ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Daniel H. Cohen - Philosopher
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason.

Why you should listen

Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen specializes in argumentation theory, the study of how we use reason (both verbally and in social contexts) to put forth potentially controversial standpoints. Cohen goes beyond just looking at how we plain ol' argue and looks specifically at the metaphors we use for this systematic reasoning. In his work Cohen argues for new, non-combatative metaphors for argument.

Cohen is a Professor of Philosophy at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

More profile about the speaker
Daniel H. Cohen | Speaker | TED.com
TEDxColbyCollege

Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

丹尼爾‧柯恩: 辯論的目的

Filmed:
1,613,190 views

為什麼要辯論?為了證明自己比對手有理,證明對手是錯的,最重要的,就是贏得辯論!...對嗎?哲學家丹尼爾‧柯恩告訴我們最常見的辯論類別——戰爭辯論,雙方一定要有輸有贏。然而,這卻忽略了參與辯論所該得到的真正好處。(拍攝於 TEDxColbyCollege)
- Philosopher
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:12
My name名稱 is Dan Cohen科恩, and I am academic學術的, as he said.
0
452
3432
我叫丹‧柯恩,像剛剛那人說的,我是個學者
00:15
And what that means手段 is that I argue爭論.
1
3884
3760
這也就意味著我經常辯論
00:19
It's an important重要 part部分 of my life, and I like to argue爭論.
2
7644
2600
辯論是我人生重要的一部分,我喜歡辯論
00:22
And I'm not just an academic學術的, I'm a philosopher哲學家,
3
10244
3717
我不只是個學者,我也是個哲學家
00:25
so I like to think that I'm actually其實 pretty漂亮 good at arguing爭論.
4
13961
2990
我常常覺得,我應該很擅長辯論
00:28
But I also like to think a lot about arguing爭論.
5
16951
3174
我也喜歡思考辯論
00:32
And thinking思維 about arguing爭論, I've come across橫過 some puzzles謎題,
6
20125
3541
在這過程中,我遇到了一些困惑
00:35
and one of the puzzles謎題 is that
7
23666
1836
其中有個是
00:37
as I've been thinking思維 about arguing爭論 over the years年份,
8
25502
2150
過去這幾年,我一直思考辯論
00:39
and it's been decades幾十年 now, I've gotten得到 better at arguing爭論,
9
27652
3555
到現在已經幾十年了
我也是越來越擅長辯論了
00:43
but the more that I argue爭論 and the better I get at arguing爭論,
10
31207
3570
但我辯論得越多,辯論得越好
00:46
the more that I lose失去. And that's a puzzle難題.
11
34777
3310
我也就輸得越多,這是我的困惑
00:50
And the other puzzle難題 is that I'm actually其實 okay with that.
12
38087
3171
另一個困惑是,我覺得這無所謂
00:53
Why is it that I'm okay with losing失去
13
41258
2115
為什麼我覺得輸會無所謂
00:55
and why is it that I think that good arguersarguers
14
43373
1431
為什麼我又覺得,好的辯論者
00:56
are actually其實 better at losing失去?
15
44804
2132
應該是更好的輸家?
00:58
Well, there's some other puzzles謎題.
16
46936
1921
嗯……還有其他一些困惑
01:00
One is, why do we argue爭論? Who benefits好處 from arguments參數?
17
48857
3585
其中一個是,我們為何辯論?
辯論使誰獲益?
01:04
And when I think about arguments參數 now, I'm talking about,
18
52442
2000
我現在思考辯論時所指的
01:06
let's call them academic學術的 arguments參數 or cognitive認知 arguments參數,
19
54442
2758
就把它們稱為學術辯論或認知辯論
01:09
where something cognitive認知 is at stake賭注.
20
57200
1906
涉及認知利害關係的
01:11
Is this proposition主張 true真正? Is this theory理論 a good theory理論?
21
59106
3192
這項提議是對的嗎?這是好的理論嗎?
01:14
Is this a viable可行 interpretation解釋 of the data數據 or the text文本?
22
62298
3883
如此解釋這項數據或文本,是可行的嗎?
01:18
And so on. I'm not interested有興趣 really in arguments參數 about
23
66181
2524
諸如此類。我對於辯論某些事情就沒什麼興趣
01:20
whose誰的 turn it is to do the dishes碗碟 or who has to take out the garbage垃圾.
24
68705
3463
像是誰要去洗碗、誰要去倒垃圾
01:24
Yeah, we have those arguments參數 too.
25
72168
2336
雖然我們也會辯論那些事情
01:26
I tend趨向 to win贏得 those arguments參數, because I know the tricks技巧.
26
74504
2488
這些辯論我滿常贏的,因為我知道技巧
01:28
But those aren't the important重要 arguments參數.
27
76992
1191
但這些不是很重要的辯論
01:30
I'm interested有興趣 in academic學術的 arguments參數 today今天,
28
78183
2168
我的興趣在於現今的學術辯論
01:32
and here are the things that puzzle難題 me.
29
80351
2170
下面這些事情給我帶了不少困惑
01:34
First, what do good arguersarguers win贏得 when they win贏得 an argument論據?
30
82521
5265
第一,辯論高手們贏得辯論時
到底贏得了什麼?
01:39
What do I win贏得 if I convince說服 you that
31
87786
2334
如果我說服你功利主義並不是
01:42
utilitarianism功利主義 isn't really the right framework骨架 for thinking思維 about ethical合乎道德的 theories理論?
32
90120
3375
思考道德理論的正確方向,我獲得了什麼?
01:45
So what do we win贏得 when we win贏得 an argument論據?
33
93495
2230
所以當我們贏得辯論時,我們到底贏了什麼?
01:47
Even before that, what does it matter to me
34
95725
3101
甚至在辯論之前,無論你是支持康德或是密爾
01:50
whether是否 you have this idea理念 that Kant's康德 theory理論 works作品
35
98826
3241
覺得誰才是對的道德主義者
01:54
or Mill's穆勒 the right ethicist倫理學家 to follow跟隨?
36
102067
2835
又和我有什麼關係?
01:56
It's no skin皮膚 off my back whether是否 you think
37
104902
2699
無論你認為功能主義
是否為可行的心智理論
01:59
functionalism功能主義 is a viable可行 theory理論 of mind心神.
38
107601
2597
也是和我沒關係
02:02
So why do we even try to argue爭論?
39
110198
2232
那我們到底為什麼要辯論?
02:04
Why do we try to convince說服 other people
40
112430
1821
為什麼我們要去說服他人
02:06
to believe things that they don't want to believe?
41
114251
1868
去相信他們不願相信的事物
02:08
And is that even a nice不錯 thing to do? Is that a nice不錯 way
42
116119
2590
這麼做真的好嗎?
02:10
to treat對待 another另一個 human人的 being存在, try and make them
43
118709
1728
這真的是一種對待他人的好方法嗎?
02:12
think something they don't want to think?
44
120437
3094
設法讓他們相信他們不願相信的事物?
02:15
Well, my answer回答 is going to make reference參考 to
45
123531
2993
我的答案將會談到
02:18
three models楷模 for arguments參數.
46
126524
1690
三種辯論模式
02:20
The first model模型, let's call this the dialectical辯證 model模型,
47
128214
1960
第一,我們就叫它為對話模式
02:22
is that we think of arguments參數 as war戰爭, and you know what that's like.
48
130174
2598
這種模式,雙方把辯論看成戰爭,情況可想而知
02:24
There's a lot of screaming尖叫 and shouting叫喊
49
132772
1885
雙方會吵鬧,大叫
02:26
and winning勝利 and losing失去,
50
134657
1243
也會有輸贏
02:27
and that's not really a very helpful有幫助 model模型 for arguing爭論
51
135900
2451
就辯論而言,這真的不是個有幫助的模式
02:30
but it's a pretty漂亮 common共同 and entrenched根深蒂固 model模型 for arguing爭論.
52
138351
2758
但這種模式卻是很常見,也很強硬的一種模式
02:33
But there's a second第二 model模型 for arguing爭論: arguments參數 as proofs樣張.
53
141109
3600
還有第二種模式,論證式辯論
02:36
Think of a mathematician's數學家的 argument論據.
54
144709
2218
想想一個數學家的辯論
02:38
Here's這裡的 my argument論據. Does it work? Is it any good?
55
146927
2734
這是我的論點,講得通嗎?有道理嗎?
02:41
Are the premises房地 warranted必要? Are the inferences推論 valid有效?
56
149661
4205
假設可靠嗎?參考數據可信嗎?
02:45
Does the conclusion結論 follow跟隨 from the premises房地?
57
153866
2736
結論是否與假設呼應?
02:48
No opposition反對, no adversarialityadversariality,
58
156602
2704
沒有反對,沒有對手
02:51
not necessarily一定 any arguing爭論 in the adversarial對抗 sense.
59
159306
5617
不一定有持反對意見的辯論
02:56
But there's a third第三 model模型 to keep in mind心神
60
164923
1932
還有第三種模式要注意
02:58
that I think is going to be very helpful有幫助,
61
166855
1486
我覺得這是很有幫助的一種
03:00
and that is arguments參數 as performances演出,
62
168341
3533
就是做為表演的辯論
03:03
arguments參數 as being存在 in front面前 of an audience聽眾.
63
171874
2044
在一群觀眾面前辯論
03:05
We can think of a politician政治家 trying to present當下 a position位置,
64
173918
3032
想像一個政治人物,試著表明他的立場
03:08
trying to convince說服 the audience聽眾 of something.
65
176950
2360
要說服觀眾相信某件事情
03:11
But there's another另一個 twist on this model模型 that I really think is important重要,
66
179310
3151
這個模式中,還有個小轉折我覺得很重要
03:14
namely亦即 that when we argue爭論 before an audience聽眾,
67
182461
3962
換言之,當我們在觀眾前辯論時
03:18
sometimes有時 the audience聽眾 has a more participatory參與 role角色 in the argument論據,
68
186423
4240
觀眾在此過程中擔任更有參與性角色
03:22
that is, arguments參數 are also audiences觀眾 in front面前 of juries陪審團
69
190663
4502
在觀眾前辯論,也就是在陪審團前辯論
03:27
who make a judgment判斷 and decide決定 the case案件.
70
195165
2825
他們下判決,決定案情結果
03:29
Let's call this the rhetorical修辭 model模型,
71
197990
1820
我們稱之為修辭模式
03:31
where you have to tailor裁縫 your argument論據 to the audience聽眾 at hand.
72
199810
3943
因為你要修改論點去迎合現場觀眾
03:35
You know, presenting呈現 a sound聲音, well-argued論據充分,
73
203753
2497
比如在說法語的觀眾面前
03:38
tight argument論據 in English英語 before a francophone法語 audience聽眾
74
206250
3430
發表一個有力的論點
03:41
just isn't going to work.
75
209680
1903
是沒有用的
03:43
So we have these models楷模 -- argument論據 as war戰爭,
76
211583
2523
所以我們有三種模式分別為-戰爭式辯論
03:46
argument論據 as proof證明, and argument論據 as performance性能.
77
214106
3794
論證式辯論和表演性辯論
03:49
Of those three, the argument論據 as war戰爭 is the dominant優勢 one.
78
217900
4300
這三者中,戰爭式辯論一直都是比較強勢的
03:54
It dominates佔主導地位 how we talk about arguments參數,
79
222200
2861
它影響著我們談論辯論的方式
03:57
it dominates佔主導地位 how we think about arguments參數,
80
225061
2198
影響著我們思考辯論的方式
03:59
and because of that, it shapes形狀 how we argue爭論,
81
227259
2862
因為如此,它也塑造我們辯論的方式
04:02
our actual實際 conduct進行 in arguments參數.
82
230121
1778
我們在辯論中的言行舉止
04:03
Now, when we talk about arguments參數,
83
231899
1481
現在,當我們談及辯論
04:05
yeah, we talk in a very militaristic軍國主義 language語言.
84
233380
2072
我們都用很強烈的語氣
04:07
We want strong強大 arguments參數, arguments參數 that have a lot of punch沖床,
85
235452
3467
我們想要站得住腳的論點,有力反擊的論點
04:10
arguments參數 that are right on target目標.
86
238919
1898
正中要害的論點
04:12
We want to have our defenses防禦 up and our strategies策略 all in order訂購.
87
240817
2935
我們想要加強防守,穩固進攻策略
04:15
We want killer兇手 arguments參數.
88
243752
2398
我們想要場殺手級的論點
04:18
That's the kind of argument論據 we want.
89
246150
2966
這就是我們所想要的
04:21
It is the dominant優勢 way of thinking思維 about arguments參數.
90
249116
2048
這是看待辯論的主流方式
04:23
When I'm talking about arguments參數, that's probably大概
91
251164
1983
當我和別人談起辯論時
04:25
what you thought of, the adversarial對抗 model模型.
92
253147
3337
你大概都會想到這種辯論
04:28
But the war戰爭 metaphor隱喻, the war戰爭 paradigm範例
93
256484
3537
但是,這種戰爭比喻
04:32
or model模型 for thinking思維 about arguments參數,
94
260021
1769
這種戰爭式思考方式
04:33
has, I think, deforming變形 effects效果 on how we argue爭論.
95
261790
3158
就我認為,扭曲了我們的辯論效果
04:36
First it elevates提升 tactics策略 over substance物質.
96
264948
3347
首先,戰爭辯論注重策略而非主旨
04:40
You can take a class in logic邏輯, argumentation論證.
97
268295
2481
你可以修一堂邏輯課、辯論課
04:42
You learn學習 all about the subterfuges遁詞 that people use
98
270776
2504
你會學到所有人們用來贏得辯論的技巧
04:45
to try and win贏得 arguments參數, the false steps腳步.
99
273280
1989
避免出現錯誤
04:47
It magnifies放大 the us-versus-them我們對他們 aspect方面 of it.
100
275269
3877
這加強了他我敵對的意味
04:51
It makes品牌 it adversarial對抗. It's polarizing偏振.
101
279146
3245
讓雙方關係成為敵我關係,產生極端
04:54
And the only foreseeable可預見的 outcomes結果
102
282391
3233
而唯一能預見的結果
04:57
are triumph勝利, glorious輝煌 triumph勝利, or abject卑劣, ignominious可恥 defeat打敗.
103
285624
5746
就是輝煌的勝利或是可恥的失敗
05:03
I think those are deforming變形 effects效果, and worst最差 of all,
104
291370
2683
這些是扭曲的結果,最糟的是
05:06
it seems似乎 to prevent避免 things like negotiation談判
105
294053
2755
這讓協商、審議以及妥協
05:08
or deliberation審議 or compromise妥協
106
296808
2531
這類情況不會發生
05:11
or collaboration合作.
107
299339
2981
甚至都無法合作
05:14
Think about that one. Have you ever entered進入 an argument論據
108
302320
1996
試想一下,你有沒有參與過一場辯論
05:16
thinking思維, "Let's see if we can hash哈希 something out
109
304316
3224
心中想著「讓我們看看有沒有辦法好好討論一下」
05:19
rather than fight鬥爭 it out. What can we work out together一起?"
110
307540
3075
「而不是想著辯倒對方。」
05:22
And I think the argument-as-war參數,如戰爭 metaphor隱喻
111
310615
2296
我認為戰爭辯論所代表的是
05:24
inhibits抑制 those other kinds of resolutions決議 to argumentation論證.
112
312911
4342
它遏止了解決問題的其他方法
05:29
And finally最後, this is really the worst最差 thing,
113
317253
2827
最後,這是最糟的情況
05:32
arguments參數 don't seem似乎 to get us anywhere隨地.
114
320080
1857
辯論最後沒有帶給我們任何東西
05:33
They're dead ends結束. They are roundabouts環島
115
321937
2576
像死胡同,原地打轉一樣
05:36
or traffic交通 jams果醬 or gridlock僵局 in conversation會話.
116
324513
3801
像塞車,談話遇到僵局一樣
05:40
We don't get anywhere隨地.
117
328314
1842
我們什麼都沒得到
05:42
Oh, and one more thing, and as an educator教育家,
118
330156
2313
身為一個教育家,還有一件事情
05:44
this is the one that really bothers什麼麻煩事 me:
119
332469
2111
真正困擾我的事情是:
05:46
If argument論據 is war戰爭, then there's an implicit含蓄 equation方程
120
334580
3719
如果辯論就是戰爭,也就不會有
05:50
of learning學習 with losing失去.
121
338299
3617
輸了辯論,學了東西這種事情
05:53
And let me explain說明 what I mean.
122
341916
1920
我再解釋一下我的意思
05:55
Suppose假設 you and I have an argument論據.
123
343836
2616
假設你和我在辯論
05:58
You believe a proposition主張, P, and I don't.
124
346452
4024
你支持 P 提案,我不支持
06:02
And I say, "Well why do you believe P?"
125
350476
1847
我問「為什麼你支持 P 提案?」
06:04
And you give me your reasons原因.
126
352323
1669
然後你告訴我你支持的理由
06:05
And I object目的 and say, "Well, what about ...?"
127
353992
2031
我反問「那為什麼....?」
06:08
And you answer回答 my objection異議.
128
356023
1862
然後你對我的辯解做出回應
06:09
And I have a question: "Well, what do you mean?
129
357885
2225
我又問你「那你說的是什麼意思呢?」
06:12
How does it apply應用 over here?" And you answer回答 my question.
130
360110
3598
「這怎麼用在這裡呢?」你仍舊回答我的問題
06:15
Now, suppose假設 at the end結束 of the day,
131
363708
1428
假設到了最後
06:17
I've objected反對, I've questioned質疑,
132
365136
1963
我反對過了,我提問過了
06:19
I've raised上調 all sorts排序 of counter-considerations反注意事項,
133
367099
3039
我提出了所有的反向思考
06:22
and in every一切 case案件 you've responded回應 to my satisfaction滿意.
134
370138
3762
而你對我的任何提問都給出了滿意的答案
06:25
And so at the end結束 of the day, I say,
135
373900
2590
最後我會說
06:28
"You know what? I guess猜測 you're right. P."
136
376490
3850
我說「你知道嗎?我想你是對的。」
06:32
So I have a new belief信仰. And it's not just any belief信仰,
137
380340
3657
然後我相信了一個新理論,不是什麽隨便的理論
06:35
but it's a well-articulated表述清楚, examined檢查,
138
383997
4574
是一個條理分明,經過仔細推敲
06:40
it's a battle-tested實戰檢驗 belief信仰.
139
388571
2982
經得起考驗的理論
06:43
Great cognitive認知 gain獲得. Okay. Who won韓元 that argument論據?
140
391553
4001
認知方面又多了新知,那到底誰贏了辯論?
06:47
Well, the war戰爭 metaphor隱喻 seems似乎 to force us into saying
141
395554
2961
所以,戰爭辯論的言下之意是告訴我們
06:50
you won韓元, even though雖然 I'm the only one who made製作 any cognitive認知 gain獲得.
142
398515
3449
雖然你贏了,但我是唯一有獲得新知的人
06:53
What did you gain獲得 cognitively認知 from convincing使人信服 me?
143
401964
3873
從你說服我的過程中,你得到了什麼嗎?
06:57
Sure, you got some pleasure樂趣 out of it, maybe your ego自我 stroked撫摸,
144
405837
2805
當然,你獲得快樂,你的自尊心可能更強烈
07:00
maybe you get some professional專業的 status狀態 in the field領域.
145
408642
3109
在那領域你可能又多了點學術地位
07:03
This guy's傢伙 a good arguer論證者.
146
411751
1588
這傢伙很擅長辯論
07:05
But cognitively認知, now -- just from a cognitive認知 point of view視圖 -- who was the winner優勝者?
147
413339
4254
但是,就從認知角度而言,誰是贏家?
07:09
The war戰爭 metaphor隱喻 forces軍隊 us into thinking思維
148
417593
1979
戰爭辯論的比喻使得我們認為
07:11
that you're the winner優勝者 and I lost丟失,
149
419572
2940
你是贏家,我是輸家
07:14
even though雖然 I gained獲得.
150
422512
2282
儘管我有學到東西
07:16
And there's something wrong錯誤 with that picture圖片.
151
424794
2201
但是這樣不對
07:18
And that's the picture圖片 I really want to change更改 if we can.
152
426995
2816
如果我們有辦法,這正是我想改變的
07:21
So how can we find ways方法 to make arguments參數
153
429811
4814
那麼我們要怎樣來辯論
07:26
yield產量 something positive?
154
434625
2759
能得到些正向的東西
07:29
What we need is new exit出口 strategies策略 for arguments參數.
155
437384
3738
我們要的,是一個能有後台下的辯論策略
07:33
But we're not going to have new exit出口 strategies策略 for arguments參數
156
441122
3206
但我們是找不到的
07:36
until直到 we have new entry條目 approaches方法 to arguments參數.
157
444328
3136
除非我們有了新的途徑去辯論
07:39
We need to think of new kinds of arguments參數.
158
447464
3434
我們要想出新的辯論類型
07:42
In order訂購 to do that, well,
159
450898
3058
為了達到這目標
07:45
I don't know how to do that.
160
453956
2183
恩,我不知道該怎麼做
07:48
That's the bad news新聞.
161
456139
1416
這不是個好消息
07:49
The argument-as-war參數,如戰爭 metaphor隱喻 is just, it's a monster怪物.
162
457555
3080
戰爭式辯論太可怕了
07:52
It's just taken採取 up habitation住所 in our mind心神,
163
460635
2352
它會充斥我們的思維
07:54
and there's no magic魔法 bullet子彈 that's going to kill it.
164
462987
1999
沒有魔法子彈能夠消滅它
07:56
There's no magic魔法 wand棍棒 that's going to make it disappear消失.
165
464986
2566
沒有魔法棒來讓它消失
07:59
I don't have an answer回答.
166
467552
1653
我沒有答案
08:01
But I have some suggestions建議,
167
469205
1110
但我有些建議
08:02
and here's這裡的 my suggestion建議.
168
470315
3154
我的建議如下
08:05
If we want to think of new kinds of arguments參數,
169
473469
2129
如果要想出新的辯論類型
08:07
what we need to do is think of new kinds of arguersarguers.
170
475598
4080
我們就需要想出新類別的辯論者
08:11
So try this.
171
479678
2814
這麼說吧
08:14
Think of all the roles角色 that people play in arguments參數.
172
482492
4610
想想人們在辯論中扮演的所有角色
08:19
There's the proponent支持者 and the opponent對手
173
487102
3001
有支持方以及反對方
08:22
in an adversarial對抗, dialectical辯證 argument論據.
174
490103
2330
存在一個對立、辯證的辯論中
08:24
There's the audience聽眾 in rhetorical修辭 arguments參數.
175
492433
2007
在修辭辯論中,存在著觀眾
08:26
There's the reasoner推理 in arguments參數 as proofs樣張.
176
494440
3916
在論證辯論中,存在著推理的人
08:30
All these different不同 roles角色. Now, can you imagine想像 an argument論據
177
498356
3677
這些不同的角色中,你能否想像有一場辯論
08:34
in which哪一個 you are the arguer論證者, but you're also in the audience聽眾
178
502033
3739
你同時是辯論者,也是觀眾
08:37
watching觀看 yourself你自己 argue爭論?
179
505772
2148
看著你自己在辯論呢?
08:39
Can you imagine想像 yourself你自己 watching觀看 yourself你自己 argue爭論,
180
507920
2960
你能否想像當你看著自己在辯論時
08:42
losing失去 the argument論據, and yet然而 still, at the end結束 of the argument論據,
181
510880
3369
就算輸了,在辯論結束後
08:46
say, "Wow, that was a good argument論據."
182
514249
4576
你仍說「這真是一場好棒的辯論。」
08:50
Can you do that? I think you can.
183
518825
3110
你可以做到嗎?我想你可以
08:53
And I think, if you can imagine想像 that kind of argument論據
184
521935
1998
我認為,如果你能想像這樣的辯論
08:55
where the loser失敗者 says to the winner優勝者
185
523933
1643
輸掉的一方能對贏的人
08:57
and the audience聽眾 and the jury陪審團 can say,
186
525576
1921
觀眾以及陪審團說
08:59
"Yeah, that was a good argument論據,"
187
527497
1983
「對阿,這是一場很棒的辯論。」
09:01
then you have imagined想像 a good argument論據.
188
529480
1803
那你所想的就是場好的辯論
09:03
And more than that, I think you've imagined想像
189
531283
1819
此外,我認為你也可以想像
09:05
a good arguer論證者, an arguer論證者 that's worthy值得
190
533102
3370
一位好的辯論者
09:08
of the kind of arguer論證者 you should try to be.
191
536472
3089
一個值得你效法的辯論者
09:11
Now, I lose失去 a lot of arguments參數.
192
539561
2682
我輸過很多次辯論
09:14
It takes practice實踐 to become成為 a good arguer論證者
193
542243
2575
成為一位好的辯論者需要練習
09:16
in the sense of being存在 able能夠 to benefit效益 from losing失去,
194
544818
1937
也就是能從失敗中學到東西
09:18
but fortunately幸好, I've had many許多, many許多 colleagues同事
195
546755
2676
幸運的是,我有太多,太多的同事
09:21
who have been willing願意 to step up and provide提供 that practice實踐 for me.
196
549431
3219
他們都願意挺我,為我提供練習機會
09:24
Thank you.
197
552650
1193
謝謝
09:25
(Applause掌聲)
198
553843
4109
(掌聲)
Translated by Ou Chih-Hong
Reviewed by Julia Xu

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Daniel H. Cohen - Philosopher
Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen studies language and the way we argue through reason.

Why you should listen

Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen specializes in argumentation theory, the study of how we use reason (both verbally and in social contexts) to put forth potentially controversial standpoints. Cohen goes beyond just looking at how we plain ol' argue and looks specifically at the metaphors we use for this systematic reasoning. In his work Cohen argues for new, non-combatative metaphors for argument.

Cohen is a Professor of Philosophy at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

More profile about the speaker
Daniel H. Cohen | Speaker | TED.com