这一章内容讲的是搜集到了相关证据之后如何应用，如何用来支持自己的论点。
首先是确定证据的来源是来自自己的还是他人的，这个在法学术语中又被称为是传来证据。
无论是什么来源的证据都要看其各方面考虑来判断其真实性客观性以及与所要论述的观点之间的关联性。
哈哈貌似就差一个合法性就是一个完美的质证要点了呢。
找到最好的解释，也许有很多个证据都支持，但是不到最后不知道那个最适合。
文中关于罪犯都有类似的头骨这个研究说法，我在少文老师的文集中也看到过，不过这里多了一个证据就是发现了大学教授的头骨也是这样的。从这个例子上我联想到了当初学法学时，我自己内心是多么的抵触对各种学说的学习，也许那时候我就内心怀疑着任何一种学说的正确性吧，结果干脆就哪一种都不学了
现在不同了，学会了批判性思维就不再怕被各种各样的学说弄糊涂了
对任何学说都可以辩证性的考虑分析
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.
我们获得证据后，通常需要解释它;即决定它的含义和意义，并解决它引发的问题。最常见的问题之一是解决明显的证据冲突。正如我们在前几章中看到的那样，专家并不总是同意。因为人们经常以不同的方式看待同一事件，所以即使目击者对诚实人士的报道也可能发生冲突。
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.
这是一种流行的观点，程序越科学，对解释的需求就越少。但是这个观点是错误的。如果有的话，科学的方法需要更多的解释，因为它更侧重于识别和分类事实。例如，考虑一下这种不寻常的情况。中国中部地区出土的一座古墓，藏有一位大约2，100年前去世的妇女尸体。非常小心地掩埋她。她被放置在充满特殊液体的密封棺材中。棺材被装在五个装着五吨木炭的大箱子里。这个较大的单位被埋在一个六十英尺的洞中，并被白土包围。
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.
由于这种非凡的埋葬，当女人的尸体被发现时，肉仍然湿润，头发仍然扎根在头皮上，关节仍然灵活，大部分内脏完好无损。专家进行了仔细的验尸。他们对女性的头发，胃，肌肉，骨骼，肺，胆囊，肠进行了化学分析。他们对她的骨头进行X光检查。为了有用，他们获得的大量行为必须加以解释。只有通过研究数据，提出问题并确定哪些判断是最合理的，他们才能得出结论，例如，她生了孩子，在死前不久就吃过甜瓜，并可能因为阻塞冠状动脉而死。
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.
解释不仅在科学中发挥着重要作用，而且在其他领域也发挥着重要作用。事实上，因为在其他方面事实可能不那么清晰或零碎，意见冲突可能更激烈，判决的质量可能更多地取决于解释。
HOW TO INTERPRET
如何解释
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.
我们解释的重点取决于我们正在解释的证据种类。来自我们自己的直接经验或观察的证据提出的问题与其他人提供的证据以及通过研究获得的证据不同。以下问题按类别排列。
If the evidence is from your own experience or direct observation, ask:
如果证据来自您自己的经验或直接观察，请问：
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?
我观察的准确度如何？事件或问题的情况可能导致哪些感知不准确？（它发生得很快吗？是否有任何身体上的障碍，比如我的距离，发生了什么事情，一天的时间或天气情况？）我的精神状态可能导致什么样的不准确？（我是否厌倦？害怕？心烦意乱？愤怒？）我的情绪或对问题，人群或地点的态度可能导致哪些不准确？我是否倾向于以一种方式来看待这个问题？
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?
是我所经历的还是所观察到的所有典型案例？它有可能比规则更为例外吗？情况是否与通常情况不同？
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):
如果证据来自其他人的经验和观察，请问（除了你会问自己的经验和观察的问题）：
Did the person who reported the matter to me experience or observe the matter herself? Or was she reporting someone else's experiences?
向我报告此事的人是否亲身体验或观察过此事？还是她在报告别人的经历？
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?)
记者的名誉是否保证我接受他以面子保证的报告？（她是否认为是一个认真的观察者？她的陈述是否一般准确？）
If more than one person experienced or observed the matter, do their reports agree?
如果不止一个人经历或观察到此事，他们的报告是否一样？
If the evidence is from your research (that is, from an article or book or television program), ask:
如果证据来自您的研究（即来自文章或书籍或电视节目），请问：
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.)
这一特定证据与其他证据的一致性如何？（当然，所有可用的证据都可能指出一个错误的结论）多年以来，所有可用的证据都表明，人类的直系祖先直立人是“直立人”，首先出现在大约一百万年前，然后在东非发现了骨头，人类的寿命超过2150万年前，后来的发现延伸到了3100万年前。）
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?
如果证据在杂志文章中找到，该杂志的声誉如何？它是否赋予了轰动性？它被认为是一个负责任的刊物？
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.)
作者似乎是如何谨慎地避免没有证据支持的论断，过于简单化和笼统的概括？作家有多公正？ （对于一位明显存在偏见的作家，如一位政党主席解释她的候选人的优点，她有点怀疑，她可能是公正的，但她往往更倾向于无意识的片面性。）
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，书或电视节目是指研究的结果，它是否提供了重要的细节？例如，如果研究涉及访谈，涉及多少人？地理区域，职业和年龄的范围是什么？问什么问题？ （并非每个研究项目都足以全面回答它提出的问题，19世纪意大利都灵大学刑事人类学系主任Cesare Lombroso认为所有罪犯都有某些共同点，他相信所有犯罪分子都是颅骨畸形，他相信，他的颅骨形状与原始人类似。他对监狱的研究似乎证实了这一理论，一段时间以来，这一理论非常有影响力，直到一位英国研究人员C. Goring发现许多大学生和教授的头部形状为罪犯的形状！）
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.
重要的是要记住，作家可能有意无意地包含支持他们观点的证据，并省略任何挑战他们观点的证据。因此，似乎呈现压倒性情况的文章或书籍实际上可能是一个“加载”的论点。
MAKING IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS
做重要的显著性区别
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:
解释证据的另一个重要考虑是仔细区分。所需的确切区别当然取决于具体情况。但是，为避免错误的解释，这常常需要三种情形：
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.
在个人和想法之间。 个人很容易混淆这个想法。就像我们倾向于忽视朋友的缺点并夸大我们的敌人的缺点一样，所以我们倾向于看好我们喜欢或钦佩的人们的想法，并对我们不喜欢或不喜欢的人们不利。但最令人敬佩的人可能会有一个错误的观点，最不可敬的人可以有深刻的观点。因此，我们应该有意识地将我们的想法分析与持有它们的人的感觉分开。
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."
在说什么和说的方式之间 。风格和实质是完全不同的事情。不幸的是，那些表达得最清楚最优雅的人并不总是有最健康的想法。因此，虽然我们很自然地对有效的作家或演讲者留下深刻印象，但认为他们的想法必然是合理的就是不明智的了。正如奥古斯丁曾经说过的那样，“我们对一个男人的关心并不是以他教授的口才，而是凭借什么证据。”
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.
人们为什么会这样想，以及他们认为是正确的。 判断人们思考和行事的动机是很常见的。虽然这样的判断有时候很莽撞，但它可能是一种非常有用的解释。例如，参议员丁与手枪制造业有联系，就引发了有关参议员反对枪支控制法的有趣问题。但是重要的是我们要记住，不值得的动机不一定会污染这个位置。一个想法的正确性不取决于支持它的人的动机。这取决于它是否符合实际情况。
FINDING THE BEST INTERPRETATION
找到最好的解释
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.
如果我们仔细而开放地审查证据，我们很少会找到一个单一的解释。相反，我们会找到几种可能的解释。那么我们的工作就是要缩小可能性来确定哪一个是最合理的解释。决定哪一个是最合理的解释的基础不是它是多么受欢迎。也不是它对我们或我们的个人偏好。测试是它与证据的关系。最合理的解释是最符合证据的解释 - 也就是说，涵盖所有事实并最好地协调冲突意见的解释。
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.
偶尔，我们不可能决定单一的解释。两种或两种以上的解释可能同样适合证据。在这种情况下，我们不应该试图迫使他们之间做出选择，而是等待直到找到足够的证据来确保负责任的选择。
APPLICATIONS
应用
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.
对于你在十九章第一个应用中收集的证据，添加你自己的经验和观察的任何证据。然后解释所有证据，询问和回答本章中详述的问题。一个解释的基础，决定你在这个问题上的立场。
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.
对于您在第19章应用2中收集的证据，请添加您自己的经验和观察的任何证据。然后解释所有证据，询问和回答本章中详述的问题。根据你的解释，决定你在这个问题上的立场。
这个系列是对超越感觉：批判性思考指南 07版做的翻译练习，如果觉得有帮助可以点链接购买第九版中文，英文原版在这里Beyond Feelings：A Guide to Critical Thinking （英语）
