复习Love is a Fallacy中的几个基本逻辑谬误概念

lindamy

时代广场舞照跳
VIP
注册
2005-11-23
消息
26,470
荣誉分数
6,629
声望点数
373
这篇著名的幽默短篇小说是曾经学过的一篇英文课文,可能这里很多人都知道。

在整容还不普遍的时代,小说中的主角认为把漂亮而笨的女孩培训成功,比把聪明而丑的女孩变漂亮要容易得多,他用一件浣熊皮大衣,换来了自己心仪已久的女孩,并花了5个晚上反复培训基本逻辑谬误知识,经过5个晚上的充满学术气氛的约会后,女朋友迅速从一个傻白甜变成了男主砸在自己脚上的石头,可见基本逻辑谬误知识的威力巨大。

以下为转贴:

【1】简述小说情节(Plot)

这篇小说是以第一人称视角叙述的,让读者近距离亲切地感受到了男主的硬核之风。

开幕便是一记雷击,男主对自己一阵彩虹屁式的夸赞,不仅让读者学到了很多英语形容词,也学会了日常生活中如何用英语夸人:

Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute -- I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist's scales, as penetrating as a scalpel. And -- think of it! I was only eighteen.

那年十八,我头脑冷静、逻辑缜密。机敏,精明,有洞察力这些我都占齐了。我大脑强劲如发电机,精准如化学家的量表,锐利如手术刀。

词汇积累:calculating adj. 精明的;perspicacious adj. 有洞察力的;acute adj. 敏锐的(另一意思同urgent adj. 紧急的);astute adj. 机敏的】

读到这里,我还是挺满意的,毕竟第一段就学会了这么多形容词,而这些词在托福和GRE考试中也经常出现。

而且通过第一段还学会了这么多夸人的小技巧,以后出国旅游或者读书都不愁了(只需把文章开头的第一人称改成第二人称)......

随后,男配角,男主的大学室友Petey出现,接下来就是让读者学习如何怼人的英语技巧了:

Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox.
其实简单翻译一下就是:同在屋檐下,智商差距大。

光从前两段其实我们不难看出男主内心的极度膨胀,这也为随后的追爱剧情埋下了伏笔。

接下来,男主在与室友Petey的沟通中得知,他极其希望得到一件时下最流行的浣熊皮大衣(记住这件大衣),于是“机智”的男主转念一想,把自己家里的陈年老浣熊皮衣送给了Petey,条件是Petey把正在处于暧昧期间的女性朋友Polly让给自己。Petey犹豫了一阵也答应了。

于是男主便和Polly开始约会,约会的主题不是看话剧、也不是去旅行、亦或是参加party,而是听男主讲逻辑上的谬误。因为在“聪明”的男主看来,必须把Polly培养成跟自己相同的逻辑带师,她才能“有机会”跟自己交往。

男主连续五天不厌其烦地给Polly讲述了日常生活中逻辑上的一些谬误,还进行了点对点的举例论证,终于把“傻白甜”的Polly教会了。

男主喜出望外,觉得Polly终于可以成为自己的妻子了,可能连孩子的名字都想好了。

于是觉得时机成熟了的男主,果断向Polly示爱,但却被Polly用自己教会的逻辑逐条逐字地反驳,并且Polly告诉男主她与Petey重归于好了。

男主从儒雅随和,变得歇斯底里;从皮格马利翁,变成了弗兰肯斯坦......

最后,在男主的追问下,Polly缓缓地说出了自己与Petey相爱的原因——那件浣熊皮大衣

【2】逻辑谬误(Logical Fallacies)​

接下来我们来谈一谈文中男主讲述的逻辑谬误:

(1)Dicto Simpliciter(绝对判断)


Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on unqualified generalization.
当一个人的论据是通过一个绝对概括的总结得出的,那么这就属于是绝对判断。

例如:运动对人的身体有帮助,所以我们每个人都要运动。

这个结论是错误的,因为对于一小部分心脏亚健康的人的来说,运动可能就增大他们患心脏病的风险。这类逻辑错误也叫作Sweeping generalization,也即是把一个绝对化的判断凌驾于每一个个体上。

(2)Hasty generalization(过度概化)

The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion.

用局部极小一部分事例来论证一个整体的共同性,这也是一个严重的逻辑谬误。

例如:我不会说法语,我的大学室友也不会说法语,那么由此可得这所大学的所有学生都不会说法语。

(3)Post Hoc(因果颠倒)

Post hoc (sometimes written as post-hoc) is a Latin phrase, meaning "after this" or "after the event". It may refer to: Formulated after the fact.
这个逻辑谬误有点像我们中文语境中“事后诸葛亮”的意思:根据结果去推导原因。

例如:李华每次和我们出门,外面就会下雨,因此,李华是导致降雨的原因。

(4)Contradictory Premises(矛盾前提)

When the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument.
如果前提本就是矛盾的,那么论据也是不成立的。

例如:我有世界上最锋利的矛,能穿透一切,也有世界上最坚固的盾,能抵御一切。因此,我感觉这就是为什么《广告法》规定宣传商品不能绝对化。

(5)Ad Misericordiam(感性论证)

An appeal to pity is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilty.
尝试用一些煽情但与辩论主题毫不相关的言论来换取支持或同情,这一点其实也是逻辑谬误。

例如:你去参加就职应聘,面试的时候说你上有老下有小,穷的揭不开锅。

(6)False Analogy(错误类比)

将两个事物强行联系在一起,这就是错误类比的含义。

例如:比尔盖茨大学辍学之后成了千万富翁,我大学辍学之后也能成千万富翁。

(7)Poisoning the well(井下放毒)

辩论时抛开论点和论据,直接对对方进行人身攻击或是不相干的抨击,这就属于是井下放毒。

例如:张三和室友辩论足球和篮球在中国哪个更受欢迎,张三眼见着辩不过室友,于是就说室友昨天考试作弊blabla......

【3】主题(Theme)

这篇极具节目效果的短篇小说,我认为其主题有二:

(1)爱情是不讲严密逻辑的

Love is not only an error, a deception, but also an emotion that does not follow the principle of logic.
爱是富有情绪化的一个抽象事物,如果把逻辑推理机械生硬地套入到里面,反而会适得其反。文中的逻辑课效果反而不如一件时髦的浣熊皮大衣。

(2)人在爱情面前容易丧失理智

Love makes the narrator stupid.
纵使文中的男主思维缜密,但他在小说最后部分示爱的时候,却屡屡犯下逻辑方面的谬误,这也说明当人被爱冲昏头脑时,所谓的逻辑思维能力可能已经暂时丢失了。

此外,男主在追求Polly时一开始便犯下了逻辑上的大错,他默认Polly会和自己在一起,只要Polly的思维能力达到了自己的要求就可以与自己适配了。


总之,这篇小说剧情幽默接地气,还能学到很多生词和逻辑思维方式,是一篇不可多得的佳作,推荐大家去品读~


这篇小说被拍成了多个短剧,这个是2010年一所高中作的。


Love is a Fallacy​

 

lindamy

时代广场舞照跳
VIP
注册
2005-11-23
消息
26,470
荣誉分数
6,629
声望点数
373
Love is a Fallacy

Written by Max Shulman

Cool was I and logical. Keen,calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was
as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist’s scales, as penetrating as ascalpel. And—think of it!—I only eighteen.

It is not often that one soyoung has such a giant intellect. Take, for example, Petey Bellows, my roommate
at the university. Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow, you understand, but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all, a faddist. Fads, I submit, are the very negation
of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that comes along, to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody else is doing it—this, to me, is the acme of mindlessness. Not, however, to Petey.

One afternoon I found Petey lying on his bed with an expression of such distress on his face that I immediately diagnosed appendicitis. “Don’t move,” I said, “Don’t take a laxative. I’ll get a doctor.”
“Raccoon,” he mumbled thickly.
“Raccoon?” I said, pausing in my flight.

“I want a raccoon coat,” he wailed.

I perceived that his trouble was not physical, but mental. “Why do you want a raccoon coat?”

“I should have known it,” he cried, pounding his temples. “I should have known they’d come back when the
Charleston came back. Like a fool I spent all my money for textbooks, and now I can’t get a raccoon coat.”

“Can you mean,” I said incredulously, “that people are actually wearing raccoon coats again?”

“All the Big Men on Campus are wearing them. Where’ve you been?”

“In the library,” I said, naming a place not frequented by Big Men on Campus.

He leaped from the bed and paced the room. “I’ve got to have a raccoon coat,” he said passionately. “I’ve got
to!”
“Petey, why? Look at it rationally. Raccoon coats are unsanitary. They shed. They smell bad. They weigh
too much. They’re unsightly. They—”

“You don’t understand,” he interrupted impatiently. “It’s the thing to do. Don’t you want to be in the swim?”

“No,” I said truthfully.

“Well, I do,” he declared. “I’d give anything for a raccoon coat. Anything!”

My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear. “Anything?” I asked, looking at him narrowly.

“Anything,” he affirmed in ringing tones.

I stroked my chin thoughtfully. It so happened that I knew where to get my hands on a raccoon coat. My father
had had one in his undergraduate days; it lay now in a trunk in the attic back home. It also happened that Petey had something I wanted. He didn’t have it exactly, but at least he had first rights on it. I refer to his girl, Polly Espy.

I had long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my desire for this young woman was not emotional in
nature. She was, to be sure, a girl who excited the emotions, but I was not one to let my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated, entirely cerebral reason.

I was a freshman in law school. In a few years I would be out in practice. I was well aware of the importance
of the right kind of wife in furthering a lawyer’s career. The successful lawyers I had observed were, almost without exception, married to beautiful, gracious, intelligent women. With one omission, Polly fitted these specifications perfectly.

Beautiful she was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions, but I felt that time would supply the lack. She already had the makings.

Gracious she was. By gracious I mean full of graces. She had an erectness of carriage, an ease of bearing, a
poise that clearly indicated the best of breeding. At table her manners were exquisite. I had seen her at the Kozy Kampus Korner eating the specialty of the house—a sandwich that contained scraps of pot roast, gravy, chopped nuts, and a dipper of sauerkraut—without even getting her fingers moist.

Intelligent she was not. In fact, she veered in the opposite direction. But I believed that under my guidance she would smarten up. At any rate, it was worth a try. It is, after all, easier to make a beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly smart girl beautiful.

“Petey,” I said, “are you in love with Polly Espy?”

“I think she’s a keen kid,” he replied, “but I don’t know if you’d call it love. Why?”

“Do you,” I asked, “have any kind of formal arrangement with her? I mean are you going steady or anything
like that?”

“No. We see each other quite a bit, but we both have other dates. Why?”

“Is there,” I asked, “any other man for whom she has a particular fondness?”

“Not that I know of. Why?”

I nodded with satisfaction. “In other words, if you were out of the picture, the field would be open. Is that
right?”

“I guess so. What are you getting at?”

“Nothing , nothing,” I said innocently, and took my suitcase out the closet.

“Where are you going?” asked Petey.

“Home for weekend.” I threw a few things into the bag.

“Listen,” he said, clutching my arm eagerly, “while you’re home, you couldn’t get some money from your old man, could you, and lend it to me so I can buy a raccoon coat?”

“I may do better than that,” I said with a mysterious wink and closed my bag and left.

“Look,” I said to Petey when I got back Monday morning. I threw open the suitcase and revealed the huge,
hairy, gamy object that my father had worn in his Stutz Bearcat in 1925.

“Holy Toledo!” said Petey reverently. He plunged his hands into the raccoon coat and then his face. “Holy
Toledo!” he repeated fifteen or twenty times.

“Would you like it?” I asked.

“Oh yes!” he cried, clutching the greasy pelt to him. Then a canny look came into his eyes. “What do you want
for it?”

“Your girl.” I said, mincing no words.

“Polly?” he said in a horrified whisper. “You want Polly?”

“That’s right.”

He flung the coat from him. “Never,” he said stoutly.

I shrugged. “Okay. If you don’t want to be in the swim, I guess it’s your business.”

I sat down in a chair and pretended to read a book, but out of the corner of my eye I kept watching Petey. He was a torn man. First he looked at the coat with the expression of a waif at a bakery window. Then he turned away and set his jaw resolutely. Then he looked back at the coat, with even more longing in his face. Then he turned away, but with not so much resolution this time. Back and forth his head swiveled, desire waxing, resolution waning. Finally he didn’t turn away at all; he just stood and stared with mad lust at the coat.
“It isn’t as though I was in love with Polly,” he said thickly. “Or going steady or anything like that.”

“That’s right,” I murmured.

“What’s Polly to me, or me to Polly?”

“Not a thing,” said I.

“It’s just been a casual kick—just a few laughs, that’s all.”

“Try on the coat,” said I.

He complied. The coat bunched high over his ears and dropped all the way down to his shoe tops. He looked
like a mound of dead raccoons. “Fits fine,” he said happily.

I rose from my chair. “Is it a deal?” I asked, extending my hand.

He swallowed. “It’s a deal,” he said and shook my hand.

I had my first date with Polly the following evening. This was in the nature of a survey; I wanted to find out
just how much work I had to do to get her mind up to the standard I required. I took her first to dinner. “Gee, that was a delish dinner,” she said as we left the restaurant. Then I took her to a movie. “Gee, that was a marvy movie,” she
said as we left the theatre. And then I took her home. “Gee, I had a sensaysh time,” she said as she bade me good night.

I went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had gravely underestimated the size of my task. This girl’s lack
of information was terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to supply her with information. First she had to be taught to think. This loomed as a project of no small dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her back to Petey. But then I got to thinking about her abundant physical charms and about the way she entered a room and the way she handled a knife and fork, and I decided to make an effort.

I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a course in logic. It happened that I, as a law student, was taking a course in logic myself, so I had all the facts at my fingertips. “Poll’,” I said to her when I picked her up on our next date, “tonight we are going over to the Knoll and talk.”

“Oo, terrif,” she replied. One thing I will say for this girl: you would go far to find another so agreeable.

We went to the Knoll, the campus trysting place, and we sat down under an old oak, and she looked at me
expectantly. “What are we going to talk about?” she asked.

“Logic.”

She thought this over for a minute and decided she liked it. “Magnif,” she said.

“Logic,” I said, clearing my throat, “is the science of thinking. Before we can think correctly, we must
first learn to recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we will take up tonight.”

“Wow-dow!” she cried, clapping her hands delightedly.

I winced, but went bravely on. “First let us examine the fallacy called Dicto Simpliciter.”

“By all means,” she urged, batting her lashes eagerly.

“Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an unqualified generalization. For example: Exercise is good.
Therefore everybody should exercise.”

“I agree,” said Polly earnestly. “I mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds the body and everything.”

“Polly,” I said gently, “the argument is a fallacy. Exercise is good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. You must
qualify the generalization. You must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people. Otherwise you have committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you see?”

“No,” she confessed. “But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!”

“It will be better if you stop tugging at my sleeve,” I told her, and when she desisted, I continued. “Next we
take up a fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You can’t speak French. Petey Bellows can’t speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.”

“Really?” said Polly, amazed. “Nobody?

I hid my exasperation. “Polly, it’s a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few
instances to support such a conclusion.”

“Know any more fallacies?” she asked breathlessly. “This is more fun than dancing even.”

I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with this girl, absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing
if not persistent. I continued. “Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let’s not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.”

“I know somebody just like that,” she exclaimed. “A girl back home—Eula Becker, her name is. It never
fails. Every single time we take her on a picnic—”

“Polly,” I said sharply, “it’s a fallacy. Eula Becker doesn’t cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker.”

“I’ll never do it again,” she promised contritely. “Are you mad at me?”

I sighed. “No, Polly, I’m not mad.”

“Then tell me some more fallacies.”

“All right. Let’s try Contradictory Premises.”

“Yes, let’s,” she chirped, blinking her eyes happily.

I frowned, but plunged ahead. “Here’s an example of Contradictory Premises: If God can do anything, can He
make a stone so heavy that He won’t be able to lift it?”

“Of course,” she replied promptly.

“But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone,” I pointed out.

“Yeah,” she said thoughtfully. “Well, then I guess He can’t make the stone.”

“But He can do anything,” I reminded her.

She scratched her pretty, empty head. “I’m all confused,” she admitted.

“Of course you are. Because when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no
argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?”

“Tell me more of this keen stuff,” she said eagerly.

I consulted my watch. “I think we’d better call it a night. I’ll take you home now, and you go over all the
things you’ve learned. We’ll have another session tomorrow night.”

I deposited her at the girls’ dormitory, where she assured me that she had had a perfectly terrif evening, and I went glumly home to my room. Petey lay snoring in his bed, the raccoon coat huddled like a great hairy beast at his feet. For a moment I considered waking him and telling him that he could have his girl back. It seemed clear that my project was doomed to failure. The girl simply had a logic-proof head.

But then I reconsidered. I had wasted one evening; I might as well waste another. Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the extinct crater of her mind a few members still smoldered. Maybe somehow I could fan them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect fraught with hope, but I decided to give it one more try.

Seated under the oak the next evening I said, “Our first fallacy tonight is called Ad Misericordiam.”

She quivered with delight.

“Listen closely,” I said. “A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he
replies that he has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming.”

A tear rolled down each of Polly’s pink cheeks. “Oh, this is awful, awful,” she sobbed.

“Yes, it’s awful,” I agreed, “but it’s no argument. The man never answered the boss’s question about his
qualifications. Instead he appealed to the boss’s sympathy. He committed the fallacy of Ad Misericordiam. Do you understand?”

“Have you got a handkerchief?” she blubbered.

I handed her a handkerchief and tried to keep from screaming while she wiped her eyes. “Next,” I said in a
carefully controlled tone, “we will discuss False Analogy. Here is an example: Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during an operation, lawyers have
briefs to guide them during a trial, carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a house. Why, then, shouldn’t students be allowed to look at their textbooks during an examination?”

“There now,” she said enthusiastically, “is the most marvy idea I’ve heard in years.”

“Polly,” I said testily, “the argument is all wrong. Doctors, lawyers, and carpenters aren’t taking a test to
see how much they have learned, but students are. The situations are altogether different, and you can’t make an analogy between them.”

“I still think it’s a good idea,” said Polly.

“Nuts,” I muttered. Doggedly I pressed on. “Next we’ll try Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.”

“Sounds yummy,” was Polly’s reaction.

“Listen: If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of
pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.”

“True, true,” said Polly, nodding her head “Did you see the movie? Oh, it just knocked me out. That
Walter Pidgeon is so dreamy. I mean he fractures me.”

“If you can forget Mr. Pidgeon for a moment,” I said coldly, “I would like to point out that statement is a
fallacy. Maybe Madame Curie would have discovered radium at some later date. Maybe somebody else would have discovered it. Maybe any number of things would have happened. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.”

“They ought to put Walter Pidgeon in more pictures,” said Polly, “I hardly ever see him any more.”

One more chance, I decided. But just one more. There is a limit to what flesh and blood can bear. “The next
fallacy is called Poisoning the Well.”

“How cute!” she gurgled.

“Two men are having a debate.The first one gets up and says, ‘My opponent is a notorious liar. You can’t
believe a word that he is going to say.’ … Now, Polly, think. Think hard. What’s wrong?”

I watched her closely as she knit her creamy brow in concentration. Suddenly a glimmer of intelligence—the
first I had seen—came into her eyes. “It’s not fair,” she said with indignation. “It’s not a bit fair. What chance has the second man got if the first man calls him a liar before he even begins talking?”

“Right!” I cried exultantly. “One hundred per cent right. It’s not fair. The first man has poisoned the
well
before anybody could drink from it. He has hamstrung his opponent before he could even start … Polly, I’m proud of you.”

“Pshaws,” she murmured, blushing with pleasure.

“You see, my dear, these things aren’t so hard. All you have to do is concentrate. Think—examine—evaluate. Come now, let’s review everything we have learned.”

“Fire away,” she said with an airy wave of her hand.

Heartened by the knowledge that Polly was not altogether a cretin, I began a long, patient review of all I had
told her. Over and over and over again I cited instances, pointed out flaws, kept hammering away without letup. It was like digging a tunnel. At first, everything was work, sweat, and darkness. I had no idea when I would reach the
light, or even if I would. But I persisted. I pounded and clawed and scraped, and finally I was rewarded. I saw a chink of light. And then the chink got bigger and the sun came pouring in and all was bright.

Five grueling nights with this took, but it was worth it. I had made a logician out of Polly; I had taught her
to think. My job was done. She was worthy of me, at last. She was a fit wife for me, a proper hostess for my many mansions, a suitable mother for my well-heeled children.

It must not be thought that I was without love for this girl. Quite the contrary. Just as Pygmalion loved the
perfect woman he had fashioned, so I loved mine. I decided to acquaint her with my feelings at our very next meeting. The time had come to change our relationship from academic to romantic.

“Polly,” I said when next we sat beneath our oak, “tonight we will not discuss fallacies.”

“Aw, gee,” she said, disappointed.
“My dear,” I said, favoring her with a smile, “we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along
splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched.”

“Hasty Generalization,” said Polly brightly.

“I beg your pardon,” said I.

“Hasty Generalization,” she repeated. “How can you say that we are well matched on the basis of only five
dates?”

I chuckled with amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons well. “My dear,” I said, patting her hand in
a tolerant manner, “five dates is plenty. After all, you don’t have to eat a whole cake to know that it’s good.”

“False Analogy,” said Polly promptly. “I’m not a cake. I’m a girl.”

I chuckled with somewhat less amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons perhaps too well. I decided
to change tactics. Obviously the best approach was a simple, strong, direct declaration of love. I paused for a moment while my massive brain chose the proper word. Then I began:

“Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me, the moon and the stars and the constellations of outer
space. Please, my darling, say that you will go steady with me, for if you will not, life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk.”

There, I thought, folding my arms, that ought to do it.

“Ad Misericordiam,” said Polly.
I ground my teeth. I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my monster had me by the throat. Frantically
I fought back the tide of panic surging through me; at all costs I had to keep cool.

“Well, Polly,” I said, forcing a smile, “you certainly have learned your fallacies.”

“You’re darn right,” she said with a vigorous nod.

“And who taught them to you, Polly?”

“You did.”

“That’s right. So you do owe me something, don’t you, my dear? If I hadn’t come along you never would have
learned about fallacies.”

“Hypothesis Contrary to Fact,” she said instantly.

I dashed perspiration from my brow. “Polly,” I croaked, “you mustn’t take all these things so literally. I mean this is just classroom stuff. You know that the things you learn in school don’t have anything to do with life.”

“Dicto Simpliciter,” she said, wagging her finger at me playfully.

That did it. I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. “Will you or will you not go steady with me?”

“I will not,” she replied.

“Why not?” I demanded.

“Because this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I would go steady with him.”

I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After he promised, after he made a deal, after he shook my
hand! “The rat!” I shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf. “You can’t go with him, Polly. He’s a liar. He’s a cheat. He’s a rat.”

“Poisoning the Well ,” said Polly, “and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too.”

With an immense effort of will, I modulated my voice. “All right,” I said. “You’re a logician. Let’s look at
this thing logically. How could you choose Petey Bellows over me? Look at me—a brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a man with an assured future. Look at Petey—a knothead, a jitterbug, a guy who’ll never know where his next meal is coming from. Can you give me one logical reason why you should go steady with Petey Bellows?”

“I certainly can,” declared Polly. “He’s got a raccoon coat.”
 

lindamy

时代广场舞照跳
VIP
注册
2005-11-23
消息
26,470
荣誉分数
6,629
声望点数
373

【小说】爱是一种谬误 (作者:Max Shulman)​


来源: 慧惠 于 2017-11-04 15:33:13

我这个人头脑冷静,逻辑思维能力强。敏锐、慎重、聪慧、深刻、机智一一这些就是我的特点。我的大脑像发电机一样发达,像化学家的天平一样精确,像手术刀一样锋利。一一你知道吗?我才十八岁呀。

年纪这么轻而智力又如此非凡的人并不常有。就拿在明尼苏达大学跟我同住一个房间的皮蒂·伯奇来说吧,他跟我年龄相同,经历一样,可他笨得像头驴。小伙子长得年轻漂亮,可惜脑子里却空空如也。他易于激动,情绪反复无常,容易受别人的影响。最糟的是他爱赶时髦。我认为,赶时髦就是最缺乏理智的表现。见到一种新鲜的东西就跟着学,以为别人都在那么干,自己也就卷进去傻干——这在我看来,简直愚蠢至极,但皮蒂却不以为然。

一天下午我看见皮蒂躺在床上,脸上显露出一种痛苦不堪的表情,我立刻断定他是得了阑尾炎。“别动,”我说,“别吃泻药,我就请医生来。”

“浣熊,”他咕哝着说。

“浣熊?”我停下来问道。

“我要一件浣熊皮大衣,”他痛苦地哭叫着。

我明白了,他不是身体不舒服,而是精神上不太正常。“你为什么要浣熊皮大衣?”

“我本早该知道,”他哭叫着,用拳头捶打着太阳穴,“我早该知道查尔斯登舞再度流行时,浣熊皮大衣也会时兴起来的。我真傻,钱都买了课本,可现在不能买浣熊皮大衣了。”

我带着怀疑的眼神问道:“你是说人们真的又要穿浣熊皮大衣吗?”

“校园里有身分的人哪个不穿?你刚从哪儿来?”

“图书馆,”我说了一个有身分的人不常去的地方。

他从床上一跃而起,在房间里踱来踱去。“我一定要弄到一件浣熊皮大衣,”他激动地说,“非弄到不可!”

“皮蒂,你怎么啦?冷静地想一想吧,浣熊皮大衣不卫生,掉毛,味道难闻,既笨重又不好看,而且……

“你不懂,”他不耐烦地打断我的话。“这就叫时髦。难道你不想赶时髦吗?”

“不想,”我坦率地回答。

“好啦,我可想着呢!”他肯定地说。“只要有浣熊皮大衣,要我什么我都给,什么都行!”

我的大脑一一这件精密的仪器一一即刻运转起来。我仔细地打量着他,问道:“什么都行?”

“什么都行!”他斩钉截铁地说。

我若有所思地抚着下巴。好极了,我知道哪儿能弄到浣熊皮大衣。我父亲在大学读书时就穿过一件,现在还放在家里顶楼的箱子里。恰好皮蒂也有我需要的东西。尽管他还没有弄到手,但至少他有优先权。我说的是他的女朋友波利.埃斯皮。

我早已钟情于波利埃斯皮了。我要特别说明的是,我想得到这妙龄少女并不是由于感情的驱使。她确实是个易于使人动情的姑娘。可我不是那种让感情统治理智的人,我想得到波利是经过了慎重考虑的,完全是出于理智上的原因。

我是法学院一年级的学生,过不了几年就要挂牌当律师了。我很清楚,一个合适的妻子对一个律师的前途来说是非常重要的。我发现大凡有成就的律师几乎都是和美丽、文雅、聪明的女子结婚的。波利只差一条就完全符合这些条件了。

她漂亮。尽管她的身材还没有挂在墙上的美女照片那么苗条,但我相信时间会弥补这个不足。她已经大致不差了。

她温文尔雅——我这里是指她很有风度。她婷婷玉立,落落大方,泰然自若,一眼就看得出她很有教养。她进餐时,动作是那样的优美。我曾看见过她在“舒适的校园之角”吃名点——一块夹有几片带汁的炖肉和碎核桃仁的三明治,还有一小杯泡菜——手指儿一点儿也没有沾湿。

她不聪明,实际上恰好相反。但我相信有我的指导,她会变得聪明的。无论如何可以试一试,使一个漂亮的笨姑娘变得聪明比使一个聪明的丑姑娘变得漂亮毕竟要容易些。

“皮蒂,”我说,“你在跟波利谈恋爱吧?”

“我觉得她是一个讨人喜欢的姑娘,”他回答说,“但我不知道这是不是就叫做爱情。你问这个干吗?”

“你和她有什么正式的安排吗?我是说你们是不是常有约会,或者有诸如此类的事情?”我问。

“没有,我们常常见面。但我们俩各自有别的约会。你问这个干嘛?”

“还有没有别人使她特别喜欢呢?”我问道。

“那我可不知道。你问这些干吗?”

我满意地点点头说:“这就是说。如果你不在,场地就是空着的。你说是吗?”

“我想是这样。你这话是什么意思?”

“没什么,没什么,”我若无其事地说,接着把手提皮箱从壁橱里拿了出来。

“你去哪儿?”皮蒂问。

“回家过周末。”我把几件衣服扔进了提箱。

“听着,”他焦急的抓住我的胳膊说,“你回家后,从你父亲那儿弄点钱来借给我买一件浣熊皮大衣,好吗?”

“也许不仅只是这样呢。”我神秘地眨着眼睛说,随后关上皮箱就走了。

星期一上午我回到学校时对皮蒂说:“你瞧!”我猛地打开皮箱,那件肥大、毛茸茸、散发着怪味的东西露了出来,这就是我父亲1925年在施图茨比尔凯特汽车里穿过的那一件浣熊皮大衣。

“太好了!”皮蒂恭敬的说。他把两只手插进那件皮大衣,然后把头也埋了进去。“太好啦!”他不断地重复了一二十遍。

“你喜欢吗?”我问道。

“哦,喜欢!”他高声叫着,把那满是油腻的毛皮紧紧地搂在怀里。接着他眼里露出机警的神色,说着:“你要什么换呢?”

“你的女朋友,”我毫不讳言地说。

“波利?”他吃惊了,结结巴巴地说,“你要波利?”

“是的。”

他把皮大衣往旁一扔,毫不妥协的说:“那可不行。”

我耸了耸肩膀说:“好吧,如果你不想赶时髦,那就随你的便好了。”

我在一把椅子上坐了下来,假装读书,暗暗地瞟着皮蒂。他神情不安,用面包店窗前的流浪儿那种馋涎欲滴的神情望着那件皮大衣,接着扭过头去,坚定地咬紧牙关。过了一会儿,他又回过头来把目光投向那件皮大衣,脸上露出更加渴望的神情。等他再扭过头去,已经不那么坚决了。他看了又看,越看越爱,慢慢地决心也就 减弱了。最后他再也不扭过头去,只是站在那儿,贪婪地盯着那件皮大衣。

“我和波利好像不是在谈恋爱,”他含含糊糊地说。“也说不上经常约会或有诸如此类的事情。”

“好的,”我低声地说。

“波利对我算得了什么?我对波利又算得了什么?”

“只不过是一时高兴—–不过是说说笑笑罢了,如此而已。”

“试试大衣吧。”我说

“他照办了。衣领蒙住了他的耳朵,下摆一直拖到脚跟。他看起 来活像一具浣熊尸体。他高兴地说:“挺合身的。”

“我从椅子上站了起来。“成交了吗?”我说着,把手伸向他。

他轻易地接受了。“算数.”他说,并跟我握了握手。

第二天晚上,我与波利第一次约会了。这一次实际上是我对她的考察。我想弄清要作多大的努力才能使她的头脑达到我的要求。我首先请她去吃饭。“哈,这顿饭真 够意思,”离开餐馆时她说。然后我请她去看电影。“嘿,这片子真好看,”走出影院时她说。最后我送她回家。和我道别时她说:“嘿,今晚玩得真痛快。”

我带着不大痛快的心情回到了房间。我对这任务的艰巨性估计得太低了。这姑娘的知识少得叫人吃惊。只是给她增加知识还不够,首先得教她学会思考。这可不是一件容易的事,当时我真想把她还给皮蒂算了。但我一想到她那充满魅力的身材,她那进屋时的模样,她那拿刀叉的姿式,我还是决定再作一番努力。

就像做其他的事情一样,我开始有计划地干了起来。我开始给她上辑课。幸好我是一个学法律的学生,我自己也正在学逻辑学,所以对要教的内容我都很熟悉。当我接她赴第二次约会时,我对她说:“今晚上咱们去‘小山’谈谈吧”。

“啊,好极了,”她回答道。对这姑娘我要补充一句的是,像她这么好商量的人是不多见的。

我们去了“小山”,这是校园里人们幽会的地方。我们坐在一棵老橡树下,她用期待的眼神看着我。“我们谈些什么呢?”她问。

她想了一会儿,觉得不错,便说:“好极了。”

“逻辑学,”我清了清嗓了,“就是思维的科学。在我们能正确地思维之前,首先必须学会判别逻辑方面的常见谬误。我们今晚就要来谈谈这些。”
“哇!”她叫了起来,高兴地拍着手。

我打了个寒噤,但还是鼓足勇气讲下去:“首先我们来考究一下被称为绝对判断(Dicto Simpliciter,段海新注:拉丁文,意思是”to a universal rule”)的谬误。”

“好呀!”她眨了眨眼,催促着。

“绝对判断指的是根据一种无条件的前提推出的论断(unqualified generalization,段海新注:不做约束地泛化,即把一种结论绝对化,防之四海皆准,不允许任何例外)。譬如说,运动是有益的,因此人人都要运动。

“不错,”波利认真地说,“运动是非常有益的,它能增强体质,好处太多了!”

“波利,”我温和地说,“这种论点是谬误。运动有益是一种无条件的前提(unqualified generalization,不做约束地泛化)。比方说,假设你得了心脏病,运动不但无益,反而有害,有不少人医生就不准他们运 动。你必须给这种前提加以限制。你应该说,一般来说运动是有益的。或者说,对大多数人是有益的。否则就是犯了绝对判断的错误,懂吗?”

“不懂,”她坦率地说。“这可太有意思了,讲吧!往下讲吧!”

“你最好别拉我袖子了,”我对她说。等她松了手,我继续讲:“下面我们讲一种被称为草率结论(Hasty Generalization)的谬误。你仔细听:你不会讲法语,我不会讲法语,皮蒂也不会讲法语。因此我就会断定在明尼苏达大学谁也不会讲法语。

“真的?”波利好奇的问道,“谁也不会吗?”

我压住火气。“波利,这是一种谬误,这是一种草率的结论。支持这种结论的例证太少了。”

“你还知道其他的谬误吗?”她气喘吁吁地说:“这真比跳舞还有意思啦!”

我极力地使自己不灰心。我真拿这姑娘没办法,的确是毫无办法。可是,如果我不坚持下去,我就太没有用了。因此,我继续讲下去。

“现在听我讲讲‘牵强附会(Post Hoc,段海新注:拉丁文,意思是after this, therefore because (on account) of this)’的谬误。听着:我们不要带比尔出去野餐。每次带他一起去,天就下雨。

“我就见过这样的人,”她感叹地说。“我们家乡有个女孩,名叫尤拉·蓓克尔。从没有例外,每次我们带她去野餐……”

“波利,”我严厉地说,“这是一种谬误。下雨并不是尤拉蓓克尔造成的,下雨与她没有任何关系。如果你责怪尤拉·蓓克尔,你就是犯了牵强附会的错误。”
“我再也不这样了,”她懊悔地保证说。“你生我的气了吗?”

我深深地叹了一口气:“不,波利,我没生气。”

“那么,给我再讲些谬误吧!”

“好,让我们来看看矛盾前提吧。”

“行,行,”她叽叽喳喳地叫着,两眼闪现出快乐的光芒。

我皱了皱眉头,但还是接着讲下去。“这里有一个矛盾前提( Contradictory Premises)的例子:如果上帝是万能的,他能造出一块连他自己也搬不动的大石头吗?

“当然能,”她毫不犹豫地回答道。

“但是如果他是万能的,他就能搬动那块石头呀,”我提醒她。

“是嘛!”她若有所思地说,“嗯,我想他造不出那样的石头。”

“但他是万能的啊,”我进一步提醒她。

她用手抓了抓她那漂亮而又空虚的脑袋。“我全搞糊涂了,”她承认说。

“你确实糊涂了。因为如果一种论点的各个前提是矛盾的,那么这种论点就不能成立。如果有一种不可抗拒的力量.就不可能有一种不可移动的物体;如果有一种不可移动的物体,就不可能有一种不可抗拒的力量。懂吗?”

“再给我讲些这类新奇的玩意儿吧,”她恳切地说。

我看了看表,说:“我想今晚就谈到这里。我现在该送你回去了。你把所学的东西复习一遍,我们明晚上再来上一课吧。”

我把她送到了女生宿舍,在那里她向我保证说这个晚上她过得非常痛快。我闷闷不乐地回到了我的房间,皮蒂正鼾声如雷地睡在床上。那件浣熊皮大衣像一头多毛的野兽扒在他的脚边。我当时真想把他叫醒,告诉他可以把他的女朋友要回去。看来我的计划会要落空了。这姑娘对逻辑简直是一点儿都不开窍。

但是我回过头一想,既然已经浪费了一个晚上,不妨还是再花一个晚上看看。天晓得,说不定她头脑里的死火山口中的什么地方,还有些火星会喷射出来呢。也许我会有办法能把这些火星扇成熊熊烈焰。当然,成功的希望是不大的,但我还是决定再试一次。

第二天晚上我们又坐在那棵橡树下,我说:“今晚上我们要谈的第一种谬误叫做文不对题(Ad Misericordiam, 也被称作Appeal to pity,博取同情)。”

她高兴得都发抖了。

“注意听,”我说。“有个人申请工作,当老板问他所具备的条件时,他回答说他家有妻子和六个孩子。妻子完全残废了,孩子们没吃的,没穿的,睡觉没有床,生火没有煤,眼看冬天就要到了。”

两滴眼泪顺着波利那粉红的面颊往下滚。“啊,这太可怕了!太可怕了!”她抽泣着说。“是的,是太可怕了,”我同意地说。“但这可不成其为申请工作的理由。那人根本没有回答老板提出的关于他的条件的间题,反而祈求老板的同情。他犯了文不对题的错误。你懂吗!”

“你带手帕了没有?”她哭着说。

我把手帕递给她。当她擦眼泪时,我极力控制自己的火气。“下面,”我小心地压低声调说,“我们要讨论错误类比(False Analogy)。这里有一个例子:应该允许学生考试时看课本。既然外科医生在做手术时可以看X光片,律师在审案时可以看案由,木匠在造房子时可以看蓝图,为什么学生在考试时不能看课本呢?”

“这个,”她满怀激情地说,“可是我多少年来听到的最好的主意。”

“波利,”我生气地说,“这种论点全错了。医生、律师和木匠并不是以参加考试的方式去测验他们所学的东西。学生们才是这样。情况完全不同,你不能在不同的情况之间进行类比”。

“我还是觉得这是个好主意,”波利说。

“咳!”我嘀咕着,但我还是执意地往下讲,“接下去我们试试与事实相反的假设(Hypothesis Contrary to Fact)吧。” 波利的反应是:“倒挺好。”

“你听着:如果居里夫人不是碰巧把一张照相底片放在装有一块沥清铀矿石的抽屉里,那么世人今天就不会知道镭。

“对,对,”波利点头称是。“你看过那部影片吗?哦,真好看。沃尔特·皮金演得太好了.我是说他让我着迷了。”

“如果你能暂时忘记皮金先生,”我冷冰冰地说,“我会愿意指出这种说法是错误的。也许居里夫人以后会发现镭的,也许由别人去发现,也许还会发生其他的事情。你不能从一个不实际的假设出发,从中得出任何可站得住脚的结论。”

“人们真应该让沃尔特皮金多拍些照片,”波利说,“我几乎再也看不到他了。” 我决定再试一次,但只能一次。一个人的忍耐毕竟是有限度的。我说:“下一个谬误叫做井下放毒(Poisoning the Well,段海新注:我觉得翻译成人身攻击更合适一些)。”

“多聪明啊!”她咯咯笑了起来。

“有两个人在进行一场辩论。第一个人站起来说:‘我的论敌是个劣迹昭彰的骗子。他所说的每一句话都不可信。’……波利,现在你想想,好好想一想。这句话错在哪里?”

她紧锁着眉头,我凝神地看着她。突然,一道智慧的光芒——这是我从未看到过的一一闪现在她的眼中。“这不公平,”她气愤地说,“一点都不公平。如果第一个人不等第二个人开口就说他是骗子,那么第二个人还有什么可说的呢?”

“对!”我高兴地叫了起来,“百分之百的对,是不公平。第一个人还不等别人喝到井水,就在井下放毒了。他还不等他的对手开口就已经伤害了他。……波利,我真为你感到骄傲。”

她轻轻地“哼”了一声,高兴得脸郡发红了。

“你看,亲爱的,这些问题并不深奥,只要精力集中,就能对付。思考——分析—一判断。来,让我们把所学过的东西再复习一遍吧。”

“来吧,”她说着。把手往上一晃。 看到波利并不那么傻,我的劲头上来了。于是,我便开始把对她讲过的一切,长时间地、耐心地复习了一遍。我给她一个一个地举出例子,指出其中的错误,不停地讲下去。就好比挖掘一条隧道,开始只有劳累、汗水和黑暗,不知道什么时候能见到光亮,甚至还不知道能否见到光亮。但我坚持着,凿啊,挖啊,刮啊,终于得到 了报偿。我见到了一线光亮,这光亮越来越大,终于阳光洒进来了,一切都豁然开朗了。

我辛辛苦苦地花了五个晚上,但总算还是没有白费,我使波利变成一个逻辑学家了,我教她学会了思考。我的任务完成了,她最终还是配得上我的。她会成为我贤慧的妻子,我那些豪华公馆里出色的女主人。我那些有良好教养的孩子们的合格的母亲。

不要以为我不爱这姑娘了,恰恰相反。正如皮格马利翁珍爱他自己塑造的完美的少女像一样,我也非常地爱我的波利。我决定下次会面时把自己的感情向她倾吐。该是把我们师生式的关系转化为爱情的时候了。

“波利,”当我们又坐在我们那棵橡树下时,我说。“今晚我们不再讨论谬误了。”

“怎么啦?”她失望地问道。

“亲爱的,”我友好地对她笑了笑,“我们已经一起度过了五个晚上,我们相处得很好。显然我们俩是很相配的。”

草率结论(Hasty Generalization),”波利伶俐地说。

“你是说…?”我问道。

“草率结论,”她重复了一遍。“你怎么能凭我们仅有的五次约会就说我们俩很相配呢?”

我咯咯一笑,觉得挺有意思。这可爱的小家伙功课学得可真不错。“亲爱的,”我耐心地拍打着她的手说,“五次约会就不少了,毕竟你不必把整个蛋糕吃下去才知道蛋糕的甜味。”

“错误类比(False Analogy),”波利敏捷地说。“我可不是蛋糕,我是个女孩子。”我微微一笑,但这次不感到那么有意思了。这可爱的孩子功课或许是学得太好了。我决定改变 策略。显然,最好的办法就是态度明朗,直接了当地向她表示爱。我沉默了一会儿,用我特别发达的脑袋挑选着合适的词句。然后我便开始说:

“波利,我爱你。对我来说,你就是整个世界,是月亮,是星星,是整个宇宙。我亲爱的,请说你爱我吧。如果你不这样,我的生活就失去意义了。我将会萎靡不振,茶不饮,饭不思,到处游荡,成为一个步履蹒跚、双眼凹下的躯壳。

我交叉着双手站在那里,心想这下子可打动了她。

文不对题(Ad misericordiam),”波利说。

我咬咬牙。我不是皮格马利翁,我是弗兰肯斯坦,我的喉咙似乎一下子让魔鬼卡住了。我极力地控制涌上心头的阵阵痛楚。无论怎样,我电要保持冷静。
“好了,波利,”我强装着笑脸说,“这些谬误你的确已学到家了。”

“这可说得很对,”她使劲地点了点头说道。

“可是波利,这一切是谁教给你的?”

“你教的嘛。”

“是的,那你得感谢我呀。是吗,亲爱的?要是我不和你在一起,你永远也不会学到这些谬误的”。

与事实相反的假设(Hypothesis Contrary to Fact),”波利不加思索地说着。

我摔掉了额前的汗珠。“波利,”我用嘶哑的声音说道,“你不要死板地接受这些东西。我是说那只是课堂上讲的东西。你知道学校学的东西与现实生活毫不相关。

绝对判断(Dicto Simpliciter),”她说道,嬉戏地向我摇摇指头。

这一下可使我恼火了。我猛地跳了起来,像公牛似地吼叫着,“你到底想不想跟我相爱?”

“我不想,”她答道。

“为什么不想?”我追问着。

“因为今天下午我答应了皮蒂伯奇,我愿意和他相爱。”

我被皮蒂这一无耻的行径气得一阵晕眩,情不自禁地向后退去。皮蒂答应了我,跟我成了交,还跟我握了手呢!“这个可耻的家伙!”我尖着嗓子大叫,把一块块草皮踢了起来。“你不能跟他在一起,波利。他是一个说谎的人,一个骗子,一个可耻的家伙!

井下放毒(Poisoning the Well ),”波利说。“别叫嚷了,我认为大声叫嚷就是一种谬误。”

我以极大的意志力把语气缓和下来。“好吧,”我说,“你是一个逻辑学家。那就让我们从逻辑上来分析这件事吧。你怎么会看得中皮蒂,而看不起我呢?你瞧我 一个才华横溢的学生,一个了不起的知识分子,一个前途无量的人;而皮蒂——一个笨蛋,一个反复无常的人,一个吃了上顿不知有没有下顿的家伙。你能给我一个合乎逻辑的理由来说明你为什么要跟皮蒂好吗?”

“当然能,”波利肯定地说。“他有一件浣熊皮大衣。”

 
最后编辑:

Teddy

本站元老
VIP
注册
2002-03-11
消息
13,300
荣誉分数
3,232
声望点数
373
love is blind, 我只看到了 - 浣熊皮大衣
 

BFB_GMAIL

土地平旷,屋舍俨然,有良田、美池、桑竹之属。阡陌交通,鸡犬相闻。其中往来种作,男女衣着,悉如外人。
注册
2015-11-10
消息
1,161
荣誉分数
614
声望点数
123
好奇。在哪里学过的呀?
 

billwanhua

本站元老
注册
2005-07-07
消息
6,145
荣誉分数
1,936
声望点数
373
法律系的,逻辑是重要,很久以前学GRE,逻辑题做了很有意思,后来又做LSAT逻辑题,感觉特别绕
 

BFB_GMAIL

土地平旷,屋舍俨然,有良田、美池、桑竹之属。阡陌交通,鸡犬相闻。其中往来种作,男女衣着,悉如外人。
注册
2015-11-10
消息
1,161
荣誉分数
614
声望点数
123
法律系的,逻辑是重要,很久以前学GRE,逻辑题做了很有意思,后来又做LSAT逻辑题,感觉特别绕

:good::good::good:

在我的退休to-do list 上又加一项: 考LSAT, 学点儿法律

众乡亲都在讨论退休之后去哪里养老, 我却在想退休之后去哪里上学:shy:

以前好象听说, 老年人上大学可以免费, 新闻还说有位老人退休之后读了5个学位。不知咱这儿的大学是不是真对老人免费。
 

billwanhua

本站元老
注册
2005-07-07
消息
6,145
荣誉分数
1,936
声望点数
373
:good::good::good:

在我的退休to-do list 上又加一项: 考LSAT, 学点儿法律

众乡亲都在讨论退休之后去哪里养老, 我却在想退休之后去哪里上学:shy:

以前好象听说, 老年人上大学可以免费, 新闻还说有位老人退休之后读了5个学位。不知咱这儿的大学是不是真对老人免费。
找点以前新东方的LSAT题目做做吧,如果有时间,做做那个题目挺有意思的。以前觉得那上面的阅读理解题太难了,不知道现在做起来怎么样,我以前登陆好像带了一本lsat,回头找找看能不能找到,做做看现在阅读能力是不是提高了。

不过我以前做lsat是为了准备GRE。

上大学是个好的养老方法。
 

lindamy

时代广场舞照跳
VIP
注册
2005-11-23
消息
26,470
荣誉分数
6,629
声望点数
373
好奇。在哪里学过的呀?
研究生的英语课。

张汉熙主编的Advanced English, 每册只学了几篇。老师是一位历尽沧桑的右派,课程中经常提起他做过木工,电工,泥瓦匠,动物园饲养员等等丰富经历,讲得很精彩,不少外班学生来听课。

1. 讲 Marrakech 时正是1984年左右,介绍作者 George Orwell 在1949年发表的名篇<1984>,对比他在35年前所做的隐喻,预测。

2. The Trial That Rocked the World, 又称 Monkey Trial,世纪审判。

关于田纳西一个中学生物老师讲授进化论的案子,虽然当事人是个小人物,但是两边的律师团队异常强大,检方有曾经参加过总统竞选的候选人,著名大律师,议员,内阁部长等,辩方有多位哈佛等名校的著名科学家。开场不久,检方强调圣经不可违。辩方举例圣经开始时讲:因为亚当夏娃受到蛇的诱惑偷食禁果,被赶出伊甸园,蛇被上帝判罚终身爬行,于是提问:那么蛇在受到判罚之前是怎么走路的呢?

最后生物老师败诉,判罚$100。但是这个案子对后来美国课堂中圣经和进化论之争起了很重要的影响,这次审判多次被拍成电影 Inherit the Wind (1960,1965,1988,1999)。


3. Hiroshima - The "Liveliest" City in Japan 广岛奥运会。


4. 老师非常欣赏的两篇演讲:Speech on Hitler's Invasion of the U.S.S.R. 获得过诺贝尔文学奖的英国首相丘吉尔接受过传统的贵族教育,非常重视演讲,大约在希特勒进攻后10几个小时后,发表的广播讲话。

Inaugural Address 肯尼迪的就职演讲,这类演讲稿更加完美,当选后经过写作班子起草,润色了几个月的时间,字斟句酌,老师要求背诵最后几段。其中有所有人耳熟能详的名句:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.


第一册

 
最后编辑:

BFB_GMAIL

土地平旷,屋舍俨然,有良田、美池、桑竹之属。阡陌交通,鸡犬相闻。其中往来种作,男女衣着,悉如外人。
注册
2015-11-10
消息
1,161
荣誉分数
614
声望点数
123
刚刚把Love is a Fallacy的译文、概要、视频给看了一遍(原文里生词太多:shy:) 非常涨知识, 相见恨晚。。。

我只学过理工科的 Technical Report Writing 和文科的 Business Communication。所以我知道好多写作上的规矩, 也知道这些规矩的理由, 但到现在才知道这些规矩是基于逻辑学的。有点感悟:
1、自媒体上传的misinformation 很多是犯了基本的逻辑错误。我以前只知道是违反了基本的writing style, 所以觉得读得太牙碜,没法儿看
2、我当年在国内接受的教育, 对于逻辑学和critical thinking方面的训练太薄弱了。刚来的几年, 写的东西被教授改得一踏糊涂, 不是语言问题, 其实是逻辑问题。我发现最近小留们的英文写作训练比我当年强很多了
3、不要参加网上辩论。很多发言不合基本逻辑, 鸡同鸭讲, 把人累死

多谢楼主提供的丰富资料:good::good::good::good:
 

lindamy

时代广场舞照跳
VIP
注册
2005-11-23
消息
26,470
荣誉分数
6,629
声望点数
373
刚刚把Love is a Fallacy的译文、概要、视频给看了一遍(原文里生词太多:shy:) 非常涨知识, 相见恨晚。。。

我只学过理工科的 Technical Report Writing 和文科的 Business Communication。所以我知道好多写作上的规矩, 也知道这些规矩的理由, 但到现在才知道这些规矩是基于逻辑学的。有点感悟:
1、自媒体上传的misinformation 很多是犯了基本的逻辑错误。我以前只知道是违反了基本的writing style, 所以觉得读得太牙碜,没法儿看
2、我当年在国内接受的教育, 对于逻辑学和critical thinking方面的训练太薄弱了。刚来的几年, 写的东西被教授改得一踏糊涂, 不是语言问题, 其实是逻辑问题。我发现最近小留们的英文写作训练比我当年强很多了
3、不要参加网上辩论。很多发言不合基本逻辑, 鸡同鸭讲, 把人累死

多谢楼主提供的丰富资料:good::good::good::good:
很高兴你喜欢。

当时中科院研究生院用的是比较实用的科技英语,有些学生向老师建议,理科学生应当向中科院学习,不要学文学色彩这么强,与科技论文毫不相干文章,老师很不以为然,说英文就是英文,你们听说过有科技中文吗?老师们都是语言文学系毕业的,讲起这些文章有时会眉飞色舞的。

老想找机会把这套课程中没有学过的课文自学一下。当时是应付考试和其他课程,顾不上其他,书是都带出来了,现在网上找也很方便。
 
顶部