20 Interpreting Evidence?解釋證據(jù)

這一章內容講的是搜集到了相關證據(jù)之后如何應用，如何用來支持自己的論點。

首先是確定證據(jù)的來源是來自自己的還是他人的，這個在法學術語中又被稱為是傳來證據(jù)。

無論是什么來源的證據(jù)都要看其各方面考慮來判斷其真實性客觀性以及與所要論述的觀點之間的關聯(lián)性。

哈哈貌似就差一個合法性就是一個完美的質證要點了呢。

找到最好的解釋，也許有很多個證據(jù)都支持，但是不到最后不知道那個最適合。

文中關于罪犯都有類似的頭骨這個研究說法，我在少文老師的文集中也看到過，不過這里多了一個證據(jù)就是發(fā)現(xiàn)了大學教授的頭骨也是這樣的。從這個例子上我聯(lián)想到了當初學法學時，我自己內心是多么的抵觸對各種學說的學習，也許那時候我就內心懷疑著任何一種學說的正確性吧，結果干脆就哪一種都不學了

現(xiàn)在不同了，學會了批判性思維就不再怕被各種各樣的學說弄糊涂了

對任何學說都可以辯證性的考慮分析

After we obtain evidence, we usually need to interpret it; that is, to decide what it means and how significant it is and to address the questions it raises. One of the most common questions concerns the resolution of apparent conflicts in evidence. As we have seen in previous chapters, experts do not always agree. Because people often view the same event quite differently, even eyewitness reports of honest people can conflict.

我們獲得證據(jù)后，通常需要解釋它;即決定它的含義和意義，并解決它引發(fā)的問題。最常見的問題之一是解決明顯的證據(jù)沖突。正如我們在前幾章中看到的那樣，專家并不總是同意。因為人們經(jīng)常以不同的方式看待同一事件，所以即使目擊者對誠實人士的報道也可能發(fā)生沖突。

It is a popular view that the more scientific the procedure, the less need exists for interpretation. But that view is mistaken. If anything, a scientific approach demands more interpretation because it focuses more on identifying and classifying facts. Consider, for example, this unusual case. An ancient tomb was unearthed in Central China, containing the body of a woman who died about2,100 years ago. Great care had been taken in burying her. She was placed in an airtight coffin filled with a special fluid. The coffin was encased in five larger boxes lined with five tons of charcoal. That larger unit was buried in a sixty-foot hole and surrounded by white clay.

這是一種流行的觀點，程序越科學，對解釋的需求就越少。但是這個觀點是錯誤的。如果有的話，科學的方法需要更多的解釋，因為它更側重于識別和分類事實。例如，考慮一下這種不尋常的情況。中國中部地區(qū)出土的一座古墓，藏有一位大約2，100年前去世的婦女尸體。非常小心地掩埋她。她被放置在充滿特殊液體的密封棺材中。棺材被裝在五個裝著五噸木炭的大箱子里。這個較大的單位被埋在一個六十英尺的洞中，并被白土包圍。

Because of this extraordinary burial, when the woman's body was found, the flesh was still moist, the hair still rooted in the scalp, the joints still flexible, most of the internal organs intact. Specialists conducted a careful autopsy. They performed chemical analyses of the woman's hair, stomach, muscles, bones, lungs, gallbladder, intestines. They X-rayed her bones. To be useful, the mass of acts they obtained had to be interpreted. Only by studying the data, raising questions about it, and deciding what judgments were most reasonable did they conclude, for example, that she had borne children, had eaten a melon shortly before her death, and had probably died suddenly as a result of an obstructed coronary artery.

由于這種非凡的埋葬，當女人的尸體被發(fā)現(xiàn)時，肉仍然濕潤，頭發(fā)仍然扎根在頭皮上，關節(jié)仍然靈活，大部分內臟完好無損。專家進行了仔細的驗尸。他們對女性的頭發(fā)，胃，肌肉，骨骼，肺，膽囊，腸進行了化學分析。他們對她的骨頭進行X光檢查。為了有用，他們獲得的大量行為必須加以解釋。只有通過研究數(shù)據(jù)，提出問題并確定哪些判斷是最合理的，他們才能得出結論，例如，她生了孩子，在死前不久就吃過甜瓜，并可能因為阻塞冠狀動脈而死。

Interpretation plays an important role not only in science but also in other fields. In fact, because in other areas the facts may be less clear or fragmentary and opinions may be more sharply in conflict, the quality of a judgment may depend even more heavily on interpretation.

解釋不僅在科學中發(fā)揮著重要作用，而且在其他領域也發(fā)揮著重要作用。事實上，因為在其他方面事實可能不那么清晰或零碎，意見沖突可能更激烈，判決的質量可能更多地取決于解釋。

HOW TO INTERPRET

如何解釋

The focus of our interpretation depends on the kind of evidence we are interpreting. Evidence from our own direct experience or observation poses different questions than evidence given us by others and evidence obtained through research. The following questions are arranged by category.

我們解釋的重點取決于我們正在解釋的證據(jù)種類。來自我們自己的直接經(jīng)驗或觀察的證據(jù)提出的問題與其他人提供的證據(jù)以及通過研究獲得的證據(jù)不同。以下問題按類別排列。

If the evidence is from your own experience or direct observation, ask:

如果證據(jù)來自您自己的經(jīng)驗或直接觀察，請問：

1 How accurately did I observe? What kinds of inaccuracies in perceiving could have been caused by the circumstances of the event or issue? (Did it occur quickly? Were there any physical impediments such as my distance from what happened, the time of day, or weather conditions?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my state of mind? (Was I tired? Afraid?Distraught? Angry?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my mood or my attitude toward the issue, the people, or the place? Was I predisposed to view the matter one way?

我觀察的準確度如何？事件或問題的情況可能導致哪些感知不準確？（它發(fā)生得很快嗎？是否有任何身體上的障礙，比如我的距離，發(fā)生了什么事情，一天的時間或天氣情況？）我的精神狀態(tài)可能導致什么樣的不準確？（我是否厭倦？害怕？心煩意亂？憤怒？）我的情緒或對問題，人群或地點的態(tài)度可能導致哪些不準確？我是否傾向于以一種方式來看待這個問題？

2 Is what I experienced or observed typical of all such cases? Is it possible that it is more the exception than the rule? Were the circumstances unusually enough that it was different than it would usually be?

是我所經(jīng)歷的還是所觀察到的所有典型案例？它有可能比規(guī)則更為例外嗎？情況是否與通常情況不同？

?If the evidence is from the experience and observation of other people, ask (in addition to the questions you'd ask of your own experience and observation):

如果證據(jù)來自其他人的經(jīng)驗和觀察，請問（除了你會問自己的經(jīng)驗和觀察的問題）：

Did the person who reported the matter to me experience or observe the matter herself? Or was she reporting someone else's experiences?

向我報告此事的人是否親身體驗或觀察過此事？還是她在報告別人的經(jīng)歷？

2 Does the reporter's reputation warrant my accepting he report at face value? (Is she regarded as a careful observer? Are her statements generally accurate the precise?)

記者的名譽是否保證我接受他以面子保證的報告？（她是否認為是一個認真的觀察者？她的陳述是否一般準確？）

If more than one person experienced or observed the matter, do their reports agree?

如果不止一個人經(jīng)歷或觀察到此事，他們的報告是否一樣？

If the evidence is from your research (that is, from an article or book or television program), ask:

如果證據(jù)來自您的研究（即來自文章或書籍或電視節(jié)目），請問：

1 How consistent is this particular piece of evidence with other evidence? (All available evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, of course.For years all available evidence suggested that man's immediate ancestor, Homoerectus, "upright man," first appeared about a million years ago.Then bones were discovered in eastern Africa that showed humans lived more than21/2 million years ago. Later discoveries extended that to 31/3 million years ago.)

這一特定證據(jù)與其他證據(jù)的一致性如何？（當然，所有可用的證據(jù)都可能指出一個錯誤的結論）多年以來，所有可用的證據(jù)都表明，人類的直系祖先直立人是“直立人”，首先出現(xiàn)在大約一百萬年前，然后在東非發(fā)現(xiàn)了骨頭，人類的壽命超過2150萬年前，后來的發(fā)現(xiàn)延伸到了3100萬年前。）

2 If the evidence is found in a magazine article, how reputable is the magazine? Is it given to the sensational? Is it considered a responsible publication?

如果證據(jù)在雜志文章中找到，該雜志的聲譽如何？它是否賦予了轟動性？它被認為是一個負責任的刊物？

3 How careful does the writer seem to be about avoiding unsupported assertions, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations? How impartial is the writer? (It's only reasonable to be a bit skeptical about a writer with an obvious bias, such as the chairwoman of a political party explaining the virtues of her candidate. She may be being impartial, but she will tend to be more prone to unconscious one-sidedness.)

作者似乎是如何謹慎地避免沒有證據(jù)支持的論斷，過于簡單化和籠統(tǒng)的概括？作家有多公正？ （對于一位明顯存在偏見的作家，如一位政黨主席解釋她的候選人的優(yōu)點，她有點懷疑，她可能是公正的，但她往往更傾向于無意識的片面性。）

If the article, book, or TV program refers to the results of research,does it provide important details? For example, if the research involvedinterviews, how many people were involved? What was the range of geographicalareas, occupations, and ages? What questions were asked? (Not every research project is sufficiently comprehensive to answer the questions it proposes toanswer. In the nineteenth century Cesare Lombroso, Chairman of the CriminalAnthropology Department at the University of Turin, Italy, theorized that allcriminals had certain peculiarities in common. One special distinguishing characteristiche believed all criminal possessed was a skull deformity. The criminal skullshape, he believed, resembled that of primitive man. His research in prisons seemed to verify the theory and for a time it was very influential until a British researcher, C. Goring, found as many college students and professors with that head shape as convicts!)

如果文章，書或電視節(jié)目是指研究的結果，它是否提供了重要的細節(jié)？例如，如果研究涉及訪談，涉及多少人？地理區(qū)域，職業(yè)和年齡的范圍是什么？問什么問題？ （并非每個研究項目都足以全面回答它提出的問題，19世紀意大利都靈大學刑事人類學系主任Cesare Lombroso認為所有罪犯都有某些共同點，他相信所有犯罪分子都是顱骨畸形，他相信，他的顱骨形狀與原始人類似。他對監(jiān)獄的研究似乎證實了這一理論，一段時間以來，這一理論非常有影響力，直到一位英國研究人員C. Goring發(fā)現(xiàn)許多大學生和教授的頭部形狀為罪犯的形狀?。?/p>

It's important to remember that writers may, consciously or unconsciously, include the evidence that supports their view and omit any evidence that challenges it.So an article or book that seems to present an overwhelming case may actually be a "loaded" argument.

重要的是要記住，作家可能有意無意地包含支持他們觀點的證據(jù)，并省略任何挑戰(zhàn)他們觀點的證據(jù)。因此，似乎呈現(xiàn)壓倒性情況的文章或書籍實際上可能是一個“加載”的論點。

MAKING IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS

做重要的顯著性區(qū)別

Still another important consideration in interpreting evidence is making careful distinctions. The exact distinction needed will, of course, depend on the situation. However, here are three kinds that are frequently necessary in avoiding faulty interpretations:

解釋證據(jù)的另一個重要考慮是仔細區(qū)分。所需的確切區(qū)別當然取決于具體情況。但是，為避免錯誤的解釋，這常常需要三種情形：

1 Between the person and the idea.It's easy to confuse the person with the idea. Just as we tend to overlook the faults of our friends and exaggerate those of our enemies, so we tend to look favorably on the ideas of people we like or admire and unfavorably on those we dislike or do not admire. But the most admirable person can have a shallow mistaken view, and the least admirable can have profound one.Therefore, we should make a conscious effort to keep our analysis of ideas separate from our feeling for the people who hold them.

在個人和想法之間。 個人很容易混淆這個想法。就像我們傾向于忽視朋友的缺點并夸大我們的敵人的缺點一樣，所以我們傾向于看好我們喜歡或欽佩的人們的想法，并對我們不喜歡或不喜歡的人們不利。但最令人敬佩的人可能會有一個錯誤的觀點，最不可敬的人可以有深刻的觀點。因此，我們應該有意識地將我們的想法分析與持有它們的人的感覺分開。

Between what is said and the way it is said. Style and substance are quite different matters. Unfortunately, the person with the clearest and most graceful expression does not always have the soundest idea. So though it is natural for us to be impressed by effective writers or speakers, it's unwise to assume that their ideas are necessarily sound.As Augustine once said, "Our concern with a man is not with what eloquence he teaches, but with what evidence."

在說什么和說的方式之間?。風格和實質是完全不同的事情。不幸的是，那些表達得最清楚最優(yōu)雅的人并不總是有最健康的想法。因此，雖然我們很自然地對有效的作家或演講者留下深刻印象，但認為他們的想法必然是合理的就是不明智的了。正如奧古斯丁曾經(jīng)說過的那樣，“我們對一個男人的關心并不是以他教授的口才，而是憑借什么證據(jù)?！?/p>

Between why people think as they do and whether what they think is correct.It's common to judge people's motives for thinking and acting as they do. Though such judging is sometimes rash, it can be a very helpful kind of interpretation. Ding out that a senator has connections with the handgun manufacturing industry, for example , raises interesting questions about the senator's opposition to gun control laws. But it is important for us to remember that unworthy motivations do not necessarily contaminate the position. The soundness of an idea doesn't depend on the motivations of those who support it. It depends on how well it fits the realities of the situation.

人們?yōu)槭裁磿@樣想，以及他們認為是正確的。?判斷人們思考和行事的動機是很常見的。雖然這樣的判斷有時候很莽撞，但它可能是一種非常有用的解釋。例如，參議員丁與手槍制造業(yè)有聯(lián)系，就引發(fā)了有關參議員反對槍支控制法的有趣問題。但是重要的是我們要記住，不值得的動機不一定會污染這個位置。一個想法的正確性不取決于支持它的人的動機。這取決于它是否符合實際情況。

FINDING THE BEST INTERPRETATION

找到最好的解釋

If we examine the evidence carefully and open-mindedly, we'll seldom find a single interpretation. Rather, we'll find several possible interpretations. Our job will then be to narrow down the possibilities to determine which is the most reasonable interpretation. The basis for deciding which is the most reasonable interpretation is not how popular it is. Neither is it its familiarity to us or our personal preference for it. The test is its relationship to the evidence.The most reasonable interpretation is the one that fits the evidence best –that is, the one that covers all the facts and reconciles conflicting opinions better than any other.

如果我們仔細而開放地審查證據(jù)，我們很少會找到一個單一的解釋。相反，我們會找到幾種可能的解釋。那么我們的工作就是要縮小可能性來確定哪一個是最合理的解釋。決定哪一個是最合理的解釋的基礎不是它是多么受歡迎。也不是它對我們或我們的個人偏好。測試是它與證據(jù)的關系。最合理的解釋是最符合證據(jù)的解釋 - 也就是說，涵蓋所有事實并最好地協(xié)調沖突意見的解釋。

Occasionally, it will be impossible for us to decide on a single interpretation. Two or more interpretations may fit the evidence equally well. In such cases, we should not attempt to force a choice between them but wait until sufficient evidence has been found to warrant a responsible choice.

偶爾，我們不可能決定單一的解釋。兩種或兩種以上的解釋可能同樣適合證據(jù)。在這種情況下，我們不應該試圖迫使他們之間做出選擇，而是等待直到找到足夠的證據(jù)來確保負責任的選擇。

APPLICATIONS

應用

To the evidence you gather in application 1 of Chapter 19, add any evidence from your own experience and observation. Then interpret all the evidence, asking and answering the questions detailed in this chapter. One the basis of your interpretation,decide your position on the issue.

對于你在十九章第一個應用中收集的證據(jù)，添加你自己的經(jīng)驗和觀察的任何證據(jù)。然后解釋所有證據(jù)，詢問和回答本章中詳述的問題。一個解釋的基礎，決定你在這個問題上的立場。

To the evidence you gathered in application 2 of Chapter 19, add any evidence form your own experience and observation. Then interpret all the evidence, asking and answering the questions detailed in this chapter. On the basis of your interpretation, decide your position on the issue.

對于您在第19章應用2中收集的證據(jù)，請?zhí)砑幽约旱慕?jīng)驗和觀察的任何證據(jù)。然后解釋所有證據(jù)，詢問和回答本章中詳述的問題。根據(jù)你的解釋，決定你在這個問題上的立場。

這個系列是對超越感覺：批判性思考指南 07版做的翻譯練習，如果覺得有幫助可以點鏈接購買第九版中文，英文原版在這里Beyond Feelings：A Guide to Critical Thinking （英語）