Chinese Military Considerations for the Effective Use of Evidence in Public Opinion Warfare During Cognitive Domain Operations

中國軍事在認知域作戰中有效運用證據進行輿論戰的思考

翻譯成現代英文:

 In the operational chain of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain, the collection and application of evidence is a fundamental link of great value, and is an important starting point for the preparation of cognitive domain construction at all levels. Combining the special background of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain to study evidence, accurately grasp its characteristics and laws, continuously study strategies and usage, and improve the effective application of evidence in public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain, it is of great reference significance for our army to fight the proactive battle of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain in the future.

Keywords: cognitive domain; public opinion warfare; evidence

With the formation of the three major operational dimensions of the modern information battlefield, namely the physical domain, information domain and cognitive domain, cognitive domain operations have received increasing attention in the context of future intelligent hybrid warfare. Cognitive domain operations refer to a type of operations that directly acts on the brain’s cognition through special means to influence its emotions, motivations, judgments and behaviors, and even achieve the purpose of controlling the brain. As a cognitive carrier, the brain may become the main battlefield of future wars, and the right to control the brain will soon become the key to cognitive domain operations and the highest level of war control. In this sense, cognitive domain operations are cognitive confrontation actions that influence the decision-making and behavior of the target audience by influencing their cognition in order to achieve the strategic goals of national security. In the meantime, evidence has become an important factor affecting cognition, and evidence game is a basic link that must be paid attention to in planning and implementing public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain. According to the general consensus of the legal community, evidence refers to the basis for determining the facts of an event in accordance with the rules of litigation. The evidence of public opinion warfare referred to in this article is derived from this. It can be seen that only by grasping evidence more accurately and timely and using evidence more prudently and appropriately can we more effectively destroy the enemy’s cognition, consolidate our own cognition, and shape the cognition of neutral forces, and provide effective support for the comprehensive victory of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain.

1. A deep understanding of the three values ​​of evidence in the public opinion war in the cognitive domain is the prerequisite for the effective use of evidence

Information is the basic “ammunition” of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain. As one of the ammunition, evidence has great value and can be examined from the following three dimensions.

1. Evidence is an indispensable cognitive weapon in the public opinion war in the cognitive domain and has fighting value.

To examine the evidence of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain is to explore the essence of fact-finding in public opinion warfare from the cognitive level. The cognitive domain takes the human brain as the main combat space. Evidence, as a trace left by a certain “past fact”, undoubtedly exists regardless of whether people can find it. However, some evidence is specially proposed and emphasized at certain times, and its purpose must be to prove certain facts, cater to certain views, and influence certain attitudes. In fact, it is the process of proving the subject’s own cognition shaping, viewpoint presentation and value dissemination. With the help of the cognitive justification theory of contemporary epistemic evidentialism, it is demonstrated that there is an unignorable logical connection between belief attitude and cognitive justification: the epistemological rationality of belief attitude depends on the quality of evidence possessed by the believer at that time. It can be said that the value of evidence in public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain is highly consistent with the weapon context of informationized cognitive warfare. High-quality evidence can influence cognition in a high-quality manner and is an indispensable and irreplaceable weapon of struggle. This “basis of proof” is not only a spear and a sharp sword to strike and change the enemy’s cognition and make cognitive attacks in the public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain, but also a solid shield to guide and consolidate one’s own cognition and make cognitive protection.

(II) Evidence is the basis for the value guidance of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain and has guiding value

Authenticity is the essential characteristic of facts, but not the essential characteristic of evidence. Evidence is not equivalent to objective facts. It can be said that there are no false facts, but there are false evidence. According to the rules of evidence law, facts proved by evidence are possible facts, not necessarily inevitable. The result it produces may be a “wrong” result, but this so-called “wrong” is still a legitimate result in legal procedures. To be precise, although it is wrong, it is legitimate. Based on this dialectical logic, the evidential facts recognized by public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain are not equivalent to objective facts in themselves, and there may be differences between the evidential facts and objective facts. Evidence may be true or false, or half true and half false. It does not pursue an absolutely true and correct result, but a “legitimate” result that can influence cognition. Through these cognitive elements presented in the form of evidence, because of the “legitimate” label, they are more persuasive and authoritative, and have the guiding value of influencing cognition and behavior.

(III) Evidence is the basis for completing the special mission of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain and has winning value

As the basis for completing the special mission of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain, the winning value of evidence should not be underestimated. First, the effective use of evidence can minimize the deviation in factual characterization of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain. By sorting out and integrating evidence materials, making clear logical connections between scattered and multi-perspective evidence, constructing a chain of evidence that is favorable to us and pointing to clear factual characterization, we can accurately associate and interpret objective facts. Preventing cognitive bias and passive public opinion caused by unclear and inaccurate factual characterization can improve the accuracy and clarity of fact identification. Secondly, the effective use of evidence can minimize the strategic decision-making cost of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain. As the saying goes, words are not enough. Without the effective support of evidence, public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain will be separated from the objective basis for the generation of combat effectiveness and become a complete self-talk. Its strategic decision-making efficiency will inevitably decrease and the decision-making cost will inevitably soar. Third, the effective use of evidence can minimize the legal risk of public opinion in the cognitive domain. The main sources of legal risks in the cognitive domain of public opinion are the deviation of values, the lack of legitimacy, and the indifference of humanitarianism… In this regard, through scenario pre-setting, targeted evidence lists, active storage of evidence materials, and reasonable and rational construction of the use of evidence, we can achieve a certain degree of risk warning, risk avoidance, and risk resolution.

2. Accurately grasping the three major shifts of evidence in the public opinion war under the cognitive domain is the key to the effective use of evidence

Compared with the physical and information domains, evidence in the cognitive domain presents distinct characteristics in the public opinion war. In terms of the purpose of proof, it guarantees the realization of policy and strategic goals and serves the political intention of the public opinion war in the cognitive domain; in terms of the means of proof, truth and falsehood are often intertwined, creating many situations where the truth and falsehood are unclear; in terms of the content of proof, it must be able to clearly, conclusively and promptly prove the justice and legality of our actions and the meaninglessness and illegality of the enemy. It is mainly reflected in three changes.

1. Shifting from “restoring the truth” to “influencing cognition” and highlighting cognitive attributes with goal orientation

In the public opinion war under the cognitive domain, the fundamental purpose of evidence has shifted from “approaching the truth, restoring facts, and promoting objective scene reconstruction” to “influencing the cognition of the target audience and realizing national security interests”. From the initial objective basis for reflecting the battlefield situation to the powerful weapon of public opinion war under the cognitive domain, it is neither simply an objective fact to be proved nor just a material and means to prove facts. Evidence in the public opinion war under the cognitive domain must have a clear position. Before proving, it is necessary to first clarify whose point of view is proved? Whose facts are proved? Whose interests are protected? It is absolutely impossible to be value-free without its basic position. Evidence serves political purposes and strategic intentions, guides the target audience to move towards the established cognitive goals, and accepts, identifies, and shapes the corresponding argumentation conclusions. Its collection and use are all determined by strategic determination, combat intentions, and battlefield situation. Whether it is true or false, good or bad, it must serve the overall strategic situation and needs to be judged in combination with combat effectiveness.

2. Shifting from “raw collection” to “scientific compilation” to assist cognitive decision-making with intelligent means

Cognition is the process of actively processing information, including three links: information input, processing and output. Corresponding to the evidence action of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain, it is to collect evidence, analyze and compile evidence, and make decisions and use evidence. It must be recognized that the public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain in the digital era is essentially a strategic action to manipulate information and shape cognition in the public opinion field, and the quality requirements of evidence materials are more stringent. If there is insufficient understanding of evidence, and evidence collection is simply regarded as taking photos and recording scenes, it is far from meeting the requirements of the new digital cognitive domain public opinion battlefield environment. It must be assisted by intelligent means and transformed into scientific evidence collection, analysis and compilation. Scientific evidence can, to a certain extent, get rid of human dependence on experience consciousness, eliminate the ambiguity, fragmentation and one-sidedness of human cognition under certain conditions, and assist cognitive domain combat commanders to make more accurate command decisions. In reality, there is indeed a phenomenon that the evidence is true, but the cognition generated is false. Only through a series of intelligent compilation work such as collection, classification, compilation, comparison, verification, reasoning, judgment, and integration of evidence information perceived across the entire domain, and using the scientific presentation of evidence to influence cognition in a targeted manner, can the process of evidence information fusion and command decision-making results be made corresponding and unified, making accurate decision-making the key to winning the war of public opinion in the cognitive domain.

3. Shift from “objective presentation” to “emotional resonance” to prove quality and improve cognitive effectiveness

In the cognitive domain, it is far from enough to simply record objective phenomena as evidence in the public opinion war. It also needs to have special guidance and appeal in order to form a strong communication power and influence, aiming to stimulate certain emotions of the target audience and trigger specific cognition. It is necessary to shift from “objective presentation” to “emotional resonance”. Only by awakening the empathy experience of the target audience through sophisticated and appropriate evidence presentation can the expected proof effect be produced. For example, a bloody knife cannot directly support or oppose any proposition by itself. Unless someone perceives the knife, forms a feeling state, and associates it with other evidence, it can produce a proof effect. Therefore, the evidence of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain must be perceptible. Whether it is true evidence or false evidence, these evidences are not responsible for restoring the truth of the facts, nor are they used only to prove the legality or illegality of a certain action or behavior. They are intended to shock the target audience with thoughts and generate emotional waves, and play cognitive effects such as shaking the morale of the army, inspiring morale, gaining support from many people, inspiring sympathy, guiding public opinion, and breaking the enemy’s spirit, ensuring that the reason can be said and spread. Otherwise, no matter how good the proof logic is, its effectiveness will be greatly reduced due to the lack of communication and appeal, and it may even be ineffective in the fierce cognitive game.

3. Innovative evidence in the three ways of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain is the path to effective use of evidence

In the public opinion war in the cognitive domain, evidence is sometimes an offensive weapon, sometimes a means of deterrence, and sometimes a tool for bargaining… How to cleverly deploy troops and gain the initiative on this battlefield? It is necessary to judge the situation, deeply study the techniques, present accurately, and implement them purposefully, systematically, and strategically. According to the logical order of evidence participation from weak to strong, the understanding of evidence from shallow to deep, and the evidence tactics from passive to active, there are three ways to use evidence: objective, directional, and strategic.

1. Attaching importance to the objective use of evidence in public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain

Evidence has incomparable persuasiveness, and public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain must attach importance to speaking with evidence. The most basic approach is to solidly promote the objective collection and use of evidence. First, it is necessary to discover and extract evidence from a large amount of materials to preliminarily solve the problem of evidence admissibility. Secondly, the evidence collected must withstand the test and judgment of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain to solve the problem of evidence availability. The basic logical line of evidence collection and use is: objectively obtain evidence materials – based on the acquired evidence materials, sort out, match, integrate, and analyze which existing evidence materials can prove objective facts that have an impact on cognition – solve the problem of “what can be proved”. If objective evidence collection is not done well, it is easy for the enemy to take it out of context, generalize, and even confuse right and wrong. On the one hand, through the objective presentation of original evidence, the illegality and provocation of the other party’s behavior are exposed, the legitimacy and justice of our actions are explained, the truth of the incident is intuitively and powerfully clarified, and the psychological defense of the other party is effectively disintegrated, the other party’s fighting will is shaken, and a strong psychological offensive and deterrence effect is formed; on the other hand, it effectively boosts our military morale, inspires fighting spirit, and enhances psychological protection in the cognitive battlefield. In short, we must strive to objectively make good use of “real evidence that can gain the initiative” and expose “false evidence in the hands of evidence dealers.”

2. Strengthening the guiding use of evidence in public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain

It is necessary to fully realize that the probative value of evidence needs to be realized through interpretation, which leaves sufficient space for guiding the collection and use of evidence in the public opinion war under the cognitive domain. On the basis of the objective collection and use of evidence, through more proactive reverse thinking, another logical line of evidence collection and use can be found: first clarify what facts need to be proved in the public opinion war under the cognitive domain – then consider how to compile and interpret the existing evidence materials in a biased manner according to the demand orientation – solve the problem of “how to interpret and use the evidence materials”. Under the demand-oriented role, by actively presetting the facts to be proved, consciously do a good job of evidence association and effectiveness interpretation. It can be said that the process of compiling objective original evidence is the process of evidence interpretation. Scattered evidence materials, after being fully interpreted and compiled with subjective intentions, will form a closed evidence chain with directionality. These directional evidence products guide the audience from “seeing” evidence to “understanding” evidence, which is a weapon that can influence the generation of combat effectiveness in the public opinion war under the cognitive domain. In fact, the party with a stronger ability to interpret evidence selfishly is often more able to dominate the development of the battle.

3. Strategic Use of Evidence in Public Opinion Warfare under the Design Cognitive Domain

The ultimate target of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain is cognitive ability, and the dominant factor for winning the battle will naturally shift to cognition. Therefore, the high-skilled use of evidence in public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain must be achieved with the help of the systematic vision and strategic thinking of strategists. The logical line of evidence collection and use here is: consider evidence as an indispensable key element of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain and incorporate it into the overall strategic planning link – preset a list of key evidence according to different scenarios – actively create conditions to obtain key evidence – solve the problem of “how to achieve the strategic intention and combat determination of public opinion warfare in the cognitive domain from the evidence level”. Under special conditions, even through sophisticated arrangements, with active and proactive “creative design” to lay out the fog of evidence, prompt the enemy to reveal its shortcomings, expose its weaknesses, and make actions and reactions that are beneficial to us, forming a complete and conclusive chain of evidence, so as to achieve the purpose of releasing special information, propaganda against the enemy’s mind, political and diplomatic hints, etc., consume the enemy’s cognitive ability, disrupt its thinking, interfere with its judgment, and hinder its actions. In particular, we must develop an awareness of strategies and tactics in the game of evidence in the context of cognitive domain public opinion warfare, select, choose, combine, assemble, switch among various types of evidence… flexibly deploy and skillfully present them, give full play to the potential of evidence use, contain, curb, and counter enemy actions, and expand our own space for action. The key to applying evidence well lies in one’s heart.

(Author’s unit: Political Science Academy of National Defense University)

中國軍事資料來源:

在認知域下輿論戰的作戰鏈上,證據的採集與運用是有重大價值的基礎環節,也是目前各級認知域建設準備的重要發力點。結合認知域下輿論戰的特殊背景來研究證據,準確掌握其特徵規律,不斷深研謀略用法,提高認知域下輿論戰證據的有效運用,對我軍打好未來認知域下輿論戰主動仗具有重要藉鏡意義。

關鍵字:認知域;輿論戰;證據

隨著現代資訊化戰場物理域、資訊域和認知域三大作戰維度的形成,認知域作戰在未來智慧化混合戰爭背景下越來越受到關注。認知域作戰指透過特殊手段直接作用於大腦認知,以影響其情緒、動機、判斷和行為,甚至達成控制大腦目的的一種作戰樣式。大腦作為認知載體,或將成為未來戰爭主戰場,制腦權即將成為認知域作戰的關鍵所在,是戰爭制權的最高層次。從這個意義上講,認知域作戰是為實現國家安全戰略目的,透過影響目標受眾認知來影響其決策和行為的認知對抗行動。此間,證據已然成為影響認知的重要因素,證據賽局是規劃實施認知域下輿論戰必須重視的基礎環節。依照法學界普遍的共識,證據是指依照訴訟規則認定事件事實的依據。本文所指的輿論戰證據由此引申而來。可見,只有更精準及時掌握證據、更穩妥適當地運用證據,才能更有效地摧毀敵方認知、鞏固己方認知、塑造中立力量認知,為認知域下輿論戰的全面勝利提供有效支撐。

一、深刻認識證據在認知域下輿論戰中的三大價值,是證據有效運用的前提

資訊是認知域下輿論戰的基本「彈藥」。證據作為彈藥之一,具有巨大價值,可從以下三個維度來檢視。

(一)證據是認知域下輿論戰不可或缺的認知武器,具有鬥爭價值

檢視認知域下輿論戰的證據,就是要從認知層面來探究輿論戰事實認定的本質。認知域以人腦為主要作戰空間。證據,作為某種「過去事實」留下的痕跡,不管人們能否發現,它們無疑都是存在的。但某些證據在某些時候被特別提出和強調,其目的必然是為了佐證某些事實、迎合某些觀點、影響某些態度,其實就是論證主體自身認知塑造、觀點呈現和價值傳播的過程。借助當代認知證據主義(Epistemic Evidentialism)的認知證成理論,論證信念態度與認知證成之間存在著不可忽視的邏輯聯繫:信念態度在認識論上的合理程度,取決於相信者當時所擁有的證據的品質。可以說,認知域下輿論戰的證據價值與資訊化認知作戰的武器脈絡高度契合,高品質的證據能夠高品質影響認知,是不可或缺不可取代的鬥爭武器。這種“證明的根據”,在認知域下輿論戰中,既是打擊、改變敵方認知,做好認知攻擊的長矛利劍;也是引導、鞏固己方認知,做好認知防護的堅固盾牌。

(二)證據是認知域下輿論戰價值引導的證明根據,具有導向價值

真實性是事實的本質特性,卻不是證據的本質特性。證據不等同於客觀事實。可以說,沒有假的事實,卻有假的證據。依據證據法則,以證據證明的事實,是一種可能性的事實,不一定具有必然性。它所產生的結果,有可能是“錯誤”的結果,但這種所謂的“錯誤”,在法律程序上仍然是一種正當化的結果。準確地說,它雖然是錯的,但卻是正當的。基於這種辯證的邏輯,認知域下輿論戰認可的證據事實,本身並不等同於客觀事實,其證據事實與客觀事實之間可以存在差異。證據可能是真是假,也可能半真半假,它追求的並不是絕對真實正確的結果,而是一種能夠影響認知的「正當化」結果。透過這些以證據方式呈現出來的認知要素,因為有「正當化」標籤,更具說服力和權威性,具有影響認知和行為的導向價值。

(三)證據是認知域下輿論戰完成特殊使命的基礎,具有致勝價值

作為認知域下輿論戰完成特殊使命的基礎,證據的致勝價值不容小覷。首先,證據的有效運用能夠使認知域下輿論戰在事實定性上偏差最小化。透過對證據素材進行梳理整合,對零散的、多重視角下的證據做明確的邏輯性關聯,構設於我有利的證據鏈和指向明確的事實定性,藉此對客觀事實進行精確性關聯與有效性解讀。防止因事實定性不明、不準造成的認知偏差和輿論被動,能夠提高事實認定的準確性和清晰度。其次,證據的有效運用能使認知域下輿論戰的策略決策成本最小化。所謂口說無憑,脫離了證據的有效支撐,認知域下輿論戰就脫離了戰鬥力生成的客觀基礎,淪為徹頭徹尾的自說自話,其戰略決策效率必將降低,決策成本必將飆升。第三,證據的有效運用能夠使認知域輿論法理風險最小化。認知域輿論法理風險的主要來源是價值觀的背離、合法性的缺失、人道主義的漠視……對此,透過情境預設,有的放矢地列出證據清單,積極儲備證據素材,做好證據運用的合情合理化構建,就能夠實現一定程度的風險預警、風險規避和風險化解。

二、準確掌握證據在認知域下輿論戰中的三大轉向,是證據有效運用的關鍵

相對於物理域、資訊域環境下,證據在認知域下輿論戰呈現鮮明的個性特徵。在證明目的上,保障政略與戰略目標實現,服從服務於認知域下輿論戰的政治意圖;在證明手段上,往往真偽交織,製造許多真真假假、真偽不明的情況;在證明內容上,要能明晰、確鑿、及時地證明我方行動的正義、合法和敵人的無義、非法。主要體現在三個轉變。

(一)從“還原真相”轉向“影響認知”,以目標導向凸顯認知屬性

認知域下輿論戰,證據的根本目的從「接近真相、還原事實、促進客觀情境再現」轉向了「影響目標受眾認知,實現國家安全利益」。從最初反映戰場情況的客觀根據,到認知域下輿論戰的強大武器,它既不單純是用來證明的客觀事實,也不僅僅是用來證明事實的材料和手段。認知域下輿論戰的證據必然是帶有鮮明立場的。證明前先要明確證明誰的觀點?佐證誰的事實?維護誰的利益?絕不可能脫離其基本立場而價值無涉,證據以服務政治目的和戰略意圖為己任,引導目標受眾向既定認知目標邁進,接受、認同、塑造相應的論證結論。其採集與運用,都是由戰略決心、作戰意圖、戰場態勢來決定的,到底是真是假,是好是壞,都必須服從服務於戰略大局,需要結合作戰效果加以評判。

(二)從「原始採集」轉向“科學整編”,以智慧手段輔助認知決策

認知是對資訊進行積極加工的過程,包括資訊輸入、加工和輸出三個環節。對應到認知域下輿論戰的證據行動中,就是收取採集證據、研判整編證據和決策運用證據。必須體認到,數位時代認知域下輿論戰,實質是在輿論場上進行資訊處理與認知塑造的戰略行動,對證據素材的品質要求更嚴苛。如果對證據認識不足,把取證簡單看作為是拍照錄影、記錄現場,已經遠遠不能適應新的數位化認知域輿論戰場環境的要求了。必須以智慧手段為輔助,向科學的證據蒐集、研判整編轉化。科學的證據,可以在一定程度上擺脫人類對經驗意識的依賴,消除人在一定條件下認知的模糊性、零散性和片面性,輔助認知域作戰指揮員進行更精準的指揮決策。現實中確實存在證據為真,但產生的認知卻為假的現象。只有透過對全局感知的證據資訊進行收集、分類、彙編、對比、驗證、推理、判斷、整合等一系列智能整編工作,以證據的科學呈現來定向影響認知,才能將證據信息融合的過程和指揮決策結果相對應、統一,使精準決策成為認知域下輿論戰制勝的關鍵。

(三)從“客觀呈現”轉向“情感共振”,以證明品質提升認知效能

認知域下輿論戰證據,僅作為客觀現象的簡單記錄是遠遠不夠的,還需要具有特殊的引導性、感染力,以便形成較強的傳播力和影響力,意在激發目標受眾的某種情感、引發特定認知,要從「客觀呈現」轉向「情感共振」。只有透過精巧適度的證據呈現來喚醒目標受眾的同理心體驗,才能產生預期的證明效果。例如,一把帶血的刀,其本身並不能直接支持或反對任何命題,除非有人感知到了這把刀,形成了感覺狀態,並將其與其他證據相關聯,才能產生證明效力。所以,認知域下輿論戰的證據必須是要能夠感知的。無論是真證據或假證據,這些證據不以還原事實真相為己任,也並非僅用來證明某行動或行為的合法性或非法性,其意在使目標受眾受到思想衝擊、產生情感波瀾,起到如動搖軍心、激勵士氣、得道多助、激發同情、引導輿論、破敵銳氣等認知效果,確保有理說得出、說了傳得開。否則再好的證明邏輯也會因傳播力、感染力的缺失,導致證明效果大打折扣,甚至在激烈的認知賽局中無法產生效能。

三、創新證據在認知域下輿論戰的三種用法,是證據有效運用的路徑

認知域下輿論戰,證據有時是進攻的武器、有時是嚇阻的手段、有時是博弈的工具……如何巧妙地在這片沙場上排兵布陣、贏取主動?必須審時度勢、深研技法、精準呈現,有目的、有計畫、有策略、成系統地實施。依照證據參與度由弱到強、對證據認識由淺入深、證據戰法由被動到主動的邏輯順序,有客觀性、導向性、謀略性三種運用證據的方式。

(一)重視認知域下輿論戰證據的客觀性運用

證據有著不可比擬的說服力,認知域下輿論戰必須重視用證據說話。最基礎的做法是紮實推進證據的客觀性採集與運用。首先,需要在海量素材中發現並提取證據,初步解決證據可採性的問題。其次,採到的證據要經得起認知域下輿論戰實踐檢驗和評判,解決證據可用性的問題。基礎的證據採、用的邏輯線是:客觀取得證據素材—基於取得的證據素材,梳理、配對、整合,分析現有證據素材能夠證明哪些是對認知產生影響的客觀事實—解決「能夠證明什麼」的問題。客觀取證做不好,就容易被敵方斷章取義,以偏概全,甚至混淆是非。一方面,透過原始證據的客觀呈現,揭露對方行為的非法性、挑釁性,闡釋我方行動的合法性、正義性,直觀有力地澄清事件真相,有效瓦解對方心理防線、動搖對方戰鬥意志,形成強大的心理攻勢與嚇阻效能;另一方面,有效提振我方軍心士氣、激發戰鬥精神,增強認知戰場的心理防護。總之,要力求在客觀上用好“能夠贏取主動的真證據”,揭露“證據販子手裡的假證據”。

(二)加強認知域下輿論戰證據的導向運用

要充分認識到,證據的證明價值需要透過解讀來實現,這給認知域下輿論戰的取證、用證留下了充分的引導空間。在證據的客觀性採集與運用基礎上,透過更主動的逆向思考,可以發現另外一條證據採、用的邏輯線路:先釐清在認知域下輿論戰中需要證明哪些事實—再根據需求指向,考慮如何對既有證據材料進行傾向性整編和解讀—解決「如何闡釋、利用證據素材」的問題。在需求導向作用下,透過主動預設想要證明的事實,有意識做好證據關聯和有效性解讀。可以說,客觀性原始證據整編的過程就是證據闡釋解讀的過程。零散的證據素材,經過注入主觀意圖的充分解讀和整編組合,就會形成帶有指向性的閉合證據鏈。這些導向證據產品引導受眾從「看見」證據到「看懂」證據,就是能夠影響認知域下輿論戰戰鬥力生成的武器。事實上,對證據利己性解讀能力較強的一方,往往更能主導戰局發展。

(三)設計認知域下輿論戰證據的謀略性運用

認知域下輿論戰最終打擊的目標是認知能力,作戰制勝的主導要素會自然地向認知轉移。因此,證據在認知域下輿論戰的高技巧運用,必須藉助戰略家的系統眼光和謀略思維來實現。這裡證據採、用的邏輯線是:把證據視為認知域下輿論戰不可或缺的關鍵要素納入整體策略規劃環節—依據不同場景預設關鍵證據清單—主動製造條件來取得關鍵證據—解決「如何從證據層面實現認知域輿論戰的戰略意圖和作戰決心」的問題。在特殊條件下,甚至可以透過精巧的安排,以積極主動的「創意設計」佈設證據迷霧,促使敵方自揭其短,暴露弱點,做出於我有利的動作反應,形成完整確鑿的證據鏈條,以達成特殊訊息釋放、對敵攻心宣傳、政治外交暗示等目的,消耗敵方認知能力,打亂其思維、幹擾其判斷、阻礙其行動。特別要形成認知域輿論戰背景下的證據博弈謀略戰法意識,在各類證據間選擇、取捨、組合、拼搭、切換……靈活投放、巧妙呈現,充分發揮證據運用的潛能,牽制、遏止、反制敵方行動,拓展己方行動空間,可謂運用之妙,存乎一心。

(作者單位:國防大學政治學院)

中國軍事資料來源: http://www.81.cn/rmjz_203219/jsjz/2022nd3q_239302/bktg_239303/1016888.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *