什么是论证？

“论证”这个词有好几个含义，所以我们第一个任务就是澄清并注意到它们之间的区别。一个通常的含义是“争吵”，就像句子里的说法“他们正在激烈的争吵，就像在比赛谁的声音更尖锐。”因为争吵表达出的情绪多过思考，自我的冲突常常将争吵退化成毫无意义的胡言乱语，这个定义上的论证和批判性思维毫无关系。那么，基于我们的目标，论证不是争吵。

论证的另一个含义是“在两个人或更多人之间交换意见”，就像一个正规的辩论会上发生的。从这个单词的这个含义上看，论证是一个理想的由不同意见人共同工作，努力合作，以达成对议题更深刻、更精确、更好的理解。在这些努力中，自我被控制住，并且每个人虽然要成为正确的，但还是愿意被证明自己是错的。既然每个人都处在这个更高洞见的过程中，没有失败者。哎，自我没有那么容易被压制。另外，我们大多数已经习惯了认为在每一个论证中必须有胜利者和失败者，就像在运动员比赛。于是我们经常更多地聚焦在相对我们的“对手”的“得分点”，而不是知识和智慧的增长，结果，即使我们竭尽全力，也常常不能达到这种理想状态。

虽然作为“在两个人或更多人之间交换意见”，论证和批判性思维相关，这个单词的另一个含义更为重要——挑战成为批判性思考者。在这个含义上，论证意味着“支持一个判断的推理思路”。当我们说，“约翰关于死刑议题的论证比莎莉的更有说服力，”我们关注的是在整体考量中他个人贡献的质量。因为我们这一章，和全本书的主要关注点是评估个人的论证，你自己的和他人的一样对待，这个定义是我们将要关注的。

将论证看作没有数学符号的语言等式会有帮助。一个数学等式是这样的形式1 + 1 =2 或者 2 - 1 =1。语言等式在不使用减号、加号或者等于号情况下表达相似的关系。这有个案例：

法律禁止老师在公立学校带领学生祷告。
维诺娜在她的公立学校教室中带领学生祷告，因此，维诺娜违法了。

就像数学等式，论证可以简单，也可能复杂。就像数学等式可以由很多数字组成一样（342+186+232+111+871），论证的结果可能从很多前提（判断）而来。就像一个列式中错误的数字导致错误的结果一样，有一个错误的断言会导致错误的结论。在课堂中祷告的论证中，如果我们错误地认为法律允许老师带领学生祷告，我们的结论就是维诺娜没有违反法律，那这个结论就是错误的。

当然，数学等式和论证不完全一样。一个重要的区别就是论证通常更复杂并且难以测试。维他命C可以预防普通感冒还是减轻它的症状？电视暴力会促进真实的暴力吗？约翰F肯尼迪的死亡是一个简单的暗杀吗？以色列在2006年轰炸黎巴嫩是公正的吗？在这些和其他事务中，证据要么不完整，要么没有公开解释。

注：对于argument一词，我最开始翻译成争论，非常不恰当。看到中译本（作者：顾肃、董玉荣）后，改成“论证”。

原文：

What Is Argument?

The word argument has several meanings, so our first task is to clarify each and note how it differs from the others. One common meaning is “a quarrel,” as in the sentence “They had a heated argument, a real screaming match.” Because a quarrel consists less of thought than of emotion, a clash of egos that frequently degenerates into mindless babble, this definition of argument has little relevance to critical thinking. For our purposes, therefore, an argument is not a quarrel.

Another meaning of argument is “the exchange of opinions between two or more people,” as occurs in a formal debate. In this sense of the term, an argument is ideally a cooperative endeavor in which people with different viewpoints work together to achieve a deeper, more accurate, understanding of an issue. In such an endeavor egos are controlled and everyone, though wanting to be right, is willing to be proved wrong. Since everyone emerges from the process with greater insight, no one loses. Alas, egos are not easily suppressed. Besides, most of us have been conditioned to believe there must be a winner and a loser in every argument, just as in every athletic contest. Thus we often focus more on “scoring points” against our “opponent” than on growing in knowledge and wisdom, so even our best efforts tend to fall short of the ideal.

Although argument as “the exchange of opinions between two or more people” is relevant to critical thinking, another meaning of the term is even more relevant to the challenge of becoming a critical thinker. Argument, in this sense, means “the line of reasoning that supports a judgment.” When we say, “John’s argument on the issue of capital punishment was more persuasive than Sally’s,” we are focusing on the quality of his individual contribution to the overall deliberation. Because our main concern in this chapter, as throughout this book, is the evaluation of individual arguments, your own as well as other people’s, this definition is the one we will focus on.

It can be helpful to think of an argument as a kind of verbal equation
without mathematical symbols. Anumerical equation has the form 1 + 1 =2 or 2 - 1 =1. A verbal equation expresses similar relationships without using minus, plus, or equal signs. Here is an example:

The law prohibits teachers from leading class prayers in public schools.
Wynona leads students in prayer in her public school classroom. Therefore, Wynona is breaking the law.

Like numerical equations, arguments may be complex as well as simple. Just as the sum in a numerical equation may be composed of many numbers (342 + 186 +232 + 111+ 871), so the conclusion of an argument may proceed from many premises (assertions). And just as having an incorrect number in a column of figures will result in a wrong total, so having an incorrect assertion will lead to a wrong conclusion.* In the class prayer argument, if we mistakenly think that the law permits teachers to lead students in prayer, our conclusion would be that Wynona is not breaking the law, and that conclusion would be wrong.

Numerical equations and arguments are not, however, entirely similar. One important difference is that an argument is often more complex and difficult to test. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold or lessen its severity? Does television violence cause real violence? Was John F. Kennedy killed by a single assassin? Was Israel justified in bombing Lebanon in 2006? In these and many other matters, the evidence is either not yet complete or is open to interpretation.