Professor Pedantic 教授的考究學問
TPS的編輯教授在此歡迎關於學術文章的所有詢問，當然，其實他並沒有足夠的時間給你。他擁有終身教職的教授身份，也是著名的學術巨作作者。即便如此，他仍大方地接受你們的詢問。將關於學術方面的詢問寫在下方，你將獲得教授的親自指導，陶冶對學術的探索與啟發。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.
QUESTION: In writing an argumentative essay objectively, is it acceptable to cite the opinions of unspecified experts?
撰寫客觀的議論文時，能否引用不具名的專家意見？
Let me say at the outset that writing an essay of opinion “objectively” is like whitewashing a fence with black paint. It is, to say the least, difficult. An argument is a clash of opinions. Any writer who tries to be “objective” in entering such an argument can count on losing. Argumentative writing is a subjective task. The goal is to marshal salient, favorable points of argument and to mitigate damaging, unfavorable ones.
讓我先指出一點，「客觀地」撰寫用以表達意見的文章，就像是欲用黑色油漆把籬笆塗白，若想要成功，可以預見是非常困難的。所謂的論述，就是意見的碰撞與衝突，任何人若是想以「客觀」態度撰寫議論文，獲得的結果必定會大失所望。寫作議論文是非常主觀的課題，必須強化論述中有利的重點，淡化不利或具傷害性的論點。
Can a writer accomplish this by citing “unspecified experts?” Rarely. An anonymous “expert” has little standing in an argument, so little in fact that the very term “expert” tends to be ridiculed. Even a generic “expert” whose authority is virtually unassailable in other settings (“A mother knows these things…”) lacks convincing credentials as a source in a paper. Anonymous experts are the human equivalent of hearsay evidence and should not be counted on to carry an argument.
引用「不具名的專家」 是否能達成上述的效果呢？--難上加難。無名的「專家」在論述中立場薄弱之至，甚至連稱之為「專家」都顯得不恰當。就算一般常被指稱，在一些情況下不會遭致質疑的專家（如『當媽媽的一定都知道…』），在學術論文裡的說服力也不夠。不具名專家的意見，猶如道聽塗說，不適宜引用於學術嚴謹的證明論述。
It is a matter of persuasion. Facts persuade. Facts from the mouths of identifiable authorities persuade convincingly. It is the difference between asserting that “people love cream puffs” and declaring that “9 of 10 surveyed chefs in Taipei vote cream puffs the No. 1 dessert.” The assertion can be easily dismissed as fanciful, whereas if the survey is disputed, the onus to disprove it is on the disputant. Successful authors of argumentative papers know their sources – and identify them.
問題完全出在於能否說服讀者。正確的事實有說服力，而具名的專家所提出的事實更具有舉足輕重的說服成效，其中的差別就像是「大家都喜歡泡芙」與「針對台北主廚所進行的調查結果顯示，十位主廚中有九位認為泡芙是第一名的甜點。」前者口說無憑，易被誤認為作者的無稽之談；而後者的調查結果即便遭受質疑，推翻調查也是讀者的責任。想要成功撰寫一篇議論文章，作者必須瞭解所引用的是那些材料，並且在文章裡清楚的具名與說明。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.
QUESTION: In writing an argumentative essay objectively, is it acceptable to cite the opinions of unspecified experts?
撰寫客觀的議論文時，能否引用不具名的專家意見？
Let me say at the outset that writing an essay of opinion “objectively” is like whitewashing a fence with black paint. It is, to say the least, difficult. An argument is a clash of opinions. Any writer who tries to be “objective” in entering such an argument can count on losing. Argumentative writing is a subjective task. The goal is to marshal salient, favorable points of argument and to mitigate damaging, unfavorable ones.
讓我先指出一點，「客觀地」撰寫用以表達意見的文章，就像是欲用黑色油漆把籬笆塗白，若想要成功，可以預見是非常困難的。所謂的論述，就是意見的碰撞與衝突，任何人若是想以「客觀」態度撰寫議論文，獲得的結果必定會大失所望。寫作議論文是非常主觀的課題，必須強化論述中有利的重點，淡化不利或具傷害性的論點。
Can a writer accomplish this by citing “unspecified experts?” Rarely. An anonymous “expert” has little standing in an argument, so little in fact that the very term “expert” tends to be ridiculed. Even a generic “expert” whose authority is virtually unassailable in other settings (“A mother knows these things…”) lacks convincing credentials as a source in a paper. Anonymous experts are the human equivalent of hearsay evidence and should not be counted on to carry an argument.
引用「不具名的專家」 是否能達成上述的效果呢？--難上加難。無名的「專家」在論述中立場薄弱之至，甚至連稱之為「專家」都顯得不恰當。就算一般常被指稱，在一些情況下不會遭致質疑的專家（如『當媽媽的一定都知道…』），在學術論文裡的說服力也不夠。不具名專家的意見，猶如道聽塗說，不適宜引用於學術嚴謹的證明論述。
It is a matter of persuasion. Facts persuade. Facts from the mouths of identifiable authorities persuade convincingly. It is the difference between asserting that “people love cream puffs” and declaring that “9 of 10 surveyed chefs in Taipei vote cream puffs the No. 1 dessert.” The assertion can be easily dismissed as fanciful, whereas if the survey is disputed, the onus to disprove it is on the disputant. Successful authors of argumentative papers know their sources – and identify them.
問題完全出在於能否說服讀者。正確的事實有說服力，而具名的專家所提出的事實更具有舉足輕重的說服成效，其中的差別就像是「大家都喜歡泡芙」與「針對台北主廚所進行的調查結果顯示，十位主廚中有九位認為泡芙是第一名的甜點。」前者口說無憑，易被誤認為作者的無稽之談；而後者的調查結果即便遭受質疑，推翻調查也是讀者的責任。想要成功撰寫一篇議論文章，作者必須瞭解所引用的是那些材料，並且在文章裡清楚的具名與說明。
Posted at 2011-04-28 14:51:19
最新回應