新闻实验室微信公号：newslab

实验室主人按：

国内正值十一长假。如果假期想静下心来读点什么，我推荐一篇长文：伯特兰・罗素的《为民主育人》。

这篇文章是上世纪30年代罗素在“全美中学校长协会”的演讲稿，谈的是教育问题。其中尤其引发我兴趣的（也是符合新闻实验室读者兴趣的），是罗素关于如何教学生从不同的媒体中获取真相的论述——这不正是媒介素养教育吗？罗素说，要呈现不同的观点，并且让学生们学会分辨真相、作出判断，“他们要能不受雄辩和宣传的左右，要能对潜在的误导随时警惕，而且懂得什么才算得上真正的证据，并以此为立足之地”。

说得太棒了。太多的误解、偏信、盲从，都源自没有能力判断信息的真伪和价值，没有能力寻找到靠谱的信源。我们的大学教育对这方面的培养，都远远达不到罗素80年前对中学教育的期待。

他还说：“假使我办一所婴儿学校，我是老师，我要有两种糖果，一种非常非常棒，一种非常非常糟。那款很糟的糖，我请世上最能干的广告师，想尽办法做广告。而那款很棒的糖，只用冷冰冰的科学陈述，罗列成分，介绍良效。让孩子们去选。”——这种教育培养出来的人，还会轻易被花言巧语欺骗吗？还会轻易落入阴谋论和谣言的圈套吗？

以下是《为民主育人》一文中和此相关的段落摘录，中文由蓝旭翻译。阅读中文全文，请点击文末“阅读原文”。

——方可成

I do not mean to say that there are no sacred causes, but I do say you want to be very careful before you claim that your particular nostrum is a sacred cause and the other man’s is something devilish and horrible. We have to have a kind of tolerance one towards another, and that kind of tolerance is much more easy to have if you think, "Well, I may after all be mistaken. This is how it seems to me, but people have been mistaken in the past. Human beings are fallible, and I am a human being. It is just conceivable that I may be wrong."

倒不是说世间不存在神圣的理想，我要说的是，人要十分谨慎，才敢声称自己的灵药秘方是个神圣理想，别人的药却恶毒而可憎。对待别人我们得有几分宽容，这种宽容很容易获得——只要这样想：好吧，归根结底我可能搞错了。人是可能犯错的，而我是个人。不难想象我也许是错的。

That attitude of mind is one which, of course, is not tolerated in dictatorships. Supposing you are a German, for instance, you are expected to agree that Hitler is not wrong, for that is impossible; and if you are quite certain that you are right, you will infer that you have a right to stick a bayonet into anybody who does not agree with you, and even to asphyxiate his children with poison gas. That sort of dogmatic certainty which you can get out of having a great man at the top, whom all worship, is extraordinarily dangerous. I do not think we ought to allow ourselves to have that sort of attitude; indeed it is an essential part of democracy that you should not have too much respect for anybody. I do not mean, of course, that you should despise him; but the kind of reverence that makes you think, "So-and-so says it, and therefore it must be true," is not an attitude to be commended. If we value democracy, we should wish to see a person thinking for himself, listening to the arguments, and coming to his own conclusion.

当然，在独裁统治下，这种态度人家受不了。假设你是德国人，同胞就指望你赞同希特勒，因为大家相信希特勒错不了。如果你确信自己是对的，这就意味着，谁跟你意见相左，你就有权利拿刺刀刺他，甚至用毒气窒息他的孩子。这样武断的确信，有赖于至高无上而万人景仰的“伟人”，是格外危险的。我认为我们不该放任自己抱这种态度。说实话，对谁都不该抱太多敬意——这是民主的要义之一。我当然不是说你要鄙视他，我的意思是，尊敬某人到这种程度——“某某人这样说，那一定是对的”——可不值得称道。我们如果看重民主，就希望大家兼听多端，自己拿主意，自己做结论。

I should like to see people exposed in schools to the most vehement and terrific argumentation on all sides of every question. I should like to see this organization, the Department of Secondary-School Principals, get the most eloquent advocates of every imaginable point of view to broadcast to all the schools in the country, opposing each other, putting their rival points of view. I should like the teachers then afterward to say to the children, "Well, now, you have heard what so-and-so said. I think the time has come when you should analyze his arguments, put them down on paper and see what they come to. " The children would very soon find out that the orators who had the most effect at the moment were those who had the fewest arguments when you put them on paper. If you had opposite points of view put on every kind of thing, the opposite propagandists would neutralize each other, and in the end you would get people who might be capable of listening to eloquence without being carried away by it. That is one of the most important things-to learn to be immune to eloquence. You will not be that by never hearing eloquence: you have to hear a lot. I should have all the schools listening to all the sorts of eloquence, only I should take care that it was of opposite sorts.

我乐于看到人们在学校时，在每个问题上都接触到争论各方的激越论证和滔滔雄辩。希望你们这个组织——中学校长协会，搜集各种想象得到的观点及其雄辩的论证，向全国所有学校广为颁发。这些观点最好针尖对麦芒，个个辩才无碍。接着，我又希望教师对孩子们说：“好，现在你们已经听到某某人是怎么说的。轮到你们来分析他的论据了，把这些论据写到纸上吧，看看结果是怎样。”孩子们很快就会发现，乍听之下最有效果的演说家，能写到纸上的论据最少。如果你在每个问题上都能汇集不同观点，那些针锋相对的宣传家就会彼此折中，最后你将看到这样的人：他们能听取雄辩却不为之裹挟。这是最重要的东西之一——学会对雄辩产生免疫。获取这种能力，靠的不是对雄辩闭耳塞听，恰恰相反，是多闻多见。我主张所有学校听取所有类型的雄辩，需要在意的只是它们应该各不相同，彼此对立。

The whole modern technique of government in all its worst elements is derived from advertising. Advertisers are the practical psychologists of our day. They were long before Freud and the rest of the psychologists of the unconscious. They discovered that what makes you believe a proposition is not the fact that there is some reason to think it true. Someone puts up a simple statement beside a railway line, mentioning somebody’s soap or pills, and the mere fact that that name is there in the long run causes you to think that it is a very good soap or that those are very good pills.

现代政府的全部技巧，从它最坏的各方面说，都得自广告。广告人是我们这时代卓有实效的心理学家，把弗洛依德和研究潜意识的其他心理学家远远甩在后面。广告人发现，要人信任一项主张，靠的不是什么确凿证据。一句简单的话，提到某种肥皂或药片，把它沿着铁路立起牌子来，一路长旅，这名字总在那儿——光是这样，就可以叫人心想：那是些很好的肥皂、很好的药片。

The same thing applies exactly in government. We have long known it in regard to presidents. You see a president’s head on the coins and stamps, and presidents have always realized that it was very desirable to make themselves known. The modern dictators do the same thing. You see their pictures everywhere, hear their names everywhere, and it has much the same effect on you as the advertisements of the pills and soap. You begin to think, "He is a very good dictator because I hear his name so often."

同样的事情正好适用于政府。关于总统，我们早就知道是这样。你在硬币和邮票上都看到总统的头像，而总统一直都知道，广为人知是值得向往的。现代独裁者做的就是这种事。你到处见到他们的画像，到处听到他们的名字，这跟药片或肥皂的广告对你同样有效。你开始心想：“他是个很好的独裁者，因为我老是听到他的名字。”

As I said, the advertisers led the way: they discovered the technique of producing irrational belief. What the person who cares about democracy has got to do, I think, is deliberately to construct an education designed to counteract the natural credulity and the natural incredulity of the uneducated man; because the uneducated man has these two opposite defects: he believes a statement when no reasons are given for it, and equally he disbelieves it when reasons are given. So that you have two opposite tasks: to cause people not to believe when there is no reason, and  also to cause them to believe when there is reason. The credulity and the incredulity are exactly wrong in the natural man. I think if there is any department for original sin, it is perhaps in this direction, in the ways in which we come to believe and to disbelieve things.

如上所说，广告人找到了怎样培养非理性信念的技巧，在这方面他们起了示范作用。我想，关心民主的人必须做的，是要审慎地构建一种教育，用来抵制没有受过教育的人天性中的轻信和轻疑。这是因为，没有受过教育的人有两个相反的缺陷：没有证据便相信某个主张，有证据时又怀疑这个主张。于是你也有两个相反的任务：让人在没有证据时怀疑，在有证据时信从。自然人的轻信和轻疑同样错误。如果确有“原罪”这回事的话，它的活动范围大概就在这里——要么轻信，要么轻疑。

I should start very young. If I had to run an infant school, I should have two sorts of sweets, if I were the teacher-one very, very nice and the other very, very nasty. The very nasty ones should be advertised with all the skill of the most able advertisers in the world. On the other hand, the nice ones should have a coldly scientific statement, setting forth their ingredients and consequent excellence. I should let the children choose which they would have. I should, of course, vary the assortment from day to day, but after a week or two they would probably choose the ones with the coldly scientific statement. That would be one up. I should go on in the same way all through.

我要从孩子们很小的时候就开始。假使我办一所婴儿学校，我是老师，我要有两种糖果，一种非常非常棒，一种非常非常糟。那款很糟的糖，我请世上最能干的广告师，想尽办法做广告。而那款很棒的糖，只用冷冰冰的科学陈述，罗列成分，介绍良效。让孩子们去选。当然，我会每天变换种类，但是过了一两个礼拜，他们就可能选中附有枯燥的科学陈述的糖果。这就算初见成效。我要用同样的办法一直继续下去。

Suppose there was a question of an excursion to some place in the country. I should have on the one hand marvelous advertisements with colored posters about some place that was very unpleasant, and about another place I should have just maps and contour lines and statements as to the amount of timber in the neighborhood, but put in the driest language conceivable. Of course, the place advertised in dry language should be nice, and the other nasty.

再想象一下短途旅行上哪儿去的问题。我想这么办：给那个非常讨厌的地方做绝妙的广告，彩页印得绚丽夺目；另一处呢，只有地图和粗略的轮廓，交代周边的植树总量，陈述时语言尽量枯燥。当然，我用枯燥语言做广告的，是好地方，另一处却令人不快。

I should do the same in teaching history. I should take them through great controversies of the past. I should let them read the most eloqucnt statements in favor of positions that nobody now holds. For example, before the American Civil War, the Southern orators-who were magnifi- cent orators-made the most moving speeches in defense of slavery. If you read those speeches now, you almost begin to think it must have been a good thing. I should read them all kinds of very, very eloquent defenses of views that nobody now holds at all, such as the importance of burning witches.

我还要用同样的办法来教历史。既往的重大论战，我要带他们身临其境。今天已经无人赞同的立场，我要给他们读昔日的滔滔雄辩，比如美国内战前南方的演说家，他们为奴隶制辩护的说辞，就极其动人，不同凡响。今天再读那些演讲，你几乎要相信，奴隶制一定曾是个好东西。我要给他们读各式各样极其雄辩的说辞，而这些说辞所辩护的见解今天已经没人支持，比如焚烧女巫有多重要。

When they had grown a little impervious in that way, I should give them rhetoric in the present, similar speeches in favor of current controversial opinions. I should give it to them always on opposite sides. I should read to them every day, as a sort of bonne bouche to their history, what is said about a labor dispute first by The New York American and then by the Daily Worker so long as the labor dispute lasts, or whatever question is on. I should say, "What do you suppose has happened?" In time, perhaps, they would learn to infer the truth from these opposite statements.

等他们对这些东西开始有点无动于衷，我再给他们读当今的言论。这些言论同样雄辩，形成对立的意见。我总是把双方的意见一起给他们，在历史课上每天都读，就像给他们可口的点心——比如《纽约美国人》对劳资之争首先说了什么，而《工人日报》又说了些什么——只要劳资之争仍在继续，或不管争论的是其他什么问题。然后我会问：“你们以为事情真相如何？”我设想，他们迟早将学会从这些针锋相对的言论中推断真相。

The art of finding out from the newspapers what it was that happened is a very difficult one indeed, and one that every democrat should be taught. It is very instructive to read newspaper accounts when you have been an eye-witness of an occurrence. I should try as much as possible to get pupils to have the experience of seeing first of all what did happen, and then what was said to happen by the opposite sides, and so to learn that the truth is usually about in the middle.

从报纸中发现真相，的确是个难以掌握的本领，也是每个民主人士应该受到教导的。作为某个事件的目击者来读报，是极有教益的实验。我要尽力一试，好让学生有这种经历——他们先是目睹了事件，随后又读了彼此相反的报道，这样就能懂得：真相差不多总是介于二者之间。

There is a great deal to be done in this direction if people are to be capable of understanding how to judge a political question. I do not want to teach people one opinion or another opinion; it is not the business of education to do that. The business of education is to teach pupils to form opinions for themselves, and they need for that purpose to be rather impervious to eloquence and propaganda, to be on the lookout for the things that are intended to mislead, .and to be able to pick out what really is an argument and base themselves on that.

如果我们希望民众掌握对政治问题做出判断的能力，上面这种方式的教学还有很多事情可做。我不想把这样那样的观点教给别人——这不是教书育人，教书育人是要教会学生形成自己的意见。为了达到这一目的，他们必须不受雄辩和宣传的左右，必须对潜在的误导随时警惕，而且懂得什么才算得上真正的证据，并以此为立足之地。

I should go through, for instance, the history of past wars and let them read the propaganda on both sides and see how extraordinary far from the mark it really was, how completely unreal. I should let them occasionally have a newspaper of some period during the Great War. I do not know whether any of you in recent years have had occasion to look up any newspaper of any day during the Great War. If you had, you would be astonished. You would think, those of you who are old enough to have lived through that time, “Dear me did I really read that at the time and think it quite sensible?” Because as you read it a sort of hot blast of insanity comes out of the page at you. You cannot believe that we were really all collectively in a state of excitement in which one cannot see things right. Part of the business of education for democracy is to try to prevent people from getting too much excited; but it is a difficult art, because you do not want, on the other hand, that people should be without emotion.

我还要回顾既往战争的历史，给他们读双方的宣传材料，看看这些东西全然失实、远离真相到怎样的地步。有时我要给他们读一读大战期间的报纸。不知近来你们有没有人读过大战期间的报纸——不管哪一天？要是读过，你会大吃一惊。你们中间年长的人还经历过那段时间，你会心想：“天哪，我那时真的读过这份报纸吗？而且合情合理地考虑过吗？”因为只要你开卷一览，一股神智错乱的热流便从字里行间迎面扑来。很难相信，我们的确曾经处在那么一种集体狂热的状态，以致不能把事情看个明白。为民主育人的要义之一，就是先要预防大家太激动；但这是一门难以掌握的本领，因为你也不想叫大家变得冷漠无情。