Oh the humanity!

噢人類啊！

Ah... humanity...

啊... 人類...

It's a train wreck, but I can't look away.

非常糟糕，但我還是想看。

It's 1843, and a debate is raging among physicians about one of the most common killers of women: childbed fever.

1843 年，醫生之間正在日益激烈地爭論關於女性最常見的殺手之一：產褥熱。

Childbed fever strikes within days of giving birth, killing more than 70 percent of those infected, and nobody knows what causes it.

產褥熱在產後幾天之內就會發作，受感染者有 70% 以上的致死率，而沒人知道是什麼原因引起的。

Obstetrician Charles Meigs has a theory.

婦產科醫生 Charles Meigs 有一個理論。

Having observed abdominal inflammation in patients who go on to develop the fever, he claims this inflammation is the cause of childbed fever.

在觀察到持續發燒的患者的腹部發炎後，他聲稱這種發炎是產褥熱的原因。

Much of the medical establishment supports his theory.

許多醫療機構都支持他的理論。

Oh, come on!

天啊拜託！

They really leave me no choice but to teach them some skepticism.

他們真的讓我別無選擇，只能幫他們解惑。

That's better.

好多了。

Now, Meigs, your argument is based on a fallacy—the false cause fallacy.

Meigs，你的論點是建立在謬論上——錯誤導致的謬論。

Correlation does not imply causation.

相關並不代表有因果關係。

When two phenomena regularly occur together, one does not necessarily cause the other.

當兩種現象經常同時發生時，一個現象不一定會導致另一種現象。

So you say women who have inflammation also come down with childbed fever, therefore the inflammation caused the fever.

所以你說有發炎症狀的女性同時也患有產褥熱，因此發炎引起發燒。

But that's not necessarily true.

但這不一定是真的。

Yes, yes, the inflammation comes first, then the fever, so it seems like the inflammation causes the fever.

沒錯，首先是發炎，然後是發燒，所以看來是發炎引起發燒。

But by that logic, since babies usually grow hair before teeth, hair growth must cause tooth growth.

但是按照這種邏輯，那因為嬰兒通常在長牙前就長出頭髮，所以頭髮的生長必定會導致牙齒的生長。

And we all know that's not true, right?

而我們都知道這是錯誤的，對吧？

Actually, don't answer that.

算了，不要回答好了。

A couple of different things could be going on here.

這裡可能會發生一些不同的事情。

First, it's possible that fever and inflammation are correlated purely by coincidence.

首先，發燒和發炎可能完全是巧合引起的。

Or, there could be a causal relationship that's the opposite of what you think—the fever causes the inflammation, rather than the inflammation causing the fever.

或者，可能跟你所想的是相反的因果關係：發燒引起發炎，而不是發炎引起發燒。

Or both could share a common underlying cause you haven't thought of.

又或兩者都可能有你未曾想到的共同的根本原因。

If I may, just what do you think causes inflammation? Nothing?

我想問，你認為是什麼引起發炎？ 想不到？

It just is? Really?

反正就發炎了？就這樣嗎？

Humor me for a moment in discussing one of your colleague's ideas—Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

拜託陪我討論一下你的同事 Oliver Wendell Holmes 醫生的論點。

I know, I know, you don't like his theory, you already wrote a scathing letter about it.

我知道你不喜歡他的理論，你已經寫過一封信嚴厲批評過了。

But let's fill your students in, shall we?

但是讓我們來告訴你的學生來龍去脈吧？

Holmes noticed a pattern: when a patient dies of childbed fever, a doctor performs an autopsy.

Holmes 注意到了一種情況：當病人死於產褥熱時，醫生會對其進行屍檢。

If the doctor then treats a new patient, that patient often comes down with the fever.

如果醫生隨後再治療新的患者，則該患者通常會發燒。

Based on this correlation between autopsies of fever victims and new fever patients, he proposes a possible cause.

基於對發燒病患的屍體解剖和新發燒病患之間的相關性，他提出了可能的原因。

Since there's no evidence that the autopsy causes the fever beyond this correlation, he doesn't jump to the conclusion that autopsy causes fever.

由於沒有證據表明屍檢會導致發燒，因此他沒有得出屍檢會導致發燒的結論。

Instead, he suggests that doctors are infecting their patients via an invisible contaminant on their hands and surgical instruments.

相反，他暗指其實是醫生透過手上和手術器械上看不見的污染物來傳染給患者。

This idea outrages most doctors, who see themselves as infallible.

這個想法激怒了大多數覺得他們自己是絕對不可能出錯的醫生。

Like Meigs here, who refuses to consider the possibility that he's playing a role in his patients' plight.

就像這裡的 Meigs 一樣，他不認為他是造成患者生病的可能性之一。

His flawed argument doesn't leave any path forward for further investigation, but Holmes' does.

他錯誤的觀點並沒有再深入地進行調查，但 Holmes 的有。

It's 1847, and physician Ignaz Semmelweis has reduced the number of childbed fever deaths in a clinic from 12% to 1% by requiring all medical personnel to disinfect their hands after autopsies and between patient examinations.

1847年，醫生 Ignaz Semmelweis 要求所有醫務人員在屍檢後和幫病患檢查之間進行手部消毒，從而將診所的產褥熱死亡人數從 12％ 減少到 1％。

With this initiative, he has proven the contagious nature of childbed fever.

通過這一措施，他證明了產褥熱的傳染性。

Ha!

哈！

It's 1879, and Louis Pasteur has identified the contaminant responsible for many cases of childbed fever: hemolytic streptococcus bacteria.

1879 年 Louis Pasteur 發現了導致許多產褥熱發生的污染物：溶血性鏈球菌。

Hmm, my fries are cold.

我的薯條冷掉了。

Must be because my ice cream melted.

一定是因為我的冰淇淋融化了。

So, do you think you could do my job? Let's find out shall we? Click here to see if you can outsmart this fallacy.

那麼，你覺得你可以做我的工作嗎？我們來找找要不？點擊這裡看看你能不能比這個謬論還要聰明。