8. How tostart and stop arguments
8.如何開始和停止爭論

Part two close analysis,segment eight, how to start and stop argument.
第八部分是如何開始分析的，第二部分是結束。

Have premises.We already know that from our definition, because an argument just is a set ofsentences. Some of them are premises and another is the conclusion. So it's gotto have some premises, but not just any old premises will do. They have to havecertain special properties. For example, suppose I say, I can fix your plumbingand you apply.
有前提。從我們的定義中我們已經知道了，因為論點就是一組句子。它們有的是前提，有的是結論。所以它必須有一些前提，但不只是任何舊的前提。它們必須具有某些特殊性質。例如，假設我說，我可以修好你的水管，然后你申請。

Well, how do Iknow? You're really good at that? And I say, you can trust me, but you ask, whyshould I trust you? And I say, because you can trust me when I say that you cantrust me, you replied, but why should I trust that? And I say, because you cantrust me when I say that you can trust me. When I say that you can trust me.
我怎麼知道？你真的很在行嗎？我說，你可以相信我，但你問，我為什麼要相信你？為什麼我可以相信我，但我可以這麼說？我說，因為當我說你可以信任我時，你可以信任我。當我說你可以信任我。

And obviously wecan go on and on from there. But no matter how far we go, this argument isobviously no good question is why not? All of its premises might be true. Itmight be true that you can trust me and that you can trust me when I say thatyou can trust me. And so on it's conclusion also might be true.
很明顯我們可以繼續下去。但不管我們走多遠，這個論點顯然不是個好問題，為什麼不呢？它所有的前提都可能是真的。當我說你可以信任我的時候，你可以信任我，這也許是真的。等等，它的結論也可能是真的。

I might actuallybe able to fix your plumbing. And every premise in the argument can be backedup with another argument. Nonetheless, we have to wonder whether its premisescan give me any reason whatsoever to believe its conclusion. All of my claimsabout you can trust me. Does that really justify you and believing that I canfix your plumbing?
我也許能修好你的水管。論證中的每一個前提都可以用另一個論點來支持。然而，我們不得不懷疑它的前提是否能給我任何理由相信它的結論。我所有關於你的說法都可以相信我。這真的證明你有理由相信我能修好你的水管嗎？

Of course not.Question is why not? He is, or seems to be because its premises are notjustified. They might or might not be true. They might or might not be backedup by arguments, but the argument does not show one way or the other that theyare true or that I ought to believe them to be good. An argument has to havepremises that are not only true and backed up by arguments, but also justifiedand backed up by arguments that have premises
當然不是。問題是為什麼不呢？他是，或似乎是因為它的前提是不合理的。他們可能是真的，也可能不是真的。它們可能有或可能没有論據作為支持，但這種論據並不能證明它們是真的，或者我應該相信它們是好的。一個論點必須有一個前提，這個前提不僅是真實的，而且要有論據支持，而且要有前提的論據來證明和支持

that are justified.
這是合理的。

Now, how can wejustify a premise in an argument by giving another argument that has thatpremise as its conclusion? The problem is that this second argument is alsogoing to have premises and those premises also need to be justified. So then weneed a third argument to justify the premises and the second argument.
現在，我們如何通過給出另一個以這個前提作為結論的論點來證明一個論點中的一個前提呢？問題是，第二個論點也會有前提，這些前提也需要證明。所以我們需要第三個論點來證明前提和第二個論點是正確的。

And then thatthird argument. Also his premises and those currencies also need to bejustified. So we need a fourth argument to justify the premises and the thirdIronman and on and on and on and on this process seems to never come to an end.This problem is often described as an infinite regress. It was used by ancientskeptics, including PIRO and sexist Empiricus they concluded from this argumentthat you cannot ever be justified in believing anything, or you can't knowanything if you want to put it that way.
然后是第三個論點。同樣，他的前提和那些貨幣也需要合理化。所以我們需要第四個論點來證明前提和第三個鐵人，而且這個過程似乎永遠不會結束。這個問題通常被描述為一個無限的回歸。古代的懷疑論者，包括皮羅和性别歧視者Empiricus，他們從這一論點中得出結論，你永遠不可能有理由相信任何事情，或者你不可能知道任何事情，如果你想這樣說的話。

Of course theiropponents are plod. Yeah. But do you know that? Do you know that you don't knowanything? Now this philosophical puzzle has stimulated a lot of philosophicaltheorizing. I personally recommend
當然，他們的對手都很失敗。是 啊。但你知道嗎？你知道你什麼都不知道嗎？現在，這個哲學難題激發了許多哲學理論。我個人推薦

Robert  wonderful book. Peronian reflections onknowledge and justification, but there are lots of books that you can check outto find out about the philosophical puzzle.
羅伯特好書。關於知識和正當性的Peronian思考，但是有很多書，你可以查閱，以找出有關哲學難題。

Our purpose hereis much more practical. We want to know how arguments work in everyday life.Women are trying to figure out what to do. So imagine that I'm having aconversation with a friend, we both want to do something together, but what arewe going to do? She thinks that we will have more fun if we go to a concert.
我們在這里的目的要實際得多。我們想知道爭論在日常生活中是如何起作用的。女人們在想辦法做什麼。想象一下我正在和一個朋友聊天，我們都想一起做點什麼，但是我們要做什麼呢？她認為如果我們去聽音樂會，我們會有更多的樂趣。

I think we'llhave more fun if we go to a party at another friend's house. So we disagree,how can we decide, how can we become justified in believing that we ought to goto a concert or that we ought to go to the party? How can we give an argumentto show which of these things really will be more fun?
我想如果我們去另一個朋友家參加聚會，我們會更開心。所以我們不同意，我們如何決定，我們怎樣才能有理由相信我們應該去聽音樂會或者我們應該去參加晚會？我們怎樣才能給出一個論據來證明這些事情中哪一個更有趣呢？

Well, one thingwe do know for sure is that we can't go on and on forever, like in the infiniteregress, or we will miss both the concert and the party. So we need some way tostart our argument and to stop our argument in the sense of stopping the demandfor more and more reasons, for reasons, for reasons, for reasons, for reasons.
好吧，有一件事我們確實知道，我們不能像在無限倒退中那樣，永遠地繼續下去，否則我們將錯過音樂會和晚會。所以我們需要一些方法來開始我們的爭論，停止我們的爭論，從停止要求越來越多的理由，理由，理由，理由，理由。

We need to startit with premises that we don't need to justify at least in the context for ourpractical purposes. And that will stop the regress of asking for justificationafter justification, after justification. If we both agree to start at acertain place. Then for our purposes, we can start at that place.
我們需要從一個前提開始，我們不需要證明，至少在我們的實際目的的背景下。這將停止一個接一個地要求理由，一個又一個理由的倒退。如果我們都同意從某個地方開始。為了我們的目的，我們可以從那個地方開始。

Now we're goingto look at four different ways to reach premises that don't need justification.We're going to look at these four ways in the next four segments, but beforeturning to these practical methods that we use in everyday life, let's pausefor just one more moment and think a little about the philosophical puzzle.
現在我們來看看四種不同的方法來達到不需要理由的前提。在接下來的四個部分中，我們將討論這四種方法，但是在討論我們在日常生活中使用的實際方法之前，讓我們再停頓一下，思考一下哲學難題。

Do you think.That we can ever reach a premise that does not need any justification at all.That's the question. Are there any premises that don't need to be justified?If, so, which kinds of premises are those? Give me some examples. Think of someexamples and ask your friends whether they think those premises need to bejustified.
你覺得呢。我們可以達成一個根本不需要任何理由的前提。這就是問題所在。有没有不需要證明的前提？如果，那麼，這是什麼樣的前提？給我舉幾個例子。想想一些例子，問問你的朋友，他們是否認為這些前提需要合理化。

But if not, ifyou can't think of any examples, if you don't think any premises are immunefrom the need for justification, then how can we ever be justified in believinganything? Cause I showed you that if you allow me to start from premises thataren't justified, I can prove that I'm a plumber when I'm not really a plumberat all.
但是如果没有，如果你想不出任何例子，如果你認為任何前提都不需要辯護，那麼我們怎麼能有理由相信任何事情呢？因為我告訴過你，如果你允許我從没有正當理由的前提出發，我可以證明我是一個水管工，而我根本不是一個真正的水管工。

This philosophical puzzleis not as easy to solve as you might think. Just try.
這個哲學難題並不像你想象的那麼容易解決。試試看。