2022年06月六级第1套仔细阅读 Passage 2 原文翻译及答案解析

When a group of Australians was asked why they believed climate change was not happening, about 36% said it was "common sense", according to a report published last year by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. This was the most popular reason for their opinion, with only 11% saying their belief that climate change was not happening was based on scientific research.

根据联邦科学与工业研究组织去年发布的一份报告，当一组澳大利亚人被问及他们为何认为气候变化并未发生时，约36%的人表示这是“常识”。这是他们观点中最受欢迎的原因，只有11%的人表示他们认为气候变化并未发生是基于科学研究。

But what do we mean by an appeal to common sense? Presumably it's an appeal to rationality of some sort that forms the basis of more complex reasoning. The appeal to common sense, however, is usually nothing more than an appeal to thinking that just feels right, but what feels right to one person may not feel right to another. Whether it feels right is usually a reflection of the world view and ideologies we have internalised, and that frames how we interact with new ideas. When new ideas are in accord with what we already believe, they are more readily accepted. When they are not, they, and the arguments that lead to them, are more readily rejected.

但我们所说的诉诸常识是什么意思？大概是指某种理性，它构成了更复杂推理的基础。然而，诉诸常识通常不过是诉诸那些感觉正确的想法，但一个人感觉正确的，另一个人未必感觉正确。感觉是否正确通常反映了我们内化的世界观和意识形态，这决定了我们如何与新思想互动。当新思想与我们已有的信念一致时，它们更容易被接受。当不一致时，它们以及导致它们的论点，更容易被拒绝。

We often mistake this automatic compatibility testing of new ideas with existing beliefs as an application of common sense, but, in reality, it is more about judging than thinking. As Nobelist Daniel Kahneman notes in Thinking, Fast and Slow, when we arrive at conclusions in this way, the outcomes also feel true, regardless of whether they are. We are not psychologically well equipped to judge our own thinking.

我们常常将这种新思想与现有信念的自动兼容性测试误认为是常识的应用，但实际上，这更多是关于判断而非思考。正如诺贝尔奖得主丹尼尔·卡尼曼在《思考，快与慢》中指出的那样，当我们以这种方式得出结论时，结果也会感觉真实，无论它们是否真实。我们在心理上并不擅长判断自己的思考。

We are also highly susceptible to a range of cognitive biases such as giving preference to the first things that come to mind when making decisions or giving weight to evidence.

我们也极易受到一系列认知偏见的影响，例如在决策时倾向于首先想到的事物，或对证据赋予不适当的权重。

One way we can check our internal biases and inconsistencies is through the social verification of knowledge, in which we test our ideas in a rigorous and systematic way to see if they make sense not just to us, but to other people. The outstanding example of this socially shared cognition is science.

我们检验内在偏见和不一致的一种方式是通过知识的社会验证，在其中我们以严格和系统的方式测试我们的想法，看看它们不仅对我们自己，而且对其他人是否合理。这种社会共享认知的杰出例子是科学。

That does not mean that individuals are not capable of excellent thinking, nor does it mean no individual is rational. But the extent to which individuals can do this on their own is a function of how well integrated they are with communities of systematic inquiry in the first place. You can't learn to think well by yourself.

这并不意味着个体不具备卓越的思考能力，也不意味着没有个体是理性的。但个体能在多大程度上独自做到这一点，首先取决于他们与系统探究社区的整合程度。你无法独自学会良好思考。

In matters of science at least, those who value their common sense over methodological, collaborative investigation imagine themselves to be more free in their thinking, unbound by involvement with the group, but in reality they are tightly bound by their capabilities and perspectives. We are smarter together than we are individually, and perhaps that's just common sense.

至少在科学事务上，那些重视常识胜过方法论合作探究的人，以为自己的思考更自由，不受团体参与的束缚，但实际上他们被自己的能力和视角紧密束缚。我们在一起比独自更聪明，或许这正是常识。