how to analyse them, then we’ll be looking at how to evaluate them, and finally we’ll look at fallacies, which are arguments that look like good arguments, but which are bad arguments. Okay, so we’re going to start off on the first week with how to recognise arguments and what the nature of an argument is. Right, okay, let’s get started. You’re all here to do critical reasoning. Okay, why do you want to do critical reasoning? A couple of you tell me what you want to do it for. What do you think you can’t do now that you want to be able to do by the end of this course? I’d like to sharpen my sense of argumentation. Sharpen your sense of argumentation. Is there anyone you want to argue with in particular? Half of the wife. It won’t work, you know, you’ve been married too long. No, just generally speaking, but particularly political arguments and debate. Right, okay. There’s another hand over here, someone.

[译文 1]

大家好，我是 Marianne Talbot，牛津大学继续教育系哲学学习主任。我们即将开始一门为期六周的课程，叫做《批判性推理入门》，我们会一步步来看如何识别一个论证，论证是什么，论证的不同类型，也就是演绎和归纳。我们会学习如何用逻辑书的方式把论证写出来，如何分析它们，然后我们会看如何评估它们，最后我们会讨论谬误，也就是那些看起来是好论证、实际上是坏论证的东西。好的，那么第一周我们将从如何识别论证以及论证的本质开始。好，那我们开始吧。你们来这里都是来学批判性推理的。好的，你们为什么想学批判性推理呢？你们当中有几个人能告诉我你们想用它来做什么吗？你们觉得自己现在做不到、但希望在这门课程结束时能做到的事情是什么？我想磨炼我的论证意识。磨炼你的论证意识。你有特别想与之争论的人吗？一半是老婆。你知道的，那行不通，你们结婚太久了。不，一般来说是这样，但特别是政治论证和辩论。好的，那边还有一只手，有人举手。

[段 2]

Detect the flaws in other people’s arguments. You want to be able to detect the flaws in other people’s arguments, okay. What about your own arguments?and other people’s arguments. Okay, what about your own arguments? That too. Because that’s very important. One of the things I’ll talk about today is something called the principle of charity. And you’ll see where I’ll talk about that. Dawn, what do you think? I also don’t want to get lost. That’s a valid point maker. So to actually be able to have conviction of what I’m saying, if I believe in it, and not let someone more intellectual and eloquent beat me down. Right, okay, and one thing that will help, I mean it won’t do the trick completely, because of course that confidence has to come from you, but it will help to feel that you know where you are in arguments, certainly. Let me try to swipe up a bit. Come on, back there. I read the overview of Thomas More and the loss of that was in part about the logic, and I thought, that’s interesting. Uh-huh. Actually, that’s how I came to philosophy funding. It was something like that. I did an open university course. I was a mature student, not very mature, 26. And it was an open university course. They did logic in those days, formal, symbolic logic.

[译文 2]

想发现别人论证中的漏洞。你想能够发现别人论证中的漏洞，好的。那你自己的论证呢？以及别人的论证。好的，那你自己的论证呢？也是。因为那非常重要。今天我要讲到的一个东西叫做宽容原则。你们会看到我在哪里讲到它。Dawn，你怎么看？我也不想迷失方向。那是一个很好的观点。这样才能真正对自己所说的话有确信，如果我信它的话，就不会让那些更聪明、更有口才的人把我压下去。好的，其中一点会有所帮助，我的意思是说它不能完全解决问题，因为当然那种自信必须来自你自己，但它会帮助你感觉到自己在论证中处于什么位置，这是肯定的。让我试着向上滑一点。来，后面那位。我读了 Thomas More 的概述，那一部分是关于逻辑的，我想，那挺有意思。嗯哼。事实上，我就是那样进入哲学的。是类似的情况。我上过开放大学的课程。我当时是一个成熟的学生，也不是非常成熟，26 岁。那是一堂开放大学的课程。那时候他们教逻辑，形式的、符号的逻辑。

[段 3]

And I tried to do this logic, and I found it so difficult, really, really difficult. And I sat up all night and still trying to do it. and in the morning I realised that I’d had a much nicer night, a much better night than I’d had with all sorts of other things you might stay up all night to do I’d really enjoyed it and thatto do. I’ve really enjoyed it and that’s what got me into philosophy in the first place. I came out of school at 15, I came on here eventually, eventually, that took quite a long time. But I have never lost my love of philosophy, I’ve never lost my love of learning and that’s all down to philosophy, this confidence you have in argument because if you can learn how to argue properly, nothing is hidden from you in principle. It’s always possible to tease out the arguments and to evaluate the arguments and to take yourself that step further. And so I hope that after this series of six lectures, of course you’re not going to go away knowing all about logic and knowing all about how to reason properly, but I hope what I’ll have done by that time is given you more confidence and given you a feeling for the fun it can be so that you’ll go away and start looking yourself and I’ll be very happy to pass on some reading or give some other ideas of how you might do that.

[译文 3]

我试着去学那个逻辑，我发现它非常非常难，真的非常难。我整夜没睡地在那里努力做题。到了早上我意识到那一晚比我因为其他各种事情熬夜的夜晚都要好得多，我真的很享受它，也就是从那时候起我真的爱上了它，从此就进入了哲学。我 15 岁离开学校，后来才来到这里，最终来到这里，这花了我相当长的时间。但我从未失去对哲学的热爱，我也从未失去对学习的热爱，这一切都归功于哲学，归功于你在论证中拥有的那种自信，因为如果你能学会如何正确地论证，原则上来说没有什么能对你隐藏。总是有可能梳理出那些论证、评估那些论证，并把自己再向前推进一步。所以我希望在这六讲的系列结束之后，当然你们不会在离开时已经懂得所有关于逻辑的知识，懂得所有关于如何正确推理的知识，但我希望到那时我所做到的是给了你们更多的自信，也给了你们对这件事能有多有趣的一种感觉，这样你们离开后会自己去探索，如果你们愿意，我很乐意推荐一些读物，或者提供一些其他的主意，告诉你们可以怎么做。

[段 4]

Right, okay, let me tell you about Monty Python. I’m sure some of you know about it but what it is, it’s called the argument clinic and one man, I’ve forgotten his name, goes in and there’s John Cleese sitting there and he says, is this the place for arguments or something like that. And Jonathan says, what if it is? Or, well, no, you haven’t. Yes, I have. No, you haven’t. Yes, I have. And this goes on. He says, you’re not arguing, you’re contradicting.And this goes on. He says, you’re not arguing, you’re contradicting me. And John Cleese says, no, I’m not. He says, yes, you are. No, I’m not. Yes, you are. And so it goes on. Then presses a bell. That’s the end of the session. He says, but that wasn’t five minutes. Yes, it was, says John Cleese. No, it wasn’t. Yes, it was. I’m not arguing, says John Cleese. And so on. and that was supposed to be an amusing introduction but what I wanted to move on to is the idea that John Cleese had it wrong of course argument isn’t a set of contradictions it isn’t a set of just you say one thing and I say another that doesn’t get us anywhere part of the point of argument is to move us on from where we are to somewhere a bit further just imagine if the only way we can find out about the world was through our senses.

[译文 4]

好的，让我来跟你们讲讲 Monty Python。我相信你们有些人知道这个，但它的内容是这样的，那一段叫做"argument clinic”（论证诊所），有一个人，我忘了他的名字，走了进去，那里有 John Cleese 坐在那里，他说，这是争论的地方还是类似的话。Jonathan 说，如果这里是呢？或者，嗯，不，你没有。是的，我有。不，你没有。是的，我有。就这样一直继续下去。他说，你不是在论证，你是在反驳我。这样一直进行下去。John Cleese 说，不，我没有。他说，是的，你有。不，我没有。是的，你有。就这样一直下去。然后他按了一个铃。那一节就结束了。他说，但那还没到五分钟。到了，John Cleese 说。没有，没有到。到了，John Cleese 说。我没有在论证，John Cleese 说。等等等等。那本来应该是一个有趣的引子，但我想继续推进到这样一个想法：John Cleese 当然错了，论证不是一系列反驳，不是一系列只是你说一句我说一句的东西，那样不会让我们有任何进展，论证的一部分意义在于把我们从所在之处带到一个更远的地方。试想一下，如果我们对世界的了解只能通过感官。

[段 5]

If we could see one thing and form one belief, but not take that belief and move on to another belief. So you would say that that’s blue and the carpet’s blue, but you couldn’t say when two things are the same colour they match, therefore the chair and the carpet match. Do you see what an argument takes us from where we are to where we want to be or sometimes where we don’t want to be we’ll never get very far without argument yesYes? Yes? There we are. Thank you. How’s that? We’re awash with technicians here. Okay, so let’s have a look at the definition of an argument. An argument is a set of sentences, and I put sentences there after you wouldn’t believe it, spending half an hour wondering whether I should put statements, propositions, or expressions of statements or something. But I’m putting sentences, and anyone who wants to quarrel with that is most welcome to do so. A set of sentences such that one of them is being said to be true, and the others are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the first. Okay? That’s all there is to an argument. I’ve put others with the S in brackets here, because, of course, we might say that one thing is true on the basis of just one other sentence. So here’s an argument.

[译文 5]

如果我们能看到一样东西并形成一个信念，但不能带着这个信念再前进一步形成另一个信念。那么你会说那是蓝色的，地毯是蓝色的，但你不能说当两样东西颜色相同时它们是相配的，因此椅子和地毯相配。你明白论证是如何把我们从所在之处带到我们想去之处，或者有时是我们不想去之处吗？没有论证我们永远走不远，是的，是吗？是的？好，那边。谢谢。怎么样？我们这里技术人员太多了。好的，那么我们来看一看论证的定义。一个论证是一组句子，我把"句子"放在这里，你们不会相信的，我花了半个小时琢磨我到底该用"陈述"、“命题"还是"陈述的表达"之类的词。但我用了"句子”，任何想对此提出质疑的人，欢迎这样做。一组句子，其中有一个被声称是真的，而其他句子则被提供作为相信第一个句子为真的理由。明白了吗？这就是一个论证的全部。我把"其他"后面的 S 放在括号里，因为当然我们可能会说一个事情为真是基于仅仅另一个句子。所以这里有一个论证。

[段 6]

It’s Friday. Marianne always wears jeans on a Friday, so Marianne will be wearing jeans today. That’s a set of sentences that is, as a matter of fact, an argument. What are the sentences? Tell me what the sentences are. This is an easy question to lull you into a false sense of security. It’s Friday. It’s Friday. It’s Friday. That’s one sentence. OK. It’s I’ve got a comma after it, because I’ve gone straight onto the other sentence.after it because I’ve gone straight on to the other sentence. But that doesn’t matter. It is Friday’s sentence. Okay, next one. I told you it was easy. Marianne always wears jeans on a Friday. That’s right. So, next one. Marianne won’t be wearing jeans today. Okay. Those are the sentences that make up the argument. Exactly so. Now, here’s a bit of technology. Terminology for you. We’ve got our technology focus on. a conclusion is the sentence being said to be true and the premises are the sentences being offered as reasons for believing the other one okay and remember that might be just one there might be just one premise there doesn’t need to be two there could be 20 premises um but but what makes something a premise and what makes something a conclusion is the role that they’re playing in the argument the function that they’re performing so here’s the argument again what’s the conclusion of the argument?

[译文 6]

今天是星期五。Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤，所以 Marianne 今天会穿牛仔裤。这是一组句子，事实上它就是一个论证。这些句子是哪些？告诉我这些句子是哪些。这是一个简单的问题，让你们产生一种虚假的安全感。今天是星期五。今天是星期五。今天是星期五。这是一句话。好的。我在它后面加了一个逗号，因为我是直接接着写下一句的。但这没关系。这是"今天是星期五"这句话。好的，下一句。我告诉过你这很容易。Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤。对。下一句。Marianne 今天不会穿牛仔裤。好的。这些就是构成这个论证的句子。完全正确。现在，这里有一点点技术上的内容。给你们一些术语。我们把焦点放在术语上。结论是被声称真的那个句子，而前提是被提供作为相信另一个句子的理由的那些句子，记住可能只有一个前提，可能只有一个前提，不需要两个，可能有 20 个前提，但使某句话成为前提、使某句话成为结论的，是它们在论证中所扮演的角色，它们所执行的功能。所以这里再看一下这个论证，这个论证的结论是什么？

[段 7]

That’s right, yep, that’s the conclusion because that’s the one we’re saying is true. And what are the premises? That’s right, so there are two premises to this argument and one conclusion. Okay, very simple stuff. So there’s the conclusion in red, Marian will be wearing jeans today, and the premises in green. It’s very important to distinguish argumentsSo it’s very important to distinguish arguments from sets of sentences. Let’s see how to do that, because an argument is a set of sentences, but it’s more than that. There’s more to an argument than a set of sentences. Question at the back. Yes, how do you feel about taking questions? Because I wanted to ask with that previous one, does it matter which order they come in? I’m very happy to take questions. If I think they’re going to go on too long, I’ll shut you up and put you on to the question time. or if I think it’s complicated or something but otherwise I’m happy to take you on well the question then is presumably one sentence as a premise depends on another because it’s Friday is irrelevant until you know that Marianne always wears jeans on a Friday in that particular argument yes that’s a good question let’s go back to it actually I’m very happy for you to ask questions because if you do it might be a clarification question like that one which is quite useful.

[译文 7]

没错，对，这就是结论，因为这是我们认为为真的那个。前提是什么？没错，这个论证有两个前提和一个结论。好的，非常简单的内容。所以红色的是结论，“Marian 今天会穿牛仔裤”，绿色的是前提。区分论证和句子集合非常重要——所以区分论证和句子集合非常重要。我们来看看怎么做，因为论证是一组句子，但不止于此。论证不仅仅是句子的集合。后面有个问题。是的，你对提问感觉怎么样？因为我之前想问，那个例子里，前提出现的顺序有影响吗？我很乐意回答问题。如果我觉得要花太长时间，我会让你停下来，留到提问环节。或者如果我觉得问题比较复杂之类的，但除此之外我很乐意和你交流——那个问题大概是，一个句子作为前提依赖于另一个句子，因为"Marianne 在星期五总是穿牛仔裤"在这条特定论证中直到你知道了才相关——是的，问得好，我们回去看一下——其实我很高兴你们提问，因为如果是像刚才那样的澄清性问题，是相当有用的。

[段 8]

If you look at that, let’s get to that one. If you take out that premise, you might still have an argument. You say it’s Friday so Marianne will be wearing jeans today. But what have you done? You’ve left an application that you always wear jeans on a Friday. That’s right. You’ve left a suppressed premise, haven’t you? Because that wouldn’t be a good argument. It would still be an argument, actually, because you’d still be giving one sentence as abecause you’d still be giving one sentence as a reason to believe another one, but it wouldn’t be an argument that could possibly be convincing were it not for that. So we often leave premises suppressed in an argument, but usually because of the context or because of something that we can assume, we assume that the person knows the other one. So if we all knew, if you knew that every time, well, that every Friday I wear jeans, if you all knew that, that would be an argument without the second premise. So thank you for that. If people didn’t have that assumption, is that what would be termed a non-secret term? Yes. Yeah, well done. And we’ll say something more about non-secretors not today probably, but later in the course.

[译文 8]

如果你看那条论证，我们来看一下。如果你把那个前提去掉，你可能仍然有一个论证。你说"今天是星期五，所以 Marianne 今天会穿牛仔裤"。但你做了什么？你漏掉了一条应用规则：你星期五总是穿牛仔裤。没错。你漏掉了一个被省略的前提，对吧？因为那样就不是一个好的论证了。不过它仍然是一个论证，因为你在用一个句子作为相信另一个句子的理由，只是它不会是一个可能有说服力的论证。所以我们经常在论证中省略前提，但通常是因为上下文，或者因为某些我们可以假定的东西，我们假定对方知道另一条。所以如果我们都知道了，如果你知道每次，好吧，每个星期五我都穿牛仔裤，如果你们都知道这一点，那就可以是一个没有第二条前提的论证。谢谢你的提问。如果人们没有那个假设，那会被称为一个 non-secret 的术语吗？是的。是的，很好。我们今天可能不会再多讲 non-secrets，但后面课程里会讲到。

[段 9]

You could actually say Marianne always wears jeans on Friday. she is wearing jeans today you could leave out then you don’t need to say it’s Friday yes that would be a different argument but it would be an argument yes you could change the basically you could say it’s Mary’s wearing jeans she always wears jeans on Friday therefore it’s Friday so you can well move that would be a false argument, hold that one we’ll come back to that in a minute and you’ll see what I missWe’ll come back to that in a minute and you’ll see what I’m going to say about that. I just want to note that. Okay, I’m going to move on because, yes, you can make an argument out of it. Well, let me just move on and show you exactly what I’m going to say there. Okay, it’s important to take arguments from sets of sentences. Sets of sentences that are not arguments might either have no relation at all between them or they may have between a relation other than that characterising an argument. For example, a set of sentences might be consistent, i.e. such that they could all be true together, without being an argument. Do you see what I mean? Or they could be related by all referring to, what’s your name? Mike. Mike. They could be related in that way, without being an argument.

[译文 9]

你其实可以这样说，“Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤”。她今天穿着牛仔裤——你可以把"今天是星期五"省掉——是的，那会是另一个论证，但也是一个论证——是的，你可以改变——基本上你可以说"她穿着牛仔裤，她星期五总是穿牛仔裤，所以今天是星期五"——那样你可以——嗯，那样会是一个错误的论证，先记下来，我们一会儿再回来看这个，你会看到我漏掉了什么——我们一会儿回来看这个，你会看到我打算怎么说。我只是想记一下。好的，我要继续了，因为，是的，你可以用它构造一个论证。好吧，让我先继续，准确地告诉你我要说什么。好的，把论证和句子集合区分开来很重要。不是论证的句子集合，可能彼此之间根本没有关系，也可能具有论证关系之外的其他关系。例如，一组句子可能是一致的，也就是说它们可以同时为真，但它不是一个论证。你明白我的意思吗？或者它们可能通过都指代某个东西来相关，你叫什么名字？Mike。Mike。它们可能以那种方式相关，但不是论证。

[段 10]

Do you see what I mean? There are lots of different ways sets of sentences can be related. but the relation in order to be one of argument it’s got to what? Good. In order to be an argument there’s got to be one sentence that you’re putting forward as being true and the other sentences or sentence is a reason for believing that thing. That’s the relation that characterises an argument nothing else. Here’s a set of sentences that isn’t an argument. The sea is salt, Melbourne’s in aan argument. The sea is salt, Melbourne’s in Australia. But it’s very easy to make it an argument. The sea is salt, therefore Melbourne’s in Australia. Now, do you think I’ve made that an argument or not? No, why not? It’s a false argument. It’s a false argument. Now, that particular one, you’ll see why I’m saying this in a minute. It’s a what? There’s no link between them. There’s no link between them. So you think that my putting the therefore in doesn’t make it an argument? Okay, let me tell you a little story. Okay, we’re doing a panel show. Okay, we’ve got to find out things and find out other things and then come back and we’ll win a huge prize. Now, we’re particularly ignorant contestants here. We don’t know whether the sea is salt, and we don’t know whether Melbourne’s in Australia, but we do know that if one of these sentences is true, so is the other.

[译文 10]

你明白我的意思吗？句子集合之间可以有很多种不同的关系。但要成为论证的关系，必须是什么？好。要成为论证，必须有一个句子你提出来为真，而另一个或多个句子是相信这件事的理由。这就是使论证成为论证的关系，不是别的。这里有一组不是论证的句子。“海水是咸的，墨尔本在——一个论证。“海水是咸的，墨尔本在澳大利亚。但很容易把它变成论证。“海水是咸的，所以墨尔本在澳大利亚。“现在，你们觉得我把它做成论证了吗？没有，为什么没有？它是一个错误的论证。它是一个错误的论证。那个特定的例子，你等一下就会明白我为什么这么说。它是什么？它们之间没有联系。它们之间没有联系。所以你认为我加上"所以"并没有让它成为论证？好吧，让我讲个小故事。好的，我们做一个答题节目。好的，我们必须查清一些事情，再查清另一些事情，然后回来就能赢得一大笔奖金。我们现在是非常无知的参赛者。我们不知道海水是不是咸的，也不知道墨尔本是不是在澳大利亚，但我们知道，如果其中一句话是真的，那么另一句也是真的。

[段 11]

Okay? That’s all we know. We know if one of these sentences is true, so is the other. So now we’ve got to find out whether either of these sentences is true. So half of us run off to see whether the sea is salt, and the other half run off to find out whether Melbourne’s in Australia. And the Melbourne’s in Australia, sorry, the sea is salt ones come back first. they say the sea is salt, therefore Melbourne’s in Australia. Yay! Is that an argument? No, what do you mean no? That’s perfectlyNo, what do you mean no? That’s a perfectly good argument, isn’t it? What I’m doing there is I’m giving a reason. I’m saying Melbournism in Australia is true, aren’t I? And I’m giving a reason for believing it, namely the truth of the seas being salt. Fair enough? Is this an argument? and what’s okay it was an argument before I gave you the context actually because arguing is something that we do with sentences okay we do them because of all sorts of things to do with our background what we’ve just found out our desires, our hopes, our fears our intentions, things like that arguing is something we do and we can do it in any way, this is why the idea of artificial intelligence which was talked about a great deal a few years ago is getting frankly nowhere and the reason it’s getting nowhere is human beings can see the relevance once the context is provided that a computer so far can’t see.

[译文 11]

好吗？我们只知道这些。我们知道如果其中一句话是真的，那么另一句也是真的。所以现在我们必须搞清楚这两句话有没有一句是真的。所以我们一半人跑去查看海水是不是咸的，另一半人跑去查墨尔本是不是在澳大利亚。墨尔本在澳大利亚那边的人——抱歉，海水是咸的那队先回来了。他们说"海水是咸的，所以墨尔本在澳大利亚”。耶！那是一个论证吗？不，你什么意思说不是？那是一个完全——不，你什么意思说不是？那是一个完全好的论证，不是吗？我在做的事情是给出一个理由。我是在说"墨尔本在澳大利亚"是真的，对吧？而且我在给出一个相信它的理由，即"海水是咸的"为真。这样可以吗？这是不是一个论证？什么——好的，在我给出上下文之前它就已经是一个论证了——实际上因为论证是我们用句子所做的事情——好，我们做这些是因为各种各样的事情，与我们的背景有关，与我们刚刚发现的事情有关，我们的欲望、希望、恐惧、意图，诸如此类——论证是我们做的事情，我们可以以任何方式来做，这就是为什么几年前被大量讨论的人工智能的想法坦白讲毫无进展，而原因就是人类在上下文被提供之后能够看出关联，而计算机到目前为止还看不出来。

[段 12]

I mean fingers crossed that we will be able to deal with this one but the fact is the minute I give you the context you can see the argument can’t you? Some of you. Is this just commentary? Is it an implicit sentence?sentence the fact that we haven’t explicitly said both must be true if one is true you’re absolutely right in fact you might say you could say there’s a suppressed premise in there which is that if the sea is salt then Melbourne is in Australia and I’ve given that by giving the context if you like so if we were game contestants in that situation I wouldn’t have to give that suppressed premise because we would all know it but again well done you picked up the point at the back suppressed premise is the same as context no in providing the context I enabled us to see the suppressed premise if you like because just at the moment there’s no suppressed premise that we can see we don’t see why that’s an argument you all denied it was an argument because you can’t see the relevance between the two. What I did was make one relevant to the other and in doing so, I provided you with a premise that was suppressed. So there’s a suppressed premise which is a sentence because premises are always sentences and that’s what I provided by providing the context.

[译文 12]

我的意思是，盼望我们终有一天能解决这个问题，但事实是，我一给你们上下文，你们就能看出那是论证了，不是吗？你们中的一些人。这只是评论吗？这是一个隐含的——句子——事实上我们没有明确地说一句真则两句都真——你说得完全对——事实上你可以说，你可以说那里有一个被省略的前提，即"如果海水是咸的，那么墨尔本在澳大利亚”，而我是通过给出上下文来提供的，如果你愿意这么说的话——所以如果我们是在那种情境下的参赛者，我就不必给出那个被省略的前提了，因为我们都会知道——但还是，后面的同学答得好——被省略的前提和上下文是一回事吗？——不是——在提供上下文的过程中，我使得我们能看出那个被省略的前提，如果你愿意这么说的话，因为此刻还没有我们能看到的被省略的前提——我们看不出它为什么是论证——你们所有人都否认它是论证，因为你们看不出两者之间的关联。我所做的是让一个对另一个相关，而在此过程中，我向你们提供了一个被省略的前提。所以存在一个被省略的前提，它是一个句子，因为前提始终是句子，而这就是我通过提供上下文所提供的。

[段 13]

I’m struggling with that because… That’s all right. this because no one is in Australia not because the CSABecause no one is in Australia not because the sea is salt, but because the first sentence is true. This is a very interesting question. What you’re confusing, I apologise, is causation and entailment. The premises of an argument do not cause the conclusion to be true. okay if that’s a premise and that’s a premise do you think that what’s caused me to wear jeans today is these two things not necessarily I mean it it might be or it might be that actually I wear jeans on a Friday because to commemorate the first pair of jeans that my mum ever bought me or something like that I can’t think of a good reason for wearing jeans I might wear jeans every day. I might wear jeans every day, yes, exactly. So the fact that A and B together entail C doesn’t mean that A and B cause C. And when you say that the sea assault doesn’t cause Melbourne to be in Australia, you’re quite right. But saying that the sea assault therefore Melbourne in Australia isn’t implying causation of any kind. Okay? What do you do if you have two other meldors in the world?

[译文 13]

我在这个问题上有点纠结，因为……没关系。之所以这样，不是因为澳大利亚没有人，也不是因为海水是咸的，而是因为第一句话是真的。这是一个非常有趣的问题。你混淆了，我道歉，是因果关系和蕴涵关系。一个论证的前提并不会导致结论为真。好的，如果这是一个前提，那也是一个前提，你们觉得让我今天穿牛仔裤的原因是这两件事吗？不一定，我的意思是，也可能不是，也可能事实上我星期五穿牛仔裤是为了纪念我妈妈给我买的第一条牛仔裤，或者类似这样，我想不出一个穿牛仔裤的好理由，我可能每天都穿牛仔裤。我可能每天都穿牛仔裤，是的，没错。所以 A 和 B 一起蕴涵 C 这个事实并不意味着 A 和 B 导致 C。当你说海水是咸的不会导致墨尔本在澳大利亚的时候，你说得完全对。但是说"海水是咸的，因此墨尔本在澳大利亚"并不暗示任何形式的因果关系。明白吗？如果世界上还有另外两个墨尔本，你怎么办？

[段 14]

Ah, you ignore them.again that’s a very good question I’m glad you asked it let’s go to the serious salt one well actually you could do it with the Marianne one as well because there are lots of people called Marianne other than me in the world all that it means is is there anyone else called Marianne in this room alright put up your hand if you’re called John this is the second time this has happened ok there are no Johns in this room your mic, is there anyone else called mic? two mics in this room if I say mic is tall at the moment that’s ambiguous isn’t it? it has two meanings, I could be referring to that mic or that mic and one of you may be short in which case it would be false of one and true of the other but what I’ve actually got here is two sentences how complicated that I’m going to get here. There’s a type of sentence, I have no pens, believe it or not. That was another thing that fell off the list. Would you mind? I bet you can’t see this. Yes, you can imagine it. Okay, Mike is tall is what it says. Now, if I put, actually Let’s put John is tall there. Now, if I put John is tall up there, that has no meaning, doesn’t it?

[译文 14]

啊，你忽略它们。又一个非常好的问题，我很高兴你提出来，我们来认真讨论一下关于盐的那个，其实关于玛丽安的那个也可以，因为世界上叫玛丽安的人很多，这只意味着这个房间里还有没有其他人叫玛丽安，好的，叫约翰的请举手，这是第二次出现这种情况了，好，这个房间里没有叫约翰的人，叫麦克的呢？这个房间里有两个麦克，如果我现在说麦克是高的，那这句话有歧义对吧？它有两种含义，我可以指那个麦克，也可以指那个麦克，而你们中有一个可能很矮，那样的话对其中一个就为假对另一个就为真，但我这里实际上有两个句子，我在这里要做的事情有多复杂。有一种句子类型叫"我没有笔”，信不信由你。那也是从清单上掉下来的一项。介意吗？我敢打赌你看不清这个。是的，你可以想象它。好，上面写的是 Mike is tall。现在，如果我放，实际上我们把 John is tall 放在那里。现在，如果我把 John is tall 放在那里，它是没有意义的，对吧？

[段 15]

In the context of this room, in the sense that there’s nobody to whom John refers, as we know. But I could use that sentence, John is tall, to say something, couldn’t I? In the same way, here is a sentence type that could be used to say things, and I could use this type of sentence to say, Mike is tall, or I could use the same sentence to say Mike is tall. But those are two different tokens of the same type of sentence. See what I mean? So just as that’s one token of the type chair and that’s another one, and this is one token of the type human being and that’s another one, Mike is tall is one token of that type of sentence and Mike is tall is another token of that type of sentence. So actually, if you have two Melbournes, you can have two arguments that that could be. It could either be the sea assault, therefore Melbourne, which is in the Northern Territory, is in Australia, or Melbourne, which is in Victoria, is in Australia. Or in Derbyshire. Well, no, not in Derbyshire, because that would falsify that one, wouldn’t it, unless there’s a Derbyshire in Australia. It’s an argument, isn’t it? Can I just ask you to clarify something? If one of the clauses on the argument be false,on the argument being false, the existence or non-existence of facts in the world then?

[译文 15]

在这个房间的语境中，从某种意义上说，没有人对应约翰所指代的人，我们都知道。但是我可以使用那个句子"约翰是高的"来表达一些意思，对吧？同样地，这里有一种可以被用来表达意思的句子类型，我可以用这种句子类型说 Mike is tall，或者我可以用同一个句子说 Mike is tall。但这是同一类型句子的两个不同的具体实例。明白我的意思吗？所以就像那是"椅子"这一类型的一个具体实例，那是另一个，而这个是"人"这一类型的一个具体实例，那是另一个，Mike is tall 是那种句子类型的一个具体实例，Mike is tall 是那种句子类型的另一个具体实例。所以实际上，如果你有两个墨尔本，你可以有两个版本的论证。可能是"海水是咸的，因此位于北领地的墨尔本在澳大利亚”，或者"位于维多利亚的墨尔本在澳大利亚"。或者在德比郡。嗯，不，不在德比郡，因为那样的话会让那个为假，对吧，除非澳大利亚有一个德比郡。这是一个论证，对吧？我能请你澄清一下吗？如果论证中的一个子句为假，关于论证为假，关于世界中事实的存在或不存在，那么呢？

[段 16]

I’m going to hold over that question and I’m going to tag it together with your claim that the argument’s false, okay, and I’ll come back to it shortly. Okay, so arguing is something that we do with sentences. Any sentences could form part of an argument. There’s no such thing as a sentence that couldn’t be part of an argument. And what makes it an argument is the fact that we are making an argument claim. We’re putting forward one sentence and we’re offering the other sentences as reasons to believe that sentence. So you cannot recognise arguments by recognising the sentences that are in arguments. You’ve got to recognise the relation between the sentences. Okay. Let’s have a look at these. Which of these sentences are arguments? Right. Who thinks that this is an argument? Okay. No one else. Okay. Why do you think that’s an argument? It’s making the assumption that the storm broke because the clouds formed and the sky blackened. The storm broke because the clouds formed and the sky blackened. Does that make it an argument? Thank you.because. That word because is very difficult because distinguish causes and reasons for something. Okay? There can be a causal relation between two events. So a causal relation between two events. and there can be a rational relation between two sentences or two beliefs. And we tend to use because for both of these types of relations.

[译文 16]

我打算把那个问题暂放一下，我会把它和你声称的"论证是假的"放在一起处理，好吧，我稍后会回到这个问题。好，所以论证是我们用句子来做的事情。任何句子都可以成为论证的一部分。不存在一种句子是不能成为论证的一部分的。使之成为论证的是我们正在做出一个论证主张这一事实。我们提出一个句子，并提供其他句子作为相信那个句子的理由。所以你不能通过识别论证中的句子来识别论证。你必须识别句子之间的关系。好。我们来看看这些。哪些句子是论证？好。谁认为这是一个论证？好，没有其他人。好。你为什么认为这是一个论证？它在假设风暴来临是因为云层形成、天空变暗。风暴来临是因为云层形成、天空变暗。这使它成为一个论证吗？谢谢。因为。因为这个词很困难，因为它区分了原因和理由。明白吗？两个事件之间可以有一种因果关系。所以两个事件之间的因果关系。以及两个句子或两个信念之间可以有一种理性关系。而我们倾向于对这两种关系都使用"因为"。

[段 17]

But these are causes and these are reasons and you shouldn’t be worried about making this error because it’s a very, very common one. You were thinking of the causal relation as a rational relation, but it’s not, is it? So that’s not an argument, because all we’re saying is that actually three events happened, aren’t we? First the clouds formed, then the sky blackened, then the storm broke. And there may be a causal relation between them, but we’re not saying that these two are a reason for believing the other, are we? You with me? What about this one? Is this an argument? Put your hand up if you think yes. yes, ok, which is the conclusion? and the premises and the premisesManchester is north of Oxford, Edinburgh is north of Manchester. That’s right, Manchester is north of Oxford, Edinburgh is north of Oxford, sorry, Edinburgh is north of Manchester, Edinburgh is north of Oxford is the conclusion. Okay, so this one is, since Manchester is north of Oxford and Edinburgh is north of Manchester, Edinburgh is north of Oxford. Edinburgh is north of Oxford is the conclusion, the other two are the premises, that’s definitely an argument. Okay, witches float because witches are made of wood and wood floats. floats. Is that an argument or not? Put your hands up if you think it is an argument.

[译文 17]

但这些是原因，这些是理由，你不必担心犯这个错误，因为这是一个非常非常常见的错误。你把因果关系当成了理性关系，但它不是，对吧？所以那不是一个论证，因为我们要说的只是实际上发生了三个事件，对吧？首先云层形成，然后天空变暗，然后风暴来临。它们之间可能存在因果关系，但我们并没有说这两个是相信另一个的理由，对吧？跟上了吗？这个呢？这是不是一个论证？认为是的请举手。是的，好，哪个是结论？前提是，前提是。曼彻斯特在牛津以北，爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北。对，曼彻斯特在牛津以北，爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北，抱歉，爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北，爱丁堡在牛津以北是结论。好，所以这个是，因为曼彻斯特在牛津以北而且爱丁堡在曼彻斯特以北，所以爱丁堡在牛津以北。爱丁堡在牛津以北是结论，另外两个是前提，这肯定是一个论证。好，女巫会浮起来，因为女巫是木头做的而木头会浮。浮。这是一个论证吗？认为它是一个论证的请举手。

[段 18]

Okay, that’s an argument, you’re quite right. What’s the conclusion? Which is float. Okay, and then the premises are? And wood floats, that’s right. Notice that the conclusion is at the front here, doesn’t make any difference does it? Because what makes the sentence a conclusion? It follows from the other two premises. No, because it might not follow from the other two premises. It might be a bad argument. What makes something a conclusion? The way it’s expressed. No. I want a better sense as well. Well, because of the premises. Even if you had it in argument one, it wouldn’t have done. Come on, somebody. It’s the one you’re saying is true. That’s right. you’re saying this is true because of the others, where the because is a rational because, notwhere the because is a rational because, not a causal because. Okay, let me tell you again. The only thing that makes a sentence a conclusion or a premise is the role that it’s playing in the argument. Okay, if it’s playing the role of being the sentence for which you’re arguing, then it’s a conclusion. And if it’s playing the role of a sentence for which, sorry, which you’re offering as a reason for believing the other one, then it’s a premise. That’s the only thing that makes a sentence a premise or a conclusion. Even what it’s saying is not true, it’s actually.

[译文 18]

好，那是一个论证，你完全正确。结论是什么？是浮起来。好，那前提呢？木头会浮，没错。注意结论是在最前面的，这没有任何区别，对吧？因为是什么让一个句子成为结论？它从另外两个前提中得出。不，因为它可能不是从另外两个前提中得出的。它可能是一个糟糕的论证。是什么让某物成为结论？它的表达方式。不。我也想得到一个更好的答案。好吧，因为有前提。即使你把它放在论证一里，也不会起作用。拜托，谁来说。是你说它是真的那个。没错。你说这个是真的因为其他的，这里的"因为"是理性意义上的"因为"，不是……这里的"因为"是理性意义上的"因为"，不是因果意义上的"因为"。好，让我再告诉你们一次。让一个句子成为结论或前提的唯一因素是它在论证中所扮演的角色。好，如果它扮演的是你正在为之论证的那个句子的角色，那么它就是结论。如果它扮演的是一个句子的角色，对不起，它是作为一个句子的角色，你提供它作为相信另一个句子的理由，那么它就是前提。这就是让一个句子成为前提或结论的唯一因素。即使它所说的不是真的，它实际上也是。

[段 19]

We’ll come on to truth in a minute. Truth is that you’re quite right to think that truth is very important, but not just yet. Notice, incidentally, that there’s no reason why a sentence that’s playing the role of a conclusion in one argument can’t play the role of a premise in another argument. Do you see what I mean? That’s why it’s very important that what makes them a premise or a conclusion is the function they’re playing, the role they’re playing, not anything intrinsic to the sentence. Because if it was intrinsic to the sentence, you’d have a sentence that could only be a conclusion, which would be rather odd, wouldn’t it? I’m sure there are. I’m not going to speak of one, but I can’t off the top of my head. So what makes a sentence a conclusion is that you are arguing for it. What makes it a premise isarguing for it. What makes it a premise is that you’re using it to argue for something else. Okay, is this an argument? Hands up if you think it is. It’s a more difficult one, isn’t it? If it were an argument, which would be the conclusion? Okay, so then the premise would be Jesse James left town and Jesse James took his gang with him. So we could say Jesse James left town, Jesse James took his gang with him, therefore things have been a lot quieter.

[译文 19]

我们马上就会讲到真实性。真实性在于，你认为它非常重要是相当正确的，但现在还不是时候。顺便提一下，没有理由说一个在一个论证中扮演结论角色的句子就不能在另一个论证中扮演前提角色。你明白我的意思吗？这就是为什么重要的是，使一个句子成为前提或结论的是它所发挥的功能、它所扮演的角色，而不是句子本身固有的东西。因为如果那是句子本身固有的，你就会有一个只能作为结论的句子，那会相当奇怪，不是吗？我相信有这种情况。我不会举例说明，但一时想不起来。所以使一个句子成为结论的是你在为它论证。使它成为前提的是你在用它来论证别的东西。好的，这是不是一个论证？认为它是的人请举手。这个更难，是不是？如果它是一个论证，哪个是结论？好的，那么前提就是杰西·詹姆斯离开了小镇，以及杰西·詹姆斯带走了他的同伙。所以我们可以说，杰西·詹姆斯离开了小镇，杰西·詹姆斯带走了他的同伙，因此事情变得安静多了。

[段 20]

There’s an implied premise in it, that Jesse James and his gang were the cause of not being quiet. Yes, I don’t think that’s an argument myself. I think it’s just a concatenation of sentences, i.e. several sentences strung together and there might in fact there probably is a causal relationship too isn’t there? Why are things quieter? Because Jesse James left town and has taken his gang with him as well. It’s not just an explanation Ah, now explanations, reasons and causes now you’re really getting into the interesting stuff. Explanations can be both causal and rational, can’t they? So, I can give an explanation of your behaviour that’s rational or I can givebehaviour that’s rational, or I can give an explanation of your behaviour that’s causal. So, what’s your name? Paul. Paul. Okay, so the reason Paul did that was whatever. Or, Paul did that because, what’s your name? Jenny. Jenny pushed him. You know, Jenny pushed him, Paul fell over. Okay, or Paul fell over because he was trying to make the children laugh. Do you see? one’s a rational explanation and the other’s a causal explanation. Causes, reasons and explanations are intimately tied together and we’ll talk about them probably quite often in these sessions, but the important thing is that not all causes are reasons. It may be that all reasons are causes, but it’s not the case that all causes are reasons, because some causes are non-rational.

[译文 20]

其中有一个隐含的前提，即杰西·詹姆斯和他的同伙是造成不安静的原因。是的，我个人认为那不是一个论证。我认为那只是句子的串联，也就是说，几个句子串在一起，而且实际上可能也确实存在因果关系，不是吗？为什么事情更安静了？因为杰西·詹姆斯离开了小镇，也带走了他的同伙。那不仅仅是一个解释。啊，解释、理由和原因——现在你真的进入有趣的部分了。解释既可以是因果性的，也可以是合理性的，不是吗？所以，我可以给你的行为一个合理性的解释，或者我也可以给你一个因果性的解释。你叫什么名字？保罗。保罗。好，保罗那样做的理由是某某。或者，保罗那样做是因为——你叫什么名字？珍妮。珍妮推了他。你知道，珍妮推了他，保罗摔倒了。好，或者保罗摔倒是因为他想逗孩子们笑。明白了吗？一个是合理性解释，另一个是因果性解释。原因、理由和解释紧密相连，我们可能会在这些课程中经常讨论它们，但重要的是，并非所有原因都是理由。也许所有理由都是原因，但并非所有原因都是理由，因为有些原因是非理性的。

[段 21]

They have no reasons involved in them at all. Anyway, this is getting complicated. You don’t need to worry about this. The important thing is that a set of sentences is only an argument if you’re putting one forward as true and putting the others forward as reasons for believing the one. That’s what an argument is. So if a set of sentences doesn’t have that relation between them, it isn’t an argument. so maybeSo it may be just coincidence. Yes, you may not be saying there’s even a causal relationship here. Actually, since Jesse James left town, taking his gang with him, things have been a lot quieter because it’s not been necessary to do this, that or the other. But you could very easily supply a context in which that was an argument. Well, as I said, you can supply a context in which anything is an argument, so that’s true. Is a set of sentences an argument, subjective or objective? Is it a matter of opinion? Well, is it? I mean, if we go back to, I mean, you can answer this question yourself. If we go back to that one, is it a matter of opinion that that’s an argument? Or did I somehow make it an argument? I mean, did I make it appear to be an argument? Or did I make it an argument?

[译文 21]

它们完全不涉及理由。不管怎样，这变得复杂了。你不需要担心这个。重要的是，一组句子只有在你在把其中一个主张为真，并把其他句子作为相信这一个的理由时，才构成一个论证。这就是论证。所以如果一组句子之间没有这种关系，它就不是一个论证。所以可能只是巧合。是的，你甚至可能没有说这里存在因果关系。事实上，自从杰西·詹姆斯离开小镇并带走同伙以来，事情变得安静多了，因为没有必要做这个、做那个或做别的了。但你很容易可以提供一种语境，使它成为一个论证。嗯，正如我所说，你可以在任何事物上提供一种语境使它成为论证，所以这是对的。一组句子是不是一个论证，是主观的还是客观的？这是意见问题吗？嗯，是吗？我是说，如果我们回到——我意思是，你可以自己回答这个问题。如果我们回到那个，它是不是一个论证是意见问题吗？还是说我以某种方式使它成为论证？我意思是，是我使它看起来像论证？还是我使它成为论证了？

[段 22]

I may have made it appear to be an argument but by and making it an argument and therefore it became an argument or rather you started to see that it was an argument is that right? So objective and subjective when I used to teach undergraduates I used to say that I wouldn’t let them use those words until their third year because they’re very difficult words and the reason they’re very differentBecause they’re very difficult words. And the reason they’re very difficult words is because there are objective facts about subjective things. If you think of a subjective state as the state of a subject, a state of happiness or something like that, then there are objective facts about such states. I mean, either you’re happy now or you’re not. That’s a bad example, actually. Anyway, you can see what I mean. I guess I won’t reject an argument because they say, I don’t think it’s an argument. Or do you mean it’s not a valid argument? Oh, well, that’s… I was just going to make that distinction. OK, two questions you might ask. That isn’t an argument, or that isn’t a good argument. That isn’t an argument. Clearly, you can make that distinction, that claim. Whether the person making it… That’s an interesting one. If you mind, I’ll leave that on one side, because I’ll think about what I think about that.

[译文 22]

我可能使它看起来像一个论证，但又通过使它成为论证，因此它就成为了论证，或者更确切地说，你开始看到它是一个论证，对吗？所以客观和主观——当我过去教本科生时，我常说在三年级之前我不会让他们使用这些词，因为它们是非常难的词，它们之所以非常难……因为它们是非常难的词。它们之所以是非常难的词，是因为关于主观事物有客观事实。如果你把一种主观状态看作主体的状态，比如一种幸福状态或类似的东西，那么关于这些状态有客观事实。我的意思是，要么你现在是幸福的，要么不是。这其实是个不好的例子。不管怎样，你明白我的意思。我想我不会因为他们说"我不认为那是一个论证"就拒绝一个论证。或者你的意思是说那不是一个有效论证？哦，好吧，那……我正要做那个区分。好的，你可能会问两个问题。那不是一个论证，或者那不是一个好的论证。那不是一个论证。显然，你可以做出那种区分，那种主张。至于做出这个主张的人……那是一个有趣的问题。如果你介意的话，我暂时把这个放在一边，因为我会思考我对那件事的想法。

[段 23]

I’m not sure. I have a feeling you’d say yes it is, but then you’d have to provide the context which would make it clear to the other person that it’s an argument. Okay, let’s move on. You talked to John Cleese and that’s what John Cleese was saying. What did he say? It’s not an argument. Oh, that’s not an argument. Indeed he did say that. That’s right, that’s not an argument. And what he meant by that is that’s just a contradiction. Yeah.And what he meant by that is that’s just a contradiction. You have just two sentences, one which contradicts the other. That’s not an argument, and that’s an argument against. But it’s not an argument against the truth of it, is it? It’s the argument against the truth of that’s an argument. Oh, clarity of thought. It’s wonderful. Right, let’s move on. Okay, there are often words that suggest that a set of sentences is an argument. when we looked at these we saw that you sir wanted a because in there because that would have convinced you it was an argument should it have done? no, not necessarily because does sometimes integrate an argument but not always ok where’s the argument word in this one hang on Oh, okay. What about that one? So. So, yeah. Okay. Can you give me any more? If. Ah, if then is a difficult one.

[译文 23]

我不确定。我有一种感觉你会说是的，它是，但你必须提供语境，让另一个人清楚地知道那是一个论证。好的，我们继续。你和 John Cleese 谈过，那就是 John Cleese 说的。他说了什么？那不是一个论证。哦，那不是一个论证。确实他那样说了。对，那不是一个论证。他的意思是说那只是一个矛盾。是的。他的意思是说那只是一个矛盾。你只有两个句子，一个与另一个相矛盾。那不是一个论证，而那是一个反对论证。但它不是针对其真实性的反对论证，对吗？它是针对"那是一个论证"这一真实性的反对论证。哦，思路清晰。真是太好了。好，我们继续。好的，通常有一些词表明一组句子是一个论证。当我们看这些时，我们看到这位先生想要一个"因为"在里面，因为那会让你相信它是一个论证——它应该让你相信吗？不，不一定，因为"因为"有时整合一个论证，但并不总是。好，这一个里的论证词在哪里？等一下。哦，好。那个呢？那么。是的。好的。你能再给我一些吗？如果。啊，如果-那么是一个困难的。

[段 24]

The answer is, well, actually I’ll talk about that in a minute, but I will put if on one side, because we’ve got this distinguish between implication and entailment, but we’ll do that in a minute. Hence. Hence is a good one, yeah. Given. given, then, yep, then is another one that’s a bit iffy, yeah.Then is another one that’s a bit iffy, actually. Therefore. Therefore is very definitely an argument word. Notice, incidentally, that there are words that… Consequently. Consequently, yeah. Okay, let’s leave that. So, firstly, we’ve said what an argument is, and we’ve said how to distinguish an argument from a set of sentences. But we’ve also got to distinguish an argument from an assertion, just a straightforward assertion. Okay, an argument is a set of sentences, just one of which is being asserted. An assertion is a single sentence, possibly a complex sentence, so it might be Marianne’s wearing jeans and it’s Friday, so that’s one sentence conjoined with a sentence conjunction, the and, that’s being expressed in asitoric mode. So which of these sentences are or could be assertions? Number one. Only number one, exactly so. I say could be because, of course, it could be said, I could say the room is hot in that Australian intonation that makes it a question. Do you see what I mean? So I could ask a question in a form of words that would usually be used for as a toric.

[译文 24]

答案是，好，实际上我一会儿会讲那个，但我会把"如果"放在一边，因为我们要区分蕴涵和衍推，但我们一会儿再讲那个。“因此”。“因此"是一个好词，对。“假设”。“假设”。“那么”，是的，“那么"是另一个有点不好说的词，实际上。“因此”。“因此"绝对是一个论证词。顺便提一下，有一些词……“于是”。“于是”，是的。好的，我们先到这里。所以，首先，我们已经说了什么是论证，我们也说了如何把论证与一组句子区分开来。但我们还必须把论证和主张区分开来——一个简单直接的主张。好的，论证是一组句子，其中只有一个被主张。主张是一个单独的句子，可能是一个复合句子，所以它可能是"玛丽安穿着牛仔裤，今天是星期五”，所以这是一个用连词"和"连接起来的句子，它是用陈述模式表达的。那么这些句子中哪些是或可能是主张？第一个。只有第一个，正是这样。我说"可能是"因为，当然，它可以被说出来，我可以用那种澳洲语调说"房间很热”，使它成为一个问题。明白我的意思吗？所以我可以用通常用作陈述的措辞形式来问一个问题。

[段 25]

So again, remember that language is something we use and we can use it in all sorts of different ways. But this sentence has interrogative force, doesn’t it?This sentence has interrogative force, doesn’t it? Is the room hot? And this has imperative force, turn the heat up. That one is being used asatorically, not the others. Some assertions, and this will pick up the point you were making there, look very like arguments. If it’s snowing, the mail will be late. So you might think that this is an argument because it’s an if-then sentence. why isn’t that an argument? Can anyone tell me? It’s an assertion. Well done, yes it is an assertion. It’s hypothetical isn’t it? It might be snowing, it might not be. It’s not based on any truth. Definitely. Okay. Good, okay. Are we asserting it is snowing? No. Are we asserting the mail will be late? No. are we asserting if it’s no the mail will be late yes so there’s only one sentence there isn’t there it happens to be complex it’s a sentence that the sub-sentential parts are themselves sentential but it’s not an argument because it doesn’t satisfy the description does it it doesn’t satisfy the claim that there must be a sentence that’s being put forward as true and other sentences that are being put forward to support the claim that that one sentence is true.forward to support the claim that that one sentence is true.

[译文 25]

所以，再次提醒，记住语言是我们所使用的工具，我们可以用它来做各种各样的事情。但这个句子带有疑问语气，对吧？这个句子带有疑问语气，对吧？房间热吗？而这个带有祈使语气，把暖气调高。那个是被讽刺性地使用的，而不是其他几个。有些陈述，而且这会接上你之前说的那一点，看起来很像论证。如果在下雪，邮件就会晚到。所以你可能会认为这是一个论证，因为这是一个"如果—那么"句。为什么它不是一个论证呢？有人能告诉我吗？它是一个陈述。答得好，是的，它是一个陈述。它是假设性的，对吧？可能在下雪，也可能没有。它不以任何事实为基础。没错。好的。好。我们是在断言正在下雪吗？不是。我们是在断言邮件会晚到吗？不是。我们是在断言如果下雪邮件就会晚到，是的，所以那里只有一个句子，不是吗？它恰好是复杂的，一个句子的子句部分本身也是句子性的，但它不是一个论证，因为它不符合那个描述，对吧？它不符合那个要求——必须有一个被主张为真的句子，和另一些被提出来支持该句子为真的句子。支持那个句子为真的其他句子。

[段 26]

So that’s an implication, not an entailment. So it’s snowing implies the male will be late, it doesn’t entail that the male will be late. Question at the back. Would that be if you put in a therefore, would that make it into an argument? well it would make it ungrammatical actually therefore it is snowing the mail will be late sorry you’ve got to face one to the other but it is snowing therefore the mail will be late that would make it an argument because the therefore signals entailment then can signal entailment but doesn’t automatically but therefore I was going to say something very rash there but therefore always does, and I may be right about that. Okay, so we need to distinguish things like that from arguments. Now we get on to the bit that’s been worrying around this end of the room here. Okay, the thing about assertions is they’re either true or false. Now this is an interesting thing. There are only two sorts of things that can be true or false in this world. One of them is beliefs. Beliefs are either true or false. And the other is the sentences that we useAnd the other is the sentences that we use to express beliefs. So if I believe that the chair is blue, I can express that belief in the sentence, the chair is blue.

[译文 26]

所以那是一个蕴涵，而不是衍推。所以下雪蕴涵着邮件会晚到，但它并不衍推邮件会晚到。后排有疑问。如果你在里面加一个"因此”，那会让它变成一个论证吗？嗯，实际上那样会让它不合语法，所以"因此正在下雪邮件会晚到"，抱歉，你得把一个对到另一个，但"正在下雪，因此邮件会晚到"那会成为一个论证，因为"因此"表示衍推，“那么"可以表示衍推，但并不自动，但"因此"我刚才要说一个很鲁莽的话了，但"因此"总是如此，我也许是对的。好的，所以我们需要把诸如此类的东西和论证区分开来。现在我们进入一直困扰着房间这一端的那部分了。好，关于陈述的事情是，它们要么为真要么为假。现在这是一件有趣的事。在这个世界上只有两种东西可以为真或为假。其中一种是信念。信念要么为真要么为假。另一种是我们用来表达信念的句子。所以如果我相信椅子是蓝色的，我可以用"椅子是蓝色的"这个句子来表达这个信念。

[段 27]

And both the belief and the sentence used to express it can be either true or false. Are you with me? Can you think of anything else that can be true or false? Facts. No, facts are what make sentences true or false. They are not themselves true or false, they just exist or don’t exist. So, the fact that that chair is blue makes true the sentence, that chair is blue. You with me? Okay. What about her hair is blonde? when you say what about that fact or that sentence that sentence well that’s either true or false isn’t it I mean let me just point out an ambiguity what’s your name? Fiona said what about her hair is blonde her hair is blonde. If I put it like that, I’m talking about the fact, aren’t I? Whereas if I took itI’m talking about the fact, aren’t I? Whereas if I do that, I’m now talking about the sentence. Right? If I take those out again, that’s not the sort of thing that can be true because the fact that someone’s hair is blonde, that her hair is blonde, makes true the sentence, her hair is blonde. You with me? Difficult stuff philosophy, isn’t it? But the really nice thing is that if you persevere with logic, you too will be able to do things like this. These distinctions are there to be made.

[译文 27]

而且这个信念和用来表达它的句子都可以为真或为假。你们跟上了吗？你能想到其他什么可以为真或为假的东西吗？事实。不，事实是使句子为真或为假的东西。事实本身既不为真也不为假，它们只是存在或不存在。所以，椅子是蓝色的这个事实，使句子"椅子是蓝色的"为真。你们跟上了吗？好的。那她的头发是金色的呢？当你说"那怎么样"指的是那个事实还是那个句子，那个句子，嗯，那个句子要么为真要么为假，不是吗？我的意思是，让我指出一个歧义，你叫什么名字？Fiona 说"她的头发是金色的怎么样”，她的头发是金色的。如果我像这样说，我是在谈论那个事实，不是吗？然而如果我做这个动作，我现在是在谈论这个句子，对吧？如果我再把这些去掉，那就不是那种可以为真的东西，因为某人的头发是金色这个事实，即她的头发是金色，使句子"她的头发是金色"为真。你们跟上了吗？哲学是难的东西，不是吗？但是真正美好的事情是，如果你坚持学习逻辑，你也能做像这样的事情。这些区分就是要去做的。

[段 28]

You just need the clarity of thought to be able to make them. Is that because facts are just always true? Facts aren’t true at all. Facts are what make sentences true. Facts, if you like, are combinations of things or events, or things or properties and events. So if you think of something like her hair is blonde, that’s a fact. Her hair’s being blonde. Her jacket’s being… Green. Is it green? Well, I think it’s it. Right. Whether that’s a fact or not, we’re not really sure. If it’s green, then there’s a fact of the matter, which is that… Sorry, I didn’t mean to call you her. Diana’s jacket is green. These are facts which either explaindream. These are facts which either exist or not. Some people might say that that’s not a fact that Diana’s jacket is green. The sentence that expresses that, the belief that that’s a fact, is false. Sorry, I lost myself in the beginning of that sentence. Is it like the sentence earlier about the witch being made of wood? The witch being made of wood was a fact in that sentence? That sentence referred to a fact, if you like. Even though witches aren’t made of wood in that context. So you could argue that their question was… Oh, I see. It referred to a potential fact, a putative fact. Yes, that’s right.

[译文 28]

你只需要有清晰的思维就能做到这些。那是因为事实总是真的吗？事实根本不是真的。事实是使句子为真的东西。如果你愿意，事实是事物或事件的组合，或者事物或属性和事件的组合。所以如果你想"她的头发是金色"这样的东西，那是一个事实。她的头发是金色的。她的夹克是……绿色。是绿色的吗？嗯，我觉得它是。对。无论那是不是一个事实，我们并不真的确定。如果是绿色的，那就有了一个事实情况，也就是……抱歉，我不是有意把你叫成"她"。Diana 的夹克是绿色的。这些是存在或不存在的事实。有人可能会说 Diana 的夹克是绿色这不是一个事实。表达这个的句子，即相信那是一个事实的信念，是假的。抱歉，我在那个句子的开头把自己说晕了。这是不是像之前那个关于女巫由木头做成的句子？女巫由木头做成的在那个句子里是一个事实吗？那个句子指涉了一个事实，如果你愿意这样说的话。即使在那个语境中女巫并不是由木头做成的。所以你可以论证他们的问题是……哦，我明白了。它指涉了一个可能的事实，一个推定的事实。是的，就是这样。

[段 29]

Yes, of course. No, thank you. That’s a very good point to make. Of course, if I say something false, what makes it false is a fact, but it’s not the fact. So if I say that chair’s black, the fact that the chair’s not being black is what makes that true. It gets difficult, as you can see. But the thing to remember is this. There are three different levels that we very importantly have to keep separate in thinking clearly. And of course all critical reasoning involves clarity of thought. These levels are the level of language.that these levels are the level of language, thought, and the thing I always call reality, but that’s wrong, because of course language and thoughts are real, so that’s completely wrong, but I keep using it that way. So if I put down red, and I put quotes round, so that we make it clear that it is a word, it’s a linguistic item then there’s the concept red it’s when I think that is red I’m using the concept red and then there’s redness the property of it so these three things are quite different from each other aren’t they so if I say this pen has the property of being red I’m talking about this And if I’m thinking about this pen as being red, then I’m exercising my concept of red.

[译文 29]

是的，当然。不，谢谢你。这是一个非常好的论点。当然，如果我说了假话，使它为假的是一个事实，但它不是这个事实本身。所以如果我说那把椅子是黑色的，使那为假的是椅子不是黑色的这个事实。你可以看到，这变得很困难。但要记住的是这个。在清晰思考中，我们必须非常重要地区分三个不同的层次。当然，所有批判性推理都涉及清晰的思维。这三个层次就是语言的层次。思想层次，以及我总是称之为现实的层次，但这是错的，因为当然语言和思想是真实的，所以那完全错了，但我一直这样用它。所以如果我写下 red（红），并加上引号，这样我们就可以清楚地表明它是一个词，它是一个语言项目，然后有概念 red（红），也就是当我思考那是红色的时候，我在使用"红"这个概念，然后有 redness（红色），也就是它的属性，所以这三者是相当不同的，对吧？所以如果我说这支笔具有"是红色的"这个属性，我是在谈论这个。如果我把这支笔思考为是红色的，那我是在运用我关于红的概念。

[段 30]

And if I say this pen is red, then I’m using the word red. Notice in French it would be a different word, wouldn’t it? But the same concept and the same property. So there’s an arbitrary element in language that isn’t there in the other two. So what’s the French then? Rouge, I think. I’m glad I used red not something else laughterI’m glad I used red and not something else. I’m sorry, can you speak up? If you know an argument of red, I mean, different people will see red differently. Some people might think that colour is red, some people might think… This is Metaphysics 101. So you can’t really say that a fact is true. Oh, facts aren’t true. But they’re not the same truth for different people. right, ok, let’s unpack what you’re talking about here in terms of facts and truths and so on ok, what you’re suggesting is that what I see as red, Mike might see as green or something else, ok, so what we’re saying is why is it that I’m wearing red, will somebody please come next time wearing red it makes it much easier, there’s a lady back there in pink or in the middle there. So when I look at that lady’s, what’s your name? Hildegard. Hildegard, right. Okay, when I look at Hildegard’s jacket, I see pink.

[译文 30]

而如果我说这支笔是红色的，那我是在使用"红"这个词。注意在法语中会是一个不同的词，对吧？但同样的概念，同样的属性。所以语言中有一个任意的元素，而在其他两者中则没有。那法语怎么说呢？Rouge，我想。我很高兴我用了红色而不是其他东西笑声我很高兴我用了红色而不是其他东西。抱歉，你能大声一点吗？如果你知道一个关于红色的论证，我的意思是，不同的人会以不同的方式看待红色。有些人可能认为那种颜色是红色，有些人可能认为……这是《形而上学 101》。所以你真的不能说一个事实是真的。哦，事实不是真的。但对不同的人来说它们不是同样的真。好的，好，让我们把你所说的按照事实和真等等来展开，好，你所暗示的是我所看到的红色，Mike 可能看到的是绿色或其他什么，好，所以我们在说的是为什么我穿着红色，下次请有人穿红色来那就容易多了，那边有一位女士穿着粉色，或者说中间那位。所以当我看那位女士的，你叫什么名字？Hildegard。Hildegard，对。好，当我看着 Hildegard 的夹克，我看到的是粉色。

[段 31]

I see it looks like that. And when Mike looks at it, it looks different. Okay, so it appears differently to mine. So I would say that jacket is pink. And of course, Mike would also say it’s pink. the pink is different for Michael than it is for meBut pink is different for Mike than it is for me. That’s what you’re… Where are you? That’s what you’re saying. Okay. You might not call it pink. You might actually call it red. Because a lot of men… I mean, people speak a lot of pink. A lot of people are useless at colours. Is that what you’re going to say? Well, a lot of people… I mean, some people might say that’s gender. Or some people say that’s… Yeah. Shall we not get into that? But isn’t that the basis? How can you say that something is a fact? And then… Well, let’s make a very important distinction between epistemology and metaphysics here. There’s one question which is, is something a fact? And there’s another question, do we know it’s a fact? So let’s talk about it is pink as a fact, rather than do we know it’s a fact. Wittgenstein showed us that actually the question, could we see it differently, is actually a non-question. The answer is, if, ah, no, this is getting too complicated, it’s going to take us too far away from, I’m sorry, I don’t want to tease you with this, but I’ve just realised what I was about to get into.

[译文 31]

我看到它看起来就是那样。而当 Mike 看它的时候，它看起来不一样。好的，所以它对我来说呈现得不同。所以我会说那件夹克是粉色的。当然，Mike 也会说它是粉色的。粉色对 Mike 来说和对我来说是不一样的。你在……你在哪里？你就是这个意思，对吧？好的。你可能不叫它粉色，你可能实际上叫它红色。因为很多男人……我是说，人们会说很多种粉色。很多人在颜色方面很糟糕。你要说的是这个吗？好吧，很多人……我是说，有些人可能会说那是性别问题，或者有些人会说那是……是的。我们不要深入讨论这个好吗？但这不就是基础吗？你怎么能说某件事是一个事实呢？然后……好吧，我们在这里做一个非常重要的区分，即认识论和形而上学之间的区分。有一个问题是，某个东西是不是事实？另一个问题是，我们是否知道它是一个事实？让我们来讨论"它是粉色"作为一个事实，而不是我们是否知道它是一个事实。Wittgenstein 向我们表明，实际上"我们能否以不同的方式看待它"这个问题是一个伪问题。答案是，如果，啊，不，这变得太复杂了，会把我们带得太远，对不起，我不想用这个吊你胃口，但我刚刚意识到我快要陷入什么了。

[段 32]

I was just trying to clarify what you mean by saying, you know, by definition, for me personally, if you say something, a belief is either true or false, how, I mean, by definition, for me, a belief is something you can’t prove or disprove, you just believe it, so how can you logically argue that God exists or not? Hang on, hang on, hang on. Oh, right, okay. You’re using…Oh, right, okay. You’re using beliefs in a way that lots of people do, so actually I’m very glad you brought this up. People think of beliefs as things that you can’t prove. So you have either belief or you have knowledge. Well, that’s not how we use the word belief in philosophy. A belief is something you postulate in explanation of someone’s behaviour or is something you put forward as true or as false. and it’s certainly not the case that it’s something you can’t prove. I mean, there are many beliefs that we can prove. I mean, just to… I believe that 2 plus 2 is 4, and I dare say that you wouldn’t want me to even attempt to prove that because you believe it too. Is that reasonable? Okay. So here’s a belief that we can… that we believe this conclusive truth. So we don’t mean belief to mean religious belief or something like that. Look, this is perhaps it.

[译文 32]

我只是想澄清你说的意思，你知道的，就我个人而言，按照定义，如果你说某件事，一个信念要么为真要么为假，怎么，我的意思是，按照定义，对我来说，一个信念是你既不能证明也不能反驳的东西，你只是相信它，那你怎么能逻辑地论证上帝存在或不存在呢？等一下，等一下，等一下。哦，好的。你在使用……哦，好的。你是用许多人的方式来使用"信念"这个词的，所以我其实非常高兴你提出了这个问题。人们认为信念是你无法证明的东西。所以你要么有信念，要么有知识。好吧，在哲学中我们并不是这样使用"信念"这个词的。一个信念是你为了解释某人的行为而假设的东西，或者是你提出的、被认为是真或假的东西。而且它当然不是你无法证明的东西。我的意思是，有许多信念我们可以证明。我的意思是，只是为了……我相信 2 加 2 等于 4，我敢说你不会想让我甚至尝试去证明它，因为你也相信它。这样合理吗？好的。所以这里有一个我们可以……我们可以相信这个确定真理的信念。所以我们用"信念"这个词并不是指宗教信仰或类似的东西。你看，也许这就是关键所在。

[段 33]

If we go back to this, let’s use chair, concept of chair, and chair here. So a chair is something I can draw. Okay, I can’t draw the concept of a chair, can I? I can only entertain it. and I can say chair has five letters. See what I mean? Okay, chairs exist. Now that’s a fact which I can think about. Do chairs exist? Barclay said that chairs didn’t exist except as perceptions in my mind. And of course I can then talk about what I’m thinking about. So the fact that chairs exist, if indeed it is a fact, is something we can think about and talk about. Do you see the distinction? You may not feel confident in using it at the moment, but that’s just a matter of practice. If we confuse these three levels, we will not think clearly, because you might end up thinking like the concept chair has five letters. well concepts don’t have any letters actually or you might think chairs have five letters well actually chairs don’t have any letters it doesn’t make sense to think the chair is having letters see what I mean? so going back to this one if I said this jug is loud what would you think? this jug is loud I would wonder if you mean it in a different context than singing umif you read it in a different context than slang?

[译文 33]

如果我们回到这个，让我们用椅子这个概念，以及这里的椅子。所以椅子是我可以画出来的东西。好的，我画不出"椅子"这个概念，对吧？我只能在头脑中构想它。我可以说 chair（椅子）有五个字母。明白我的意思了吗？好的，椅子是存在的。这是一个我可以思考的事实。椅子存在吗？Barclay 说椅子是不存在的，它们只作为我头脑中的感知而存在。当然我随后可以谈论我在思考什么。所以椅子存在这个事实，如果它确实是一个事实的话，是我们能够思考和谈论的东西。你明白这个区别了吗？你现在可能对使用它没有信心，但那只是练习的问题。如果我们混淆了这三个层次，我们就不会清晰地思考，因为你可能最终会像想"概念椅子有五个字母"那样思考。好吧，概念其实没有任何字母。或者你可能想"椅子有五个字母"，但实际上椅子没有任何字母。认为椅子有字母是没有意义的，明白我的意思吗？所以回到这个，如果我说这个水壶很吵，你会怎么想？“这个水壶很吵”，我会怀疑你是不是在用不同于唱歌的语境，或者你是不是在用不同于俚语的语境？

[段 34]

Well, and it would be perfectly reasonable for you to think that, because actually that doesn’t make any sense, that sentence, does it? Because jugs aren’t the sort of thing that can be loud. It would have to be metaphorical, I’d have to be being poetic or something like that. Or I would be displaying my misunderstanding of the word loud or the misunderstanding of the word jug. Is that right? when you say that argument is false you display the fact that you don’t understand either the words argument or false because arguments can’t be true or false arguments can only be good or bad they can be valid or invalid they can’t be true or false and that’s because the only things that are true or false are beliefs or sentences, the sentences that express beliefs. Now, in general everyday talk, we do talk about arguments being true or false. You know, everybody does that, but if you want to learn how to reason, if you want to learn how to think clearly about arguments, you must stop doing that, because arguments can’t be false. What is it for a belief to be false? if I talk about Mike is tall whatis tall, okay, what is it for that belief to be false? It’s for the thing that I mean by Mike to not be in the class of things that are tall.

[译文 34]

好吧，你会那样想是完全合理的，因为实际上那句话没有任何意义，对吧？因为水壶不是能够发出声响的东西。那必须是隐喻性的，我一定是变得诗意了或类似的东西。或者我是在显示我对"响"这个词或"水壶"这个词的理解有误。这样说对吗？当你说某个论证是假的，你实际上表明了你既不理解"论证"这个词也不理解"假的"这个词，因为论证既不能为真也不能为假。论证只能是好或坏的，它们可以是有效的或无效的，它们既不能为真也不能为假。这是因为只有信念或句子——表达信念的句子——才能为真或为假。总的来说，在日常谈话中，我们确实会谈论论证是真还是假。你知道，每个人都这样做，但如果你想学习如何推理，如果你想学习如何清晰地思考论证，你必须停止这样做，因为论证不可能是假的。一个信念是假的意味着什么？如果我说"Mike 是高的"，什么是高，好的，那个信念是假的意味着什么？它意味着我所说的 Mike 不属于那些高的东西的范畴。

[段 35]

Is that right? And arguments are sets of sentences. You can’t evaluate them in that way, can you? doesn’t it know that there’s a form of argument that it’s the truth preserving all arguments are truth preserving or at least all good arguments are truth preserving because the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion so to say that an argument is true and we’ll talk about that later on but we’re not saying the argument is true we’re saying it’s truth preserving which is a different thing entirely Okay, do we understand this? This is crucially important because to understand what truth is is to see that it’s predicated only of sentences and beliefs, not of arguments. And to understand what an argument is is to see that it can’t be true or false. I think you can say that with your argument about the wood and the witches. you can see what that it can’t be that it was a valid argument uhis a valid argument. Right. Doesn’t that differentiate you from truth? The truth is only contained in that argument. Nobody would say that a witch is made of wood unless you bought it at a store. But in terms of the way the argument was constructed, the reason was valid. Yeah. I’m not sure how to unpack what you’re saying here, except to say that that’s actually, oh yes, that was an argument.

[译文 35]

这样的说法对吗？而论证是句子的集合。你不能用那种方式来评价它们，对吧？是否有一种论证形式，它是保真的？所有论证都是保真的，或者至少所有好的论证都是保真的，因为前提的真被保留在结论的真中。所以"论证为真"这种说法，我们稍后会讨论，但我们说的不是论证为真，我们说它是保真的，这完全是不同的事情。好的，我们明白这一点了吗？这是至关重要的，因为要理解什么是真，就是要看到真只属于句子和信念的属性，而不是论证的属性。要理解什么是论证，就是要看到它既不能为真也不能为假。我认为你可以用你关于木头和女巫的论证来说明这一点。你可以看到它不能是一个有效的论证，呃，它是一个有效的论证。对吧。这难道不是把它和真区分开来了吗？真只包含在那个论证之中。除非你在商店里买的，否则没有人会说女巫是木头做的。但就论证的构建方式而言，推理是有效的。是的。我不知道如何拆解你在这里说的话，只能说那实际上，哦是的，那是一个论证。

[段 36]

It’s an argument because we’re saying that that is true, and we’re offering as reasons for believing it’s truth, the truth of that, and the truth of that. Okay? So the argument itself is a good one, and you use the word valid, and we’ll get on to valid at some point next week I think. But that’s the argument itself can’t be true or false but the sentences that constitute the argument can of course be either true or false. So if the sentences are false does it make the argument bad? Well that’s a very important one. We’ll come to that later. So does that sentence actually contain three assertions? It contains three sentences each of whichIt contains three sentences, each of which could be used as an assertion. And in order for a sentence to be an assertion, it’s got to be asserted. And I’m not really asserting this, I’m just talking about it. But yeah, so we have three potential assertions, each of which is either true or false. And together, they make up the argument because two are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the other. right, ok, a good argument this is coming on to your point now a good argument must have at least two characteristics actually it needs many more than two characteristics but there are two that we’re really interested in these are the two the conclusion must follow from the premises and the premises must all be true if both those things are true you’ve got a good argument.

[译文 36]

它是一个论证，因为我们说那个是真的，并且我们把那个的真和那个的真作为相信它的理由提供出来。懂了吗？所以论证本身是好的，你用了"有效"这个词，我们会在下周的某个时候讨论有效。但论证本身不能为真或为假，而构成论证的句子当然可以为真或为假。所以如果句子为假，这会让论证变坏吗？嗯，这是一个非常重要的问题。我们稍后会谈到这个。那么那句话实际上包含三个断言吗？它包含三个句子，每个……它包含三个句子，每个句子都可以被用作一个断言。而一个句子要成为断言，它必须被断言。我其实并没有在断言这个，我只是在谈论它。但是，是的，我们有三个潜在的断言，每个都为真或为假。它们合在一起构成了论证，因为其中两个被作为相信另一个为真的理由提供出来。对，好的，一个好的论证……这就涉及到你的观点了，一个好的论证必须至少具备两个特征，实际上它需要的特征远不止两个，但有两个是我们真正感兴趣的——这两个特征是：结论必须从前提中得出，而且所有前提都必须为真。如果这两个条件都满足，你就得到了一个好的论证。

[段 37]

If one of these things, if the conclusion doesn’t follow then even if the premises are true you haven’t got a convincing argument or if the premises are not true even though the conclusion follows then you haven’t got a good argument in that way because the premises are false. But, having said that And we’re interested only in argument in this session. We’re not actually…in argument in this session. We’re not actually interested in the truth of the premises at all. We’re interested only in whether the arguments follow from, sorry, whether the conclusion follows from the premises. So as logicians generally, we’re not in the business of going out in the world to see whether premises are true or false. We’re only in the business of seeing whether the relation between the premises and the conclusion is such that the conclusion follows from the premises. And as we’ll see next week, there are loads of different ways in which conclusions can follow from premises. So I would often talk about some arguments being good, even though the premises, I mean, let’s take this one. Okay, is that a good argument or not? Yeah. It’s good in the logician sense, isn’t it? I mean, actually, the premises are all false, aren’t they? They’re both false. There are only two premises of this argument. They’re both false. It’s not Friday.

[译文 37]

如果这些要素中有一个不成立，或者结论不能由前提推出，那么即使前提为真，你也无法得到一个有说服力的论证；又或者如果前提不真，即使结论确实由前提推出，那你同样也得不到一个好的论证，因为前提是假的。不过，话虽如此——而我们在这一讲中只关注论证本身。我们其实并不……在这一讲中关注论证本身。我们其实根本不在意前提的真假。我们只在意结论能否由前提推出。所以，作为一般的逻辑学家，我们并不去探究世界上某个前提是真还是假。我们只关注前提和结论之间的关系是否使得结论从前提中推出。正如我们下周会看到的，结论从前提中推出的方式有许许多多。所以我经常会说某些论证是好的，即使——我是说，我们拿这个来看。好，这算不算一个好论证呢？嗯，从逻辑学家的意义上说，它是好的，不是吗？可是，事实上，前提全是假的，对吧？它们两个都是假的。这个论证只有两个前提，它们都是假的。现在不是星期五。

[段 38]

It’s Monday. And Marianne always wears jeans on Friday. It’s also false. You’ll have to take it from me. So that’s not a good argument from the point of view of the premises. But as far as the logician is concerned, that is a good argument, because the conclusion follows from the premises. OK? So if we were actually using that argument to say anything, would want the premises to be true as well but as we’re just talking about the argument in order toBut as we’re just talking about the argument in order to say what’s a good argument and what isn’t a good argument, that will do. In fact, that’s a conclusive argument, isn’t it? If the premises are true there, the conclusion would have to be true. So it’s a very good argument. Aren’t those quite a lot of assumptions then, in the premises, in order to make the conclusion true? No, because if the premises are true here, the conclusion would have to be true, wouldn’t it? Which is something? What? Not unless you died before Friday. Well then, it wouldn’t be true that Marianne always wears jeans on Friday. You’d say Marianne always wore jeans on a Friday maybe. Yes. What’s it to you? I’m not sure dead people wear jeans at all actually. Could you just remind me, what makes promise true? Is that the fact in the world?

[译文 38]

今天是星期一。而 Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤。这句话也是假的。你们得听我的。从前提的角度看，它不是一个好论证。但对逻辑学家而言，这却是一个好论证，因为结论确实从前提中推出了。懂吗？所以如果我们真的用这个论证来说明什么，当然会希望前提也是真的；但我们只是就论证本身来讨论——只是为了说明什么是好论证、什么不是好论证，那样就可以了。事实上，那是一个决定性的论证，不是吗？如果前提为真，结论就一定为真。所以那是一个非常好的论证。可是，那些前提里不是有很多假设吗？为了让结论为真，不是吗？不对，因为如果前提在这里为真，结论就一定为真，不是吗？那又怎样呢？什么？除非你在星期五之前就死了，那才会出问题。那样的话，“Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤"就不成立了。你也许会说"Marianne 过去在每个星期五都穿牛仔裤”。是的。那又关你什么事？我其实不太确定死人会不会穿牛仔裤。你能提醒我一下，是什么让一个前提为真吗？是世界上的事实吗？

[段 39]

A premise is true if there’s… Actually, you’re asking a huge philosophical question there, but let me just say, yes, if there’s a fact that makes the sentence true, then it’s true. Oh, I can’t believe I said that. Philosophically, that’s awful, but never mind. That’ll do. What were you going to say? You can’t always say that you always wear jeans on Friday because you haven’t had all your Fridays, have you? It’s like the side of the Christmas tree. Well, I hope so. I haven’t had all my Fridays. This is for life.I haven’t had all my Fridays. You can’t actually say that. You can’t say that you always wear jeans on Fridays. This is actually a type of argument we’re going to be looking at next week, which is the inductive arguments. And inductive arguments always take us further than we can actually go by claiming something like swans are always white, Marianne always wears jeans on a Friday. but you could still say that we’re not going to get into knowledge the philosophy of knowledge is definitely not on this curriculum okay going back to what I was saying there okay so do you understand the difference between the truth of the premise and the conclusions following from the premises. That’s the important thing. And it’s because what makes an argument good is that the conclusion follows from the premises that you’ve got to distinguish the goodness of an argument from the truth of the premises.

[译文 39]

一个前提为真，如果存在……其实，你刚才问了一个很大的哲学问题，不过我简单地说，是的，如果有某个事实让那个句子为真，那它就为真。哎呀，我不敢相信自己居然那么说。从哲学上讲，这话糟透了，但算了，先凑合用。你刚才想说什么？你不能说"你星期五总是穿牛仔裤"，因为你还没有过完所有的星期五，对吧？这就像圣诞树的一面一样。嗯，我希望如此。我还没有过完所有的星期五。这可是终身的事。我还没有过完所有的星期五。你实际上不能那么说。你不能说"你星期五总是穿牛仔裤"。这其实是我们下周要研究的一类论证，也就是归纳论证。归纳论证总是把我们带到比实际能走得更远的地方，它会声称类似"天鹅都是白的"、“Marianne 星期五总是穿牛仔裤"这样的命题。但你仍然可以说，我们不打算深入讨论知识问题——知识的哲学绝对不在本课程范围内。好了，回到我刚才说的话题。你明白"前提是否为真"和"结论是否从前提推出"这两者之间的区别了吗？这才是关键。而之所以要让一个论证成为好论证，是因为结论是从你给出的前提中推出的——所以你必须把"论证的好坏"和"前提的真假"区分开来。

[段 40]

Truth, just because truth is a good thing and validity says a good thing doesn’t make them the same thing. That’s the important thing. We mustn’t just take validity as a sort of general pro word. And in the same way truth isn’t just a general pro word. Okay let’s havegeneral pro word. Okay, let’s have a look at these arguments. Okay, one of them’s good, one of them’s bad. Don’t call out, but just have a look at them yourselves and decide which is the good one and which is the bad one. Who’s deciding? Alright, a bit more time. Okay, who’s decided? Okay. Is that a good argument? Is that a good argument? Well done. Yeah, absolutely. You see, you don’t need to come to this class. No, you’re absolutely right. This is a deductive argument. It gives us absolute certainty in the following sense. If these premises, and I’ll read out the premises, if it’s Monday, the lecture will finish at 3.30, it is Monday therefore the lecture will finish at 3.30 if these premises are both true this conclusion would have to be true wouldn’t it? It couldn’t be false if those two premises are both true so the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion there you couldn’t have those two premises true and that conclusion not so if you believe those two premises rationally speaking you must believe that conclusion that’s what it is to be a rational animal and incidentally I say you’re wasting your time coming to these lectures if you knew that of course that’s nonsense because you’re all rational animals.

[译文 40]

真和有效都是好东西，但真是一个好东西、有效性也是一个好东西，并不意味着它们是同一件事。这是关键。我们不能把"有效性"当成一个笼统的好词来用。同样，“真"也不是一个可以笼统使用的好词。好，我们来看这些论证。其中一个是好论证，一个是坏论证。不要大声喊，自己看一看，决定哪个是好的，哪个是坏的。谁决定？好，再多给一点时间。好，谁决定好了？这个是不是一个好论证？那个是不是一个好论证？答得好。没错，完全正确。你看，你根本不需要来上这门课。不，你完全说对了。这是个演绎论证。它从以下意义上给了我们绝对的确定性。如果这些前提——我来念一下前提——如果今天是星期一，那么讲座将在 3:30 结束，今天是星期一，所以讲座将在 3:30 结束。如果这两个前提都为真，那么这个结论就一定为真，不是吗？只要这两个前提都为真，它就不可能为假。所以前提的真在这里被传递到了结论的真上——你不可能让那两个前提为真而结论却不为真。因此，理性地讲，如果你相信这两个前提，你就必须相信那个结论。这就是作为一个理性的人意味着什么。顺便说一句，如果你们已经知道这些了，那我得说你们来听这些课是浪费时间。当然那是一句废话，因为你们都是理性的人。

[段 41]

You have to be rational animals. You wouldn’t be here if you weren’t because you saw the leaflet or whatever you saw and you thought that sounds interesting. I would like to go to that lecture. That lecture starts at 2 o’clock on Monday, whatever day this is at the moment. Therefore I will go to that lecture hall. Did you not? You had loads of reasons. So we’re talking theoretical arguments here but of course actually arguments are the most practical thing in the world. Your bit of practical reasoning led you here. So each one of you is rational. What we’re doing in these lectures is learning how to explicate our capacity for reason. You know whether a conclusion follows from premises or not. That’s why when you argue in the pub with your sons, daughters, wives or whoever, you know whether what you’re hearing is a good argument or not. there’s something wrong with that argument you say as you readthere’s something wrong with that argument you say as you read the leader in the newspaper or as you play the person on television or something like that. Something wrong with that argument. Your intuitions, your rational intuitions are telling you what you need to know. But what you’re doing in these classes is learning how to make explicit your intuitions, what your intuitions are telling you.

[译文 41]

你们必须是理性的人。如果你们不是理性的人，你们根本不会出现在这里，因为你们看到了传单或者其他什么，你们就想：听起来挺有意思，我想去听那个讲座。那个讲座在星期一两点钟开始，无论今天到底是星期几。所以我会去那个讲座厅。难道你们不是这样吗？你们有一大堆理由。所以我们在这里讨论的是理论上的论证，可是当然，论证其实是世界上最实际的东西。你们那一点点实践推理就把你们带到了这里。所以你们每一个都是理性的。我们在这些课里做的事情，就是学习如何把我们的理性能力讲清楚。你们自己知道一个结论是不是从前提推出的。所以，当你们在酒吧里和儿子、女儿、妻子或者随便什么人争论的时候，你们知道听到的是不是一个好论证。“那个论证有点问题”——你会这么说——当你读报纸上的社论时，或者当你和电视上的人对骂时，或者类似的情况，就会这样想。那个论证有点不对。你的直觉——你的理性直觉——在告诉你需要知道的事情。但你们在这些课上做的事情，是学习如何把直觉明明白白地说出来，弄清楚你的直觉在告诉你什么。

[段 42]

Okay, so your intuitions tell you quite categorically that that’s a good argument and that’s a bad one. What’s wrong with this one? That’s just good. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I don’t need that. It’s not as specific. Yes. Okay. Everything I heard there is good. The fact is that, okay, let me ask you a question. Could it be the case that these two premises are true and yet this conclusion false? Yes. Okay. Can anyone give me a counterexample to this argument? Let me read them out again for the people who can’t hear. if it’s Monday the lecture will finish at 3.30 the lecture will finish at 3.30 therefore it’s Monday can anyone give me a counter example to that argument a situation in which both those premises are true and that conclusion is false a situation in which both those premises are true and that conclusion is false Good, well done All of youGood, well done. Or Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, exactly. This says if it’s Monday the lecture will finish at 3.30. This merely says the lecture will finish at 3.30. It could be Monday, but it might not be. So there is a situation in which both these premises are true and this conclusion is false. Therefore, this is a bad argument. It’s an invalid argument. It’s actually an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. because do you see that the lectures and the arguments whatever they are they look very similar but of course they’re not because this one’s taken the antecedent as the second premise and this one’s taken the consequent as the second premise and we’ll be learning a lot more about fallacies later on in the course.

[译文 42]

好，所以你的直觉非常明确地告诉你，这个是好论证，那个是坏论证。这个有什么问题？那看起来就是好的啊。谢谢，谢谢，谢谢。我不需要那个。还不够具体。是的。好，我刚才听到的所有说法都是好的。事实是这样——好，我来问你们一个问题。有没有可能出现这两个前提都为真而这个结论却为假的情况？会。好。有人能给我举一个这个论证的反例吗？我再念一遍给听不见的人。如果今天是星期一，那么讲座将在 3:30 结束，讲座将在 3:30 结束，所以今天是星期一。有人能给我举一个反例——一个两个前提都为真而结论为假的情形吗？好，答得好。所有人。或者星期三、星期四、星期五，完全正确。这句话说的是：如果今天是星期一，那么讲座将在 3:30 结束。而这仅仅说讲座将在 3:30 结束。它可能是星期一，但也可能不是。所以存在这样一种情况：两个前提都为真，而这个结论为假。因此，这是一个坏论证。它是一个无效论证。它实际上是肯定后件谬误的一个实例。因为你们看到了，这些讲座和这些论证不管是什么，看起来非常相似，但当然它们并不一样，因为这一个把前件作为第二个前提，而那一个把后件作为第二个前提。后面我们还会在课程中学习更多关于谬误的内容。

[段 43]

But that’s it for today. Next week we’re going to look at the all the different sorts of arguments there are and how to distinguish them from each other and then we’re going to get on to learning how to set them out properly and how to evaluate them. Okay, we’ve got a quarter of an hour for questions. Can you tell me how to get a car parked for permit? No. That’s easy. You can try bringing the case or she might be able to tell you but I doubt it. who is this party thatWho is this Barclay that thought the chair was only a concept and what did he sit on? He didn’t think the chair was only a concept.

[译文 43]

但今天就到这里了。下周我们将要看看所有不同种类的论证，以及如何将它们彼此区分开来，然后我们就要开始学习如何恰当地把它们表述出来，以及如何评价它们。好了，我们还有一刻钟来提问题。你能告诉我怎样把车停好办许可证吗？不能。这很简单。你可以试着把这个案子提出来，或者她或许能告诉你，但我不这么认为。谁是这位认为椅子只是一个概念的 Barclay？他又坐在了上面什么？他并没有认为椅子只是一个概念。

[段 44]

It was Bishop Barclay, George Barclay, who lived, I don’t know where he lived, I’m sorry, I can never remember the dates. he believed that our only reason for believing that something exists is because we can either see it now or that we could see it under some other circumstances so if I claim okay what makes it true that this lectern exists we can see it we can hear it, we can touch it all sorts of things what’s more we also believe that were we to come back tonight at midnight and nobody had moved us and so on all other things being equal it would still be here okay so there we have an appeal to actual perceptions okay we can see it now and we’ve got an appeal to counterfactual perceptions if we came at 12 o’clock we would be able to see it and Barclay says you give me a reason for thinking that anything exists that doesn’t depend upon actual or counterfactual perceptions sorry, let me repeat that, you will not be able to givewell, let me rephrase that, you will not be able to give me a reason for thinking that anything exists that doesn’t appeal to one or other of those two. Therefore, if something is unconceivable, then you have no reason for thinking it exists. What about concepts? Well, we experience concepts all the time, don’t we?

[译文 44]

是主教 Barclay，George Barclay，他住在——我不知道他住在哪里，抱歉，我永远记不住他的年代。他认为，我们相信某物存在的唯一理由，要么是我们现在能看到它，要么是我们可以在某些其他情况下看到它。所以，如果我声称，好吧，是什么使得这张讲台存在这件事为真——我们能看到它、听到它、触摸到它，等等各种东西；更重要的是，我们还相信，如果今晚午夜我们再来，并且没有人移动我们等等，其他条件都相同，它仍然会在这里，对吧。所以，这里我们诉诸了实际的感知，好吧，我们现在能看到它；我们也诉诸了反事实的感知，如果我们在十二点来，我们就能够看到它。Barclay 说，如果你要给我一个理由，让我相信任何事物的存在，而这种理由不依赖于实际的或反事实的感知——抱歉，让我重复一下——你将无法给我一个理由，让我相信任何事物的存在，而这种理由不诉诸这两者中的某一种。因此，如果某物是不可想象的，那么你就没有任何理由认为它存在。那概念呢？好吧，我们时时刻刻都在经验着概念，不是吗？

[段 45]

Do they exist? you wouldn’t be thinking a concept is a constituent of a thought so as long as you think you think then you will think in concepts and you have reasons thinking concepts exist sorry is that the same sort of thing as the bird feet collapsing in the middle of the forest somewhere but nobody hearing it yes, I mean the fact is if you were in the forest you would hear it you might want to say No, that’s, I mean, your reason for thinking that the noise exists is that you would hear it if you were there. So that’s a counterfactual perception that you’re basing that on. I mean, Barclay is very important, and he’s a fascinating philosopher, actually. He thinks that physical objects are made up of ideas of ours. He’s one of the first idealists. And he doesn’t mean that you can put your hands through this.And he doesn’t mean that you can put your hands through this because it’s an idea. He just means that my idea of this lectern is an idea made up of partly of solidity. The idea that if I do that, I won’t be able to push any further. That’s a perception, notice. That’s a perception. It’s a bundle of perceptions. Was it as well that we only have second order accounts of everything because this idea that what we see is actually the result of a reaction in the brain to something that comes through the retina and gets translated into a particular way.

[译文 45]

它们存在吗？你不会认为一个概念是思想的构成要素，所以只要你认为自己是在思想，你就会用概念来思想，并且你有理由认为概念是存在的——抱歉，这和森林深处某处鸟儿脚爪塌陷下来却没人听到，是同一类事情吗？是的，我的意思是，事实是，如果你在森林里，你会听到它。你也许想说，不，那是——我的意思是，你认为那个声音存在的理由，是如果你在那里你就会听到它。所以，那是一个反事实的感知，你正是以此为基础的。我的意思是，Barclay 非常重要，而且他实际上是一个迷人的哲学家。他认为物理对象是由我们的观念组成的。他是早期唯心主义者之一。他的意思并不是说你可以把手穿过这个东西。他并不是说因为它是一个观念，你就能把手穿过去。他只是说，我对这张讲台的观念，部分地是由坚实性所构成的观念。即如果我这样做，我的手就不会再往里推进。这是一个感知，注意。这是一个感知。它是一束感知。那么，我们是否也只是对一切拥有二阶的描述？因为这种观念——我们所看到的，实际上是大脑对某种穿过视网膜、被翻译成某种特定方式的东西所作出的反应的结果。

[段 46]

So there’s a kind of projection. I think we sense data perhaps. So that we never see the object directly, we just see the data. Yes, it’s the kind of dark room where something is being played on the screen. but I hope that was… There are two ways of thinking about sense data. One way is now very old-fashioned and we don’t think about that anymore and that’s the way that Russell and Wittgenstein and people like that thought of it which is that we never see the thing itself. We only ever see an idea in our minds. And why would you think that’s the answer? Because you can never be sure that… I mean, are you really sure that I’m here? I mean, your reasons for believing that I’m here if you can see me, hear me and so on, but couldn’t it be with youcan see me, hear me and so on, but couldn’t it be with you exactly as it is now and yet it not be true that I’m here? When you say no, have you never had a lucid dream? You said no. So you don’t think that you can have an experience as if I were here doing what I’m doing and yet I’m not here. You’ll probably have one of those tonight. Dreaming would be one. But here’s another one. What you think at the moment is that you’re having perceptions as of me and that what’s causing those perceptions is me and what’s more, your perceptions are are a good guide to what I’m like.

[译文 46]

所以，这里有一种投射。我想也许是感觉材料吧。于是我们永远无法直接看到对象，我们只看到那些数据。是的，这有点像那种黑屋子里在屏幕上放映着什么东西的景象。但我希望这已经……关于感觉材料有两种思考方式。一种方式现在已经非常过时了，我们不再那样思考了——那就是 Russell、Wittgenstein 以及诸如此类的人所思考的方式：我们永远看不到事物本身，我们只看到我们心中的一个观念。你为什么会认为那是答案？因为你永远无法确信……我的意思是，你真的确信我在这里吗？我的意思是，你相信我在这里的理由，如果你能看到我、听到我等等，但是否有可能一切都和现在完全一样，而事实上我并不在这里？当你说不会时，你难道从未有过一次清晰的梦吗？你说没有。所以你不认为你可以拥有一种经验，就好像我正在这里做着我正在做的事情，而实际上我并不在这里？你今晚很可能会做一次这样的梦。做梦就是一种。但这里还有另一种。你此刻所想的是，你正在拥有仿佛是我的感知，而引起这些感知的是我，而且更重要的是，你的感知是关于我是什么样子的良好指南。

[段 47]

But look, if we talk about the causal relation, if we think that A causes B, we have to know about both A and B, don’t we? We have to see that they’re constantly conjoined, they’re correlated, something like that. We can’t, so we’ve got to be standing here, if you like, to see that A and B are correlated. But if you’re thinking of B as a chain,of B as a chair and A as your idea of a chair and you can’t get outside your ideas. And here is where you stand with respect to your perceptions, isn’t it? How can you get outside your perceptions to see what causes them? You see what I mean? Because you can’t, it’s got an objective existence because you can’t, I can’t change, in a dream you can, if it’s a little dream, Yeah, but we’re not talking about dreams now. We’re talking about… But with something that’s objectively, factually out there, existing, the observer can’t change the movement or whatever. Yeah, hang on. Let me ask the question again. If we’re talking about your idea of a chair, your ideas of a chair, concepts of a chair and so on, and chairs, can you get outside your idea of a chair in order to see that it’s caused by a chair. Now, if it can be with me exactly as it is now, here I am, I’m looking at this chair, I’m touching the chair, I’m hearing the chair, all sorts of things, and yet it’s possible that I might be asleep, and there being no chair here.

[译文 47]

但是你看，如果我们谈论因果关系，如果我们认为 A 引起 B，我们就必须既了解 A 又了解 B，不是吗？我们必须看到它们恒常地联结在一起，它们是相关的，诸如此类。我们做不到，所以，如果我们愿意这么说的话，我们必须站在这里，才能看到 A 和 B 是相关的。但是，如果你把 B 看作一条链——把 B 看作是一把椅子，把 A 看作是你关于椅子的观念——而你又无法走出你的观念。这里就是你相对于你的感知所站立的位置，不是吗？你怎么可能走出你的感知，去看是什么引起了它们？你明白我的意思吗？因为你不能，它具有一种客观的存在，因为在你不能的地方——在梦中你可以，如果是一个小小的梦的话，是的，但我们现在不是在谈论梦。我们是在谈论……但是对于客观地、外在地存在着的事物，观测者无法改变其运动或别的什么。是的，等等。让我把问题再问一遍。如果我们在谈论你关于椅子的观念、你关于椅子的观念、椅子的概念等等，以及椅子本身，你能否走出你关于椅子的观念，以便看到它是由一把椅子引起的？现在，有可能我现在的状态和此刻完全一样——我在这里，我看着这把椅子，我触摸着椅子，我听到椅子，等等各种各样的事情——然而有可能我是在熟睡的，而这里其实并没有椅子。

[段 48]

Even if I’m asleep, I might want to say something like, well, I must have experienced the chair before in order to be able to do this. I could say well why should I think in the first placeI could say, well, why should I think in the first place that there is something that’s causing my perceptions? All I’ve got is my perceptions. I can’t get outside my perceptions to adopt this perspective on them. Can I? So are you saying you could create the idea of a chair in your mind without actually having seen it? Maybe not me creating them. It may be an evil demon. What I’m giving you here is the Cartesian thought experiment. the idea being that if you push what you know to the final degree you’ll see that actually the only reason you believe in the physical universe and things outside yourself and that includes your own body is because you assume that your perceptions are caused by something outside yourself outside your mind and that your mind is a good guide to the nature of these things, and if you question both those perceptions, you’re left with nothing. Because what makes you think that there’s something outside causing your perceptions if all you can see is the perceptions themselves, rather than the causal relation between your perceptions and whatever’s causing them?

[译文 48]

即使我是在熟睡的，我也可能会想说类似这样的话：嗯，我必定是以前经验过这把椅子，才能做出这些动作。我可以说，嗯，我究竟凭什么一开始就要认为存在某种引起我的感知的东西呢？我所拥有的只是我的感知。我无法走出我的感知，从而对它们采取这种视角。我能吗？那么你是在说，你可以在心中创造出椅子的观念，而实际上并没有真的见过它吗？也许不是我在创造它们。也许是一个邪恶的魔鬼。我在这里向你呈现的是笛卡尔的思维实验。其要点是，如果你把你所知道的东西推到极端，你会发现，事实上你之所以相信物质宇宙的存在以及在你之外的事物——这也包括你自己的身体——仅仅是因为你假设你的感知是由你自身之外、你心灵之外的东西所引起的，并且你的心灵是关于这些事物本质的良好指南；而如果你对这两个感知都加以质疑，那你就什么也剩不下了。因为如果你所能看到的只是感知本身，而不是你的感知与引起它们的任何东西之间的因果关系，那么，是什么让你认为存在着某种在外部引起你的感知的东西呢？

[段 49]

We’re getting a bit away from the critical reasoning here. No, we are. the reaction and your tendency to control what’s around you. If you try and do something and the object doesn’t do what you want it to do, thencan do something if the object doesn’t do what he wants to, then it could be that side of me. But all you’re talking about is one experience after another, aren’t you? I mean, there are some perceptions of mine that obey my will, and there are other perceptions of mine that don’t. That chair doesn’t obey my will, that particular perception doesn’t obey my will, whereas others do. I think perhaps I’ve introduced the Cartesian thought experiment with too little time to convince you. I mean you can go away and read the first meditation, it’s very easy to read, actually it doesn’t take much longer to read than… So who argues against it? Barclay. Barclay’s idea, I mean the Cartesian thought experiments completely revolutionised philosophy because it revolutionised our belief that we could claim to have knowledge. Barclay attempted to get over that because if we, okay here’s the world and here’s our mind and here’s the evil demon. If Descartes has shown that once this is in place and you see that could be exactly as it is whatever this is like. You need to say something about our knowledge of the external world and what Barclay is doingknowledge of the external world.

[译文 49]

我们有点偏离批判性思维了。没错，是的。反应以及你控制周围事物的倾向。如果你尝试做某件事，而那个物体没有按你的意愿行事，那……就能做点事，如果那个物体没有按他的意愿行事，那可能是我的那一面。但你所讲的不过是一次又一次的体验，不是吗？ 我的意思是，有些感知会服从我的意志，而另一些则不会。那把椅子不服从我的意志，那种特定的感知不服从我的意志，而其他感知则会。也许我用太少的时间介绍了笛卡尔的思维实验，没能说服你。我的意思是，你可以回去读读《第一哲学沉思集》，其实很容易读，读完所花的时间也不会比……太长。那么谁反对它呢？巴克莱。巴克莱的观点，我的意思是，笛卡尔的思维实验彻底改变了哲学，因为它改变了我们能够声称拥有知识的信念。巴克莱试图克服这一点，因为如果我们，好了，这是世界，这是我们的心灵，这是邪恶的魔鬼。如果笛卡尔已经表明，一旦这一切就位，你就会看到无论这个东西是什么样的，它都可能正是它本来的样子。你需要对外部世界的知识说些什么，以及巴克莱正在做的事情……对外部世界的知识。

[段 50]

And what Barclay is doing is he’s remaking the world in the mind. So if there is nothing more to a physical object than a set of perceptions, and if the only thing of which we can have knowledge is our perceptions, then there’s no reason why we can’t have knowledge of physical objects if they are perceptions. So Barclay was trying to show that we do have knowledge despite the Cartesian force experiment. Anyway, there is no way we’re going to… If you would like to know more about that, you’ll have to come to another set of lectures. Okay. I see there is time for one more question, if anyone would like one. There’s one back there. A lady has a question. If there are three-fourths on the median years, and I can believe you’ve got 30 seconds on each one. No. What do you mean? I don’t know what they’re… Well, they’re all good. They wouldn’t be on the reading list. The short introduction to logic is very interesting, and that’s very easy to read and very short, so I’ll have a go at that. The Hackett book… On the little… The leaflet that went… Okay, well if you look outside you’ll find the leaflets on theIf you look outside you’ll find the leaflets on the thing and you should find reading this bag. I didn’t have any.

[译文 50]

巴克莱所做的事情是，他在心灵中重建世界。因此，如果一个物理对象只不过是一组感知，而我们唯一能够认识的只有我们的感知，那么如果物理对象就是感知，我们就没有理由不能认识它们。所以巴克莱试图证明，尽管有笛卡尔的力实验，我们仍然拥有知识。无论如何，我们没有办法……如果你想了解得更多，你就得去听另一系列讲座了。好的。我看还有时间再回答一个问题，如果有人想问的话。那边有一个。一位女士有问题。如果中位数年份有四分之三，我可以相信你每个有30秒的时间。不。你什么意思？我不知道他们是……嗯，都很好。它们不会出现在书单上。《逻辑学简明导论》非常有趣，而且非常容易读，也非常短，所以我来试试。那本 Hackett 的书……在那个小……那张传单上……好的，好吧，如果你们到外面去看，会发现传单在那上面……如果你们到外面去看，会发现传单在那东西上，你应该能找到读这个包。我没有。

[段 51]

Okay. I was wondering about the book about print. Sorry, say that again? The House of Prince. Yes, I know it’s House of Prince. It’s very irritating, isn’t it? You can get it on Amazon. I’ve tried Amazon. The reason it’s irritating is it’s a very good little book. If you can’t find us on Amazon, let me know. You can’t, that’s right. Okay. I can’t remember who it’s by. Sorry. It’s on the reading list. Okay. I think we’ll stop there. Thank you for coming. See you next week.

[译文 51]

好的。我想问一下那本关于印刷的书。抱歉，再说一遍？《普林斯之家》。是的，我知道是《普林斯之家》。这很让人恼火，不是吗？你可以在亚马逊上买到。我试过亚马逊。让人恼火的原因是，这是一本非常好的小书。如果你在亚马逊上找不到我们，告诉我。你找不到的，没错。好的。我不记得是谁写的了。抱歉。它在书单上。好的。我想我们就到这里吧。谢谢大家的到来。下周见。