15. Whyshould we do deep analysis_
15.為什麼要做深入分析_

Segment 15, what is deepanalysis?
第15部分，什麼是深度分析？

And the previoustwo segments, we study close analysis. That method focuses on the actual words,in an argument, one word at a time in this and the following segments, we willturn to deep analysis. Deep analysis goes beyond the individual words touncover implicit assumptions and larger structures in arguments.
前兩個部分，我們研究了緊密分析。這種方法側重於實際的單詞，在一個論點中，一次一個單詞在本節和下面的部分，我們將轉向深入分析。深入的分析超越了單個詞，揭示了論點中隱含的假設和更大的結構。

Why do we needto dig deeper? Well, to understand what people mean, you need to listen to whatthey say, but you cannot stop there. People often leave out the most importantparts of their arguments. They take crucial claims and structures for grantedwithout mentioning them explicitly. I might be trying to fool you so that youdo not question their assumptions or they might not realize what they'reassuming.
為什麼我們需要更深入地挖掘？好吧，要理解人們的意思，你需要聽他們說什麼，但你不能就此止步。人們常常唿略他們爭論中最重要的部分。他們認為關鍵的要求和結構是理所當然的，但没有明確提及。我可能是想愚弄你，這樣你就不會質疑他們的假設，或者他們可能没有意識到他們在假設什麼。

And then theyget fooled themselves. Either way assumptions often hide mistakes that becomeclear when everything is made explicit. The goal of deep analysis is to uncoverthose assumptions, make them explicit and thereby avoid those mistakes.
然后他們自己被騙了。不管怎樣，假設往往會隱藏錯誤，當一切都變得明確時，這些錯誤就會變得明顯。深入分析的目的是揭示這些假設，使之明確，從而避免這些錯誤。

How do we do deep analysis in severalsteps? The first step is to perform a close analysis. This method builds on theprevious one argument markers in particular, tell us which claims are premisesand which claims are conclusions in the argument that we're trying to analyze.The second step in deep analysis is to remove extraneous words that are notessential to the argument.
我們如何分幾個步驟進行深入分析？第一步是進行仔細分析。這個方法特别建立在前面的單參數標記的基礎上，告訴我們哪些聲明是前提，哪些聲明是我們要分析的論證中的結論。深入分析的第二步是刪除對論點不重要的外來詞。

People often saya lot more than they really need to say. They go off on tangents. They'reverbose. The third step in deep analysis is to clarify any vague or ambiguouswords in the argument. This step helps us avoid some common confusions andfallacies. The fourth step is to break up the premises and conclusions intoparts, such as when one sentence jumbles together, two
人們經常說得比他們真正需要說的多得多。他們走的是切線。他們太囉嗦了。深入分析的第三步是澄清論點中任何含糊或模棱兩可的詞。這一步有助於我們避免一些常見的混淆和謬誤。第四步是把前提和結論分成幾個部分，比如一個句子混在一起，兩個句子混在一起

different claims.
不同的主張。

The fifth stepis to arrange those parts in order so that it is clear which premises support,which conclusion. The sixth step is to add new parts called suppress premisesor assumptions that are needed to make the argument work properly. The resultof this method of deep analysis is a reconstruction of the argument.
第五步是將這些部分按順序排列，以便清楚地知道哪些前提支持哪些結論。第六步是添加稱為抑制前提或假設的新部分，這些部分是使參數正常工作所必需的。這種深入分析方法的結果是對論據的重構。

So deep analysiscan also be called reconstruction. Here's a simple example to get us startedthinking about this argument. A meteor must've killed the dinosaurs because myfriend's teacher told her that that's what happened. And her parents agreed inperforming a deep analysis of this argument. The first step is to do a closeanalysis, to look at the words one by one, the word because is an argumentmarker, and indeed a reason marker.
因此，深入分析也可以稱為重構。這里有一個簡單的例子讓我們開始思考這個論點。一定是流星殺死了恐龍，因為我朋友的老師告訴她發生了這樣的事。她的父母同意對這個論點進行深入分析。第一步是做一個仔細的分析，把單詞逐一看出來，因為這個詞是一個論點標記，實際上也是一個原因標記。

So it tells us that the sentences afterit, our premises or reasons. The term must is an assuring term, a meteorite must'vekilled the dinosaurs, assures you that a meteorite did kill the dinosaurs. Thesecond step in doing a deep analysis is to remove extraneous words. What aboutthat word must have, well, it's not really needed the argument's really tryingto show that a meteorite did kill the dinosaurs.
所以它告訴我們后面的句子，我們的前提或理由。這個詞必須是一個令人信服的術語，隕石一定殺死了恐龍，向你保證隕石確實殺死了恐龍。進行深入分析的第二步是刪除無關詞。那這個詞應該有什麼呢，嗯，其實不需要這個論點是想證明隕石確實殺死了恐龍。

It's not tryingto show that this must have happened, could not have happened any other way. Sothe real conclusion is just this, a meteoric kill the dinosaurs. And what aboutthe premises? A friend's teacher told her that a meteoric killed the dinosaurs.Well, a friend's teacher told her this. It doesn't really matter whether thisteacher was my friend's teacher.
它並不是要證明這一定發生了，不可能以其他方式發生。這是一個真正的結論。那房子呢？一個朋友的老師告訴她流星殺死了恐龍。一個朋友的老師告訴她這個。這位老師是否是我朋友的老師並不重要。

The teacherwould be just as reliable. If my friend were in a different class with adifferent teacher. It also does not matter that the teacher told this to myfriend, what matters is what the teacher said, not whom this teacher said itto. So the real premise in this argument is just that this teacher said that'swhat
老師也同樣可靠。如果我的朋友和另一個老師在另一個班。老師把這件事告訴我的朋友也無關緊要，重要的是老師說了什麼，而不是這個老師對誰說的。所以這場爭論的真正前提是，這位老師說這是什麼

happened.
發生了。

Step three is toclarify vague words. Well, what does that refer to him? That's what happened.It should be pretty clear that it means immediate or kill the dinosaurs. Whathappened is simply that a meteor kill the dinosaurs. So the real premise isthis teacher said then a meaty or kill the dinosaurs.
第三步是澄清模糊詞語。好吧，那是什麼意思？事情就是這樣。很明顯，恐龍應該立即被殺死。所發生的只是流星殺死了恐龍。所以真正的前提是這個老師說那是一只肉食恐龍還是殺死恐龍。

What about thelast part of the argument and her parents agreed? Well, they agreed with what,what clearly they agreed that immediate or kill the dinosaurs. This might bepretty obvious, but it's worth making explicit. Of course, we get clarify a lotmore. Which dinosaurs were killed. Was it all of them or only those that werealive at the time when the media are strong?
爭論的最后一部分她父母同意了怎麼辦？他們很清楚地同意恐龍會立即殺死什麼。這可能很明顯，但值得明確說明。當然，我們需要澄清更多。哪些恐龍被殺了。是他們全部還是那些在媒體強大的時候還活著的人？

And how did the meteoric kill the dinosaurs immediately and directlyby hitting them? Or did it take awhile and was it a medium or a meteorite? Thisprocess of clarification can continue forever. So you should not try to clarifyeverything. That's a fool's errand. It's just not possible. All you need to dois clarify the parts that are likely to cause confusion.
流星是如何直接直接撞擊恐龍而殺死它們的？還是花了一段時間，它是一顆中等大小的隕石還是一顆隕石？這一澄清過程可以永遠持續下去。所以你不應該試圖澄清一切。那是愚蠢的差事。這是不可能的。你需要做的就是澄清那些可能引起混淆的部分。

So what we'vealready clarified is probably enough for now. Step four and deep analysis is tobreak up the premises and conclusions into parts, such as when one sentencemakes two independent claims. In this argument, what comes after the word?Because is this premise? My friend's teacher told her that's what happened andher parents agreed.
所以我們已經澄清的可能已經足夠了。第四步和深入分析是將前提和結論分解成若干部分，例如當一句話提出兩個獨立的主張時。在這個論點中，單詞后面是什麼？因為這是前提嗎？我朋友的老師告訴她發生了這樣的事，她的父母同意了。

The point ispresumably something like this, two independent authorities agree, but ifthey're independent, then we can break them up. This teacher said a meteorickilled the dinosaurs. That's premise one and premise two is these parentsagreed that a meteoric killed the dinosaurs. So now we've broken up one premisethat conjoined the two parts into two premises with those parts separated.
問題大概是這樣的，兩個獨立的當局同意，但是如果他們是獨立的，那麼我們可以把他們分開。這位老師說是流星殺死了恐龍。前提一和前提二是父母同意流星殺死了恐龍。所以現在我們分解了一個前提，把兩個部分連接成兩個前提，這些部分分開。

Next, we need toturn to step five, which is to arrange the parts. In order. In our example, theconclusion came first. It said a meteoric killed the dinosaurs. Because it'sclearer and less confusing to use a standard order for all arguments that makesit easier to compare one argument with another. And typically what logicians dois they put the premises first and the conclusion
接下來，我們需要轉到第五步，即安排零件。整齊。在我們的例子中，結論是第一位的。據說是流星殺死了恐龍。因為對所有參數使用一個標準的順序可以更容易地將一個參數與另一個參數進行比較，這樣會更清晰、更不容易混淆。邏輯學家通常會把前提放在第一位，把結論放在第一位

last.
最后。

So in ourexample, premise one is this teacher said a meteoric killed the dog source.Premise two is these parents agreed that a meteoric killed the dinosaurs. Andthe conclusion is a meteor did kill the dinosaurs. Pretty easy, but this stepwill become more complex in chains or series of arguments that
所以在我們的例子中，前提一是這個老師說是流星殺死了狗源。前提二是這些父母同意一顆流星殺死了恐龍。結論是流星確實殺死了恐龍。很容易，但是這一步會變得更加復雜

we'll look at later.
我們稍后再看。

Finally, stepsix is to add new parts called suppress premises or assumptions that are neededto make the argument work well. So what's assumed in our example, think aboutit. Remember that our argument has now been reconstructed like this. Thisteacher said that to me or killed the dinosaurs.
最后，第六步是添加新的部分，稱為“抑制前提”或“假設”，這些部分是使論證有效運行所必需的。所以在我們的例子中假設的是什麼，仔細想想。請記住，我們的論點現在是這樣重新構建的。這個老師對我說還是殺了恐龍。

Those parents said thatmeteoric killed the dinosaurs.
那些父母說流星雨殺死了恐龍。

Therefore a meteoric killthe dinosaurs.
所以流星殺死了恐龍。

one way toidentify hidden assumptions is to ask yourself what discovery would ruin theargument and make it no good here. The answer is. The argument would be no goodif the teacher and the parents didn't know what they were talking about, or ifthey knew, but they were just joking or lying for some ridiculous reason.
識别隱藏的假設的一種方法是問問自己，什麼發現會破壞論據，使其在這里毫無用處。答案是。如果老師和家長不知道他們在說什麼，或者他們知道，但他們只是為了一些可笑的原因開玩笑或撒謊，那麼這場爭論就没有什麼用了。

So this argumentassumes a suppress premise like this, whatever this teacher and parents bothsay about dinosaurs is true. That's the new part, the suppressed premise thatwe need to add in order to complete the argument and make it work properly,notice that we do not need to add that everything they say is true, nobodywould believe that because everybody makes mistakes.
所以這個論點假設了這樣一個壓抑的前提，不管這位老師和家長對恐龍說什麼都是真的。這是一個新的部分，我們需要加上一個被壓抑的前提，為了完成論點並使其正常工作，請注意，我們不需要再加上他們所說的一切都是真的，没有人會相信，因為每個人都會犯錯誤。

And besides thearguments just fine without it, we should not be adding suppress premises thatare not necessary to make the argument work. Similarly, we could split thisone, suppress premise into two, instead of adding this one claim, namely thatwhatever this teacher and the parents both say about dinosaurs is true.
除了没有它的論點之外，我們不應該添加使論證有效的不必要的抑制前提。類似地，我們可以把這個前提分解成兩個，而不是加上這一個斷言，即老師和家長對恐龍的看法都是正確的。

We can add thesetwo claims, whatever this teacher says about Donna's sources. True. And second,whatever these parents say about dinosaurs. It's true. However, if we separatethe suppress premise into two parts, then the reconstruction loses a crucialelement. Independent authorities, like teachers and parents are more of aliable when they agree with each other.
我們可以加上這兩個說法，不管這位老師怎麼說唐娜的消息來源。是的。第二，不管這些父母怎麼說恐龍。這是真的。然而，如果我們將抑制前提分為兩部分，那麼重構就失去了一個關鍵因素。獨立的權威機構，如教師和家長，在彼此同意的情況下，會承擔更多的責任。

So the argumentlooks better when the suppress premise claims only this, whatever this teacherand parents both say about dinosaurs is true. We should always try toreconstruct arguments so that they are as strong as possible. That is aprinciple of charity be charitable. Well, why should we be charitable don't wewant to refute our opponents when we ought to be charitable so that we can learnmore.
因此，當抑制前提只聲明這一點時，這個論點看起來更好，無論這位老師和家長都說恐龍是真的。我們應該總是試圖重建論點，使它們儘可能地強大。這是一個慈善的原則。好吧，為什麼我們應該善解人意呢？當我們應該善解人意的時候，我們不想反駁我們的對手，這樣我們就能學到更多。

Remember thatthe goal of argument is not to refute your opponents. It's not victory, butprogress and understanding. Still, we can't always make an argument good orstrong. Some arguments are just plain bad. Sometimes we have to add suppresspremises that are false or at the very least questionable. And our examples ofcase in point, we need to add this premise, what this teacher and parents bothsay about dinosaurs is true.
記住爭論的目的不是反駁你的對手。這不是勝利，而是進步和理解。不過，我們也不能總是提出一個好的或有力的論點。有些爭論實在是糟糕透頂。有時，我們必須添加禁止前提，這是錯誤的，或者至少是值得懷疑的。作為例子，我們需要加上這個前提，老師和家長都說恐龍是真的。

However thatpremise is still not obvious and is sometimes false depending on the teacherand the parents. Your argument might be trying to trick us by leaving out adubious premise, or it might be an honest mistake, but the suppress premise isquestionable either way. Sure. Our reconstruction tells us where to focus inassessing or evaluating the argument we need to ask whether it's really true,that what this teacher and these parents both say about dinosaurs is true.
然而，這一前提仍然不明顯，有時根據老師和家長的不同是錯誤的。你的論點可能是想通過唿略一個不可靠的前提來欺騙我們，或者這可能是一個誠實的錯誤，但是壓制的前提無論如何都是值得懷疑的。當然。我們的重建告訴我們，在評估或評估爭論的重點時，我們需要問它是否真的是真的，這位老師和這些家長都說恐龍是真的。

That's it? Forthis example, it's pretty simple, but it illustrates the general method of deepanalysis. The later segments, we'll go into more detail and apply this methodto more complex cases. But first we need to explain the technical notion ofvalidity. That notion will be central to the method of deep analysis because itaffects which suppress premise Yves need to be added.
就這樣？對於這個例子，它非常簡單，但它說明了深入分析的一般方法。在后面的部分中，我們將更詳細地介紹並將此方法應用於更復雜的情況。但首先我們需要解釋有效性的技術概念。這個概念將是深入分析方法的核心，因為它影響到需要添加的抑制前提Yves。

They'll alsogive us one partial tool for evaluating or assessing some arguments as eithergood or bad. That's the topic of the next segment.
他們也會給我們一個部分的工具來評估或評估一些論點的好壞。這是下一節課的主題。