9.Guarding premises
9.守衛處所

Segment nine guardian,
第九段守護者，

our first way tostart an argument without having to justify the premises is to weaken or guardthose premises. Now this strategy might seem counterintuitive. Don't we wantstrong premises instead of weak ones. Well, that depends on your goals and alsoon what you mean by the term weak. If your goal is to draw attention to yourclaims and yourself, then you might try to make outrageous claims.
我們在不必為前提辯護的情況下開始辯論的第一個方法是削弱或保護這些前提。現在這一策略似乎有悖常理。我們不需要強前提而不是弱前提。好吧，這取決於你的目標，也取決於你所說的“軟弱”一詞的含義。如果你的目標是讓人們注意到你和你自己的主張，那麼你可能會試圖做出無恥的聲明。

However, whenyou claim a lot, then it becomes easier for others to criticize your claim andyou to show that you're wrong. For example, suppose somebody says everybody whoknows anything about COVID-19 knows more
然而，當你要求很多的時候，别人就更容易批評你的主張，你也就更容易表明你錯了。例如，假設有人說所有知道COVID-19的人都知道更多

than ourgovernor. That's a very strong plan because it's about everybody who knowsanything about COVID-19 contrast that with a weaker claim, scientific expertsknow more than our governor.
比我們的州長。這是一個非常有力的計劃，因為它涉及到所有對COVID-19有任何了解的人，相比之下，科學專家知道的比我們的州長還要多。

That's not abouteverybody who knows anything about COVID-19. It's only about scientificexperts. Now the former claim, everybody who knows anything about COVID-19knows more than our governor might be funny and
這不是所有知道COVID-19的人的事。只是關於科學專家。前一種說法是，任何對COVID-19有所了解的人都比我們的州長知道的還要多

it might even persuade orconvince them. But it's false. It's just not true that
它甚至可以說服或說服他們。但這是假的。這不是真的

everybody whoknows anything about COVID-19 knows more than our governor.
所有知道COVID-19的人都比我們的州長知道的多。

Cause a bunch ofyoung kids know something about COVID-19 and that makes that claim easy torefute. The latter weaker claim is true and easy to demonstrate. You can showthat scientific experts know more than our governor, because you can just lookat what they say and what the governor says. So this latter claim aboutscientific experts is weaker because it claims less and that makes it easier todefend.
因為很多孩子知道一些關於COVID-19的東西，這使得這種說法很容易反駁。后一種較弱的說法是真實的，很容易證明。你可以證明科學專家比我們的州長知道的更多，因為你可以看看他們說了什麼，州長說了什麼。因此，后一種關於科學專家的說法比較弱，因為它的主張較少，而且更容易辯護。

That's the pointof guarding our premises. You choose words to make your premises easier todefend against critics and less in need of justification because more peoplewill agree with your premises. If others can't criticize your premises, thenthey're not going to ask you to justify them. So that's the strategy and thereare three main kinds of guarding, three main ways to weaken your premises.
這就是守衛我們房屋的重點。你用詞是為了讓你的前提更容易抵禦批評，也不需要辯解，因為更多的人會同意你的前提。如果别人不能批評你的前提，那麼他們不會要求你為他們辯護。所以這就是策略，有三種主要的守衛，三種主要的削弱你的前提的方法。

In order to makethem less susceptible to refutation, one kind changes the extent or the scopeor the range of cases that the premise covers. Here's an example.
為了使其不易受到反駁，一種是改變前提所涵蓋的範圍或範圍。這里有一個例子。

We need majorreforms in the police because all police officers are racist all really well.How about the African-American police officer? Who's in charge of theanti-racism task force. Well, most police officers are racist really over 50%.That's what most means. How do you know it's over 50% if you do a
我們需要對警察進行重大改革，因為所有的警察都是種族主義者。非洲裔美國警官呢？誰負責反種族主義特别工作組。好吧，大多數警察種族主義者的比例都超過了50%。這才是最重要的。你怎麼知道超過50%如果你

statistical study.
統計研究。

Okay. I don't know whether it's most butmany police officers are racist. Okay. But Helen, Mary, have you counted them?It's too many. There shouldn't be any. I agree. There shouldn't be any racistin the police force, but then all you're saying is that some police officersare racist. Well, yes, I guess that is all I'm claiming, but you can't denythat.
可以。我不知道是不是大多數警察都是種族主義者。可以。但是海倫，瑪麗，你數過嗎？太多了。不應該有。我同意。警察隊伍里不應該有任何種族主義者，但你所說的就是有些警察是種族主義者。嗯，是的，我想這就是我要說的，但你不能否認。

Okay. I grant you thatsome police officers are racist, but what's that
可以。我承認有些警察是種族主義者，但那是什麼

supposed to show now?What just happened here? One person makes a
現在應該展示嗎？剛才發生什麼事了？一個人做一個

strong claim.All police officers are racist. And then weekends it to most, we can sit tomany, we can sit to som this person added guarding terms to make the premiseweaker and easier to defend.
強烈的要求。所有的警察都是種族主義者。而到了週末它最多，我們可以坐到很多，我們可以坐到索姆這個人身上加上守衛條款，使前提更加薄弱，更容易防守。

It's harder todefend all than it is to defend most. It's harder to defend most than it is todefend many it's harder to find many than it is to defend some. But is thisvictory? Does the argue or when, when, when they get all the way down to theclaim that some police officers are racist, just because they can defend thatclaim.
保護所有人比保衛大多數人都難。保衛大多數人比保衛許多人更難找到許多人比保衛一些人更難。但這是勝利嗎？他們是在爭論，還是什麼時候，什麼時候，當他們一路深入到聲稱一些警察是種族主義者的時候，僅僅因為他們能為這種說法辯護。

Well, it'spartly a victory because you can't deny it. Some police officers are racist.But partly it's not a victory because now that guarded premise is too weak tosupport the conclusion. Remember the original argument, we need major reformsin the police because all police officers are racist. This was guarded till itbecame, we need major reforms and the police, because some
你不能否認這是勝利。有些警察是種族主義者。但在一定程度上，這並不是一場勝利，因為現在保守的前提太弱了，無法支持這個結論。記住最初的論點，我們需要對警察進行重大改革，因為所有的警察都是種族主義者。我們需要重大改革和警察，因為

police officers areracist.
警察是種族主義者。

Well, wait aminute. The premise that some police officers are racist is too weak to showthat we need major reforms in the police. Yes. Some are racist and that'shorrible, and we should try to root those out, but that doesn't mean we needmajor reforms. Maybe something less severe will solve the problem.
好吧，等等。一些警官種族主義的前提太弱了，不足以表明我們需要對警察進行重大改革。對。有些人是種族主義者，這很可怕，我們應該努力鏟除這些人，但這並不意味著我們需要重大改革。也許不那麼嚴重的事情會解決問題。

Of course, theconclusion still might be true. Indeed. I think it is true. We do need majorreforms in policing, but the point here is just that this particular argumentfor that conclusion does not work because the guardian has gone too far. Now,the trick here is to make your premise weak enough to defend.
當然，結論仍然可能是正確的。的確。我認為這是真的。我們確實需要在警務方面進行重大改革，但這里的重點是，這一結論的特殊論點行不通，因為《衛報》走得太遠了。現在，這里的訣竅是讓你的前提足夠弱，足以防禦。

But still strongenough to support the conclusion like Goldilocks who wanted her pars to be nottoo hot, not too cold, but just right. We want our premises to be not toostrong, not too weak, but just right. In other words, argue is, need to findthe middle way. As in Buddhism, according to tradition, the Buddha was supposedto have said, quote, monks.
但仍然有足夠的力量來支持這個結論，就像金發姑娘一樣，她希望她的PAR不要太熱，不要太冷，但要恰到好處。我們希望我們的前提不是太強，不是太弱，而是恰到好處。換言之，爭論就是，需要找到中間的方法。在佛教中，根據傳統，佛陀應該說，引用，僧侶。

These extremesought not to be practiced by. One was gone forth from the household life closequote. Well, I say arguous extreme premises ought not to be used by anyone whohas taken this course. The problem of course, is to find the answer to thequestion, which way is the middle way to find the right strength of premise takestraining and practice.
這些極端不應該被實踐。一個是從家庭生活的密切引述。好吧，我說，任何學過這門課的人都不應該使用這種含糊的極端前提。問題當然是要找到問題的答案，哪條路是找到正確力量的中間途徑的前提，需要訓練和練習。

And that's whatthis course is for. But one thing we can say already is that, you know, youhave found the middle ground when you have the weakest premise that is stillstrong enough to support your conclusion.
這就是這門課的目的。但有一件事我們已經可以說，你知道，你已經找到了中間立場，當你有一個最弱的前提，仍然足以支持你的結論。

the same pointapplies to the second kind of guarding terms, which concerned probability, thiskind of guarding term changes. The likelihood that the premise claims here's anexample. I haven't heard a weather report, but just fuck at the clouds. Surelyit's going to rain. So we shouldn't go on a picnic.
這一點同樣適用於第二類保護條款，它涉及到概率，這種保護條款會發生變化。前提聲明的可能性就是一個例子。我還没聽到天氣預報，只是胡說八道。肯定要下雨了。所以我們不應該去野餐。

Are you reallysure? No, but I guess I'm not sure, but it'll probably rain probably, but hellprobable. And how do you know how probable it is? Okay. You're right. I don'tknow anything about probability, but it might rain. You have to grant thatmuch. Okay. So this is a lot like our previous example, the discussion movesfrom surely to probably.
你真的確定嗎？没有，但我想我不確定，但很可能會下雨，但很有可能。你怎麼知道可能性有多大？可以。你說得對。我對概率一無所知，但可能會下雨。你必須給予那麼多。可以。所以這很像我們前面的例子，討論從肯定轉移到可能。

Two, it might,right. It's easy to deny that rain is certain or sure to fall, but you can'tdeny that it might rain well, unless you're in a desert or something like that.But the weakest form, namely saying that it might rain no longer supports theconclusion. Remember the argument was that we shouldn't go on a picnic becauseit's going to rain.
兩個，可能吧。人們很容易否認一定會下雨，但你不能否認可能會下雨，除非你在沙漠或類似的地方。但最薄弱的形式，也就是說可能會下雨，不再支持這個結論。記得當時的爭論是我們不應該去野餐，因為天要下雨了。

Well, you wouldnever go on any picnic if you refuse to go whenever it might rain, because italways might rain. You may not accept in a desert. I know you're thinking that.And the same point applies in the rest of your life. You would never doanything. If you refuse to do anything that might fail because any projectalways might fail.
好吧，如果你拒絕去任何可能下雨的地方，你就永遠不會去野餐，因為總是可能下雨。在沙漠里你不可能接受。我知道你在想這個。同樣的道理也適用於你的余生。你什麼都不會做。如果你拒絕做任何可能失敗的事情，因為任何項目都可能失敗。

So the realissue is not what's possible, but how much chance you're willing to take. Andthat needs to be spelled out in the premises. If the argument is going to besuccessful. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not criticizing this kind ofgarden or any kind of garden. Gardening does have its place because sometimesyou don't want to take the chance.
所以真正的問題不在於什麼是可能的，而是你願意冒多大的風險。這需要在房地里詳細說明。如果爭論成功的話。現在，讓我說清楚，我不是在批評這種花園或任何類型的花園。園藝確實有它的位置，因為有時你不想冒險。

You know, for example, you shouldn't smokecigarettes because you might get lung cancer. The chances are significant andtoo high. We don't have to say you definitely will get lung cancer. Youshouldn't smoke cigarettes because you might get lung cancer because there's asignificant chance that
比如說，你不應該吸煙，因為你不應該得肺癌。機會很大，而且太高了。我們不必說你一定會得肺癌。你不應該吸煙，因為你可能會得肺癌，因為有很大的可能性

you'll get lung cancer.
你會得肺癌的。

But gardeningcan be abused and overused. Some people just seem to say, ah, this might be thecase. It may be the case. It can be the case. Whenever they say anything, theydon't want to go out on a limb and make a claim that might be criticized, butthen they never get anywhere. Or at least they never say enough.
但是園藝可以被濫用和過度使用。有些人似乎只是說，啊，可能是這樣。可能是這樣。可能是這樣。無論什麼時候他們說什麼，他們都不想冒著危險提出一個可能會受到批評的主張，但是他們永遠也得不到任何進展。或者至少他們從來没說夠。

To justify theirconclusions and then they are subject to another kind of criticism. If someoneclaims too much, you can reply. Oh yeah. But if they claim too little, then youcan reply. So what so what? It doesn't matter because it doesn't support theconclusion. Anyway, the trick is to find a good way to steer between thesereplies.
為了證明他們的結論是正確的，然后他們就會受到另一種批評。如果有人要求太多，你可以回復。哦，是的。但如果他們要求太少，那麼你可以回答。那又怎樣又怎樣？没關系，因為它不支持這個結論。總之，訣竅是找到一個好的方法來引導這些回答。

A good argumentis one that cannot be refuted by asking either. Oh, or so what
一個好的論點是一個不能用任何一個問題來反駁的論點。哦，大概吧什麼

third finalcommon kind of guarding term is psychological. It's psychological insofar asthat describes the mental state of the speaker. Here's a quick example. I knowthis POS is done so we should pick it out of the boiling water. How do youknow, have you tried it? No, I guess, I don't know, but I believe it's donefine, but why do you believe that?
最后一個常見的守衛術語是心理。它是心理上的，因為它描述了演講者的心理狀態。下面是一個簡單的例子。我知道這個POS已經完成了，所以我們應該把它從沸水里拿出來。你怎麼知道，你試過嗎？不，我想，我不知道，但我相信它做得很好，但你為什麼相信呢？

No reasonreally? Because I'm hungry. Again, the guardian term makes the premise hard todeny and easy to defend. Again, arguing needs to find the middle way betweenthe premise being too strong to defend and too weak to support the conclusion.And again, these guardian churns are useful, but they can be abused andoverused.
真的没有理由？因為我餓了。同樣，監護人的術語使前提難以否認，也易於辯護。同樣，爭論需要在前提太強而無法辯護和太弱而無法支持結論之間找到一條中間道路。再說一次，這些守護者的攪動是有用的，但它們可能被濫用和過度使用。

Some people seemto say, I believe this. I believe that before everything they say, and then youcan't deny their premise because you can't say no, you don't believe that it'snot really necessary to put, I believe before your sentences, at least if wecan assume that you're honest, because then you
有些人似乎說，我相信這一點。我相信在他們說的每件事之前，然后你不能否認他們的前提，因為你不能說不，你不相信這真的没有必要，我相信在你的判決之前，至少我們可以假設你是誠實的，因為那時你

wouldn't say it.
不會說的。

If you didn't believe it.So the fact that you say it suggests that you do believe
如果你不相信。所以你說的事實表明你確實相信

it, 
它，

we're all, we'veseen three kinds of guarding extent, probability and psychological in eachcase. This garden makes the premise these easier to defend, but you have tofind a middle way where it's easier to defend, but still strong enough tosupport the conclusion. And you have to be careful not to abuse or overuse yourguarding terms.
我們都看到了三種不同的防守程度，概率和心理。這個花園使前提更容易辯護，但你必須找到一個中間的方法，在那里它更容易辯護，但仍然足夠強大，以支持結論。你必須小心不要濫用或過度使用你的保護條款。

If youunderstand these three types of guardian well enough, then you can skip to thenext segment. But for those of you who feel less confident, or just want to seesome more examples, let's try some exercises. First suppose someone'sneighbor's accused of a crime and she says, okay, I admit it. I can't be surehe's guilty, but he does appear guilty.
如果你足夠了解這三種類型的監護人，那麼你可以跳到下一部分。但是對於那些不太自信，或者只是想看看更多例子的人，讓我們來做一些練習。首先假設某人的鄰居被指控犯罪，她說，好吧，我承認。我不能肯定他是有罪的，但他看起來確實有罪。

Now is the wordup here year a guardian term or not. And if so, if it is a gardening term,which kind of garden isn't extend probability or psychological, think about itfor a while, but first let me repeat the example. The argument we're interestedin is I can't be sure that he's guilty, but he does appear guilty.
現在這個詞到底是不是監護人的術語。如果是這樣的話，如果這是一個園藝術語，哪種花園是不可擴展的概率或心理的，考慮一下，但首先讓我重復這個例子。我們感興趣的論點是，我不能確定他有罪，但他確實顯得有罪。

And the questionis whether the word appear is a guarding term. And if so, which kind. Now I'llgive you 30 seconds to think about it.
問題是“出現”這個詞是否是一個保守的術語。如果是的話，是哪種。現在我給你30秒考慮一下。

Okay. Well, myanswer is yes, appear is a guarding term here. It would have been stronger tosay, I know he's guilty, or even he's probably guilty, but simply to say heappears guilty. Is to make the premise weaker and easier to defend. But whatkind of guarding is it? Is it extent, probability or psychological?
可以。嗯，我的回答是肯定的，出現在這里是一個保護性的術語。如果說，我知道他有罪，甚至他可能有罪，但簡單地說他似乎有罪，那就更有力了。使前提變弱，更容易防禦。但這是什麼樣的守衛？是程度、概率還是心理？

It'spsychological because it's talking about the mental state of the person who isasserting the premise. It's saying he appears guilty to me. The appearance issomething that's going on in my mind. It's not about extent because it's notabout how many people are guilty moving from all to some it's not probability.
它是心理上的，因為它是在談論那個主張前提的人的心理狀態。是說我覺得他有罪。外表是我腦海里一直在想的事情。這與程度無關，因為它不是關於有多少人有罪從所有人轉移到某些人，這不是概率。

Cause it's notlike moving from he's certainly guilty to, he might be guilty is talking abouthow it appears and that's a psychological or mental state. Second here'sanother example. Suppose you're at a yard sale or a flea market. And you'relooking at a bunch of old items, including some paintings.
因為這不像是從他肯定有罪到，他可能是有罪的，他在談論它是如何出現的，這是一種心理或精神狀態。第二個例子。假設你在庭院大甩賣或跳蚤市場。你在看一堆舊東西，包括一些畫。

And suppose your friendsays maybe this pain is valuable.
也許你的朋友說你的痛苦很有價值。

It looks old. Now is the word may be agardening term or not. And if so, which kind of gardening extent, probabilityor psychological. Again, think about it for a while, but first let me repeatthis example. Maybe this painting is valuable. It looks old. Now I'll give you30 seconds to think about whether that's a gardening term and if so, whichkind.
它看起來很舊。現在這個詞可能是一個園藝術語。如果是的話，園藝的程度、概率或心理。再次，考慮一下，但首先讓我重復這個例子。也許這幅畫很值錢。它看起來很舊。現在我給你30秒的時間來思考這是否是一個園藝術語，如果是，是哪種。

My answer isthat yes. The word may be is a gardening term here. It's gardening, because youcould say this, this painting is definitely valuable. I'm sure it's valuable,but instead you say, maybe it's valuable. It may be valuable, which means thatit's possibly valuable. So what kind of gardening term is it probability?
我的回答是肯定的。這個詞在這里可能是一個園藝術語。這是園藝，因為你可以這麼說，這幅畫絕對很值錢。我相信它很有價值，但你卻說，也許很有價值。它可能很有價值，也就是說它可能很有價值。那麼，概率是什麼樣的園藝術語呢？

It's not aboutall paintings. So it's not going from all paintings to some paintings. It's notpsychological because it's not describing any mental state. It's saying that inthe world, it's possible that this painting is valuable. So it's aboutprobability. Third let's look at a third and final example.
不是所有的畫。所以不是從所有的畫到一些畫。它不是心理上的，因為它没有描述任何精神狀態。意思是說，在這個世界上，這幅畫可能很值錢。所以這是關於概率的。第三，讓我們看第三個也是最后一個例子。

Suppose someonesays, okay, professors are not uniformly smart, but they tend to be smart. Isthe word tend a gardening term or not? If so, which kind of guardian is itextent or probability or psychological again, think about it for a while forsomebody repeat the example. Okay. Flashers are not uniformly smart, but theytend to be, be smart.
假設有人說，好吧，教授並不是一成不變的聰明，但他們往往都很聰明。這個詞是不是園藝術語？如果是這樣的話，那又是什麼樣的守護者呢？是程度，還是概率，還是心理上的，想想看，有人重復這個例子。可以。閃光燈不是一成不變的聰明，但他們往往是，聰明。

We're askingabout the word tend, whether it's a gardening term and if so, which con I'llgive you 30 seconds to think about it.
我們要問的是“趨向”這個詞，它是否是一個園藝術語，如果是的話，我會給你30秒的時間來考慮它。

my answer is yes, it is a gardening term.When you say professors tend to be smart, you're not saying that all of themare, you're saying they tend to be smart. What kind of gardening extent?Because it's changing from uniformly smart. They're all smart too. No, no, notquite that much, but they do tend to be smart.
我的回答是肯定的，這是一個園藝術語。當你說教授們都很聰明，你並不是說他們都是，而是說他們都很聰明。什麼樣的園藝程度？因為它正在從統一智能轉變。他們也都很聰明。不，不，没那麼多，但他們確實很聰明。

And that'sadmitting some exceptions, but claiming that most of the professors are smart.It's not psychological. Cause it's not talking about the speakers. Mental stateis talking about professors and how often they're smart. It's not probabilitybecause it's not saying going from they're certainly smart to, they might besmart.
這也承認了一些例外，但聲稱大多數教授都很聰明。這不是心理上的。因為它不是在談論揚聲器。精神狀態指的是教授和他們多久才干一次。這不是概率，因為這並不是說從他們肯定聰明到，他們可能很聰明。

It's talkingabout how many of them are smart and that's a matter of extent. So thisgardening term is one dealing with extent. And in the next segment, we're goingto see other terms that are very different from guarding terms. And they willbe are examples of terms that are not guarding terms. .
這是在談論他們中有多少人是聰明的，這是程度的問題。所以這個園藝術語指的是範圍。在下一節課中，我們將看到其他與保護條款非常不同的術語。它們是不是保護性條款的例子。