49编号博士研究生英语精读-翻译及原文(中科院)

第1课 知识的悖论 The Paradox of KnowledgeThe greatest achievement of humankind in its long evolution from ancient

hominoid ancestors to its present status is the acquisition and accumulation of a vast

body of knowledge about itself, the world, and the universe. The products of this

knowledge are all those things that, in the aggregate, we call "civilization," including

language, science, literature, art, all the physical mechanisms, instruments, and

structures we use, and the physical infrastructures on which society relies. Most of us

assume that in modern society knowledge of all kinds is continually increasing and

the aggregation of new information into the corpus of our social or collective

knowledge is steadily reducing the area of ignorance about ourselves, the world, and

the universe. But continuing reminders of the numerous areas of our present

ignorance invite a critical analysis of this the popular view, intellectual evolution is similar to, although much more

rapid than, somatic evolution. Biological evolution is often described by the statement

that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"--meaning that the individual embryo, in its

development from a fertilized ovum into a human baby, passes through successive

stages in which it resembles ancestral forms of the human species. The popular view

is that humankind has progressed from a state of innocent ignorance, comparable to

that of an infant, and gradually has acquired more and more knowledge, much as a

child learns in passing through the several grades of the educational system. Implicit

in this view is an assumption that phylogeny resembles ontogeny, so that there will

ultimately be a stage in which the accumulation of knowledge is essentially complete,

at least in specific fields, as if society had graduated with all the advanced degrees

that signify mastery of important views have, in fact, been expressed by some eminent scientists. In 1894 the

great American physicist Albert Michelson said in a talk at the University of Chicago:While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels

in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of

the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances

are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the

phenomena which come under our notice .... The future truths of Physical Science ate

to be looked for in the sixth place of the century since Michelson's talk, scientists have discovered much more than

the refinement of measurements in the sixth decimal place, and none is willing to

make a similar statement today. However, many still cling to the notion that such a

1

state of knowledge remains a possibility to be attained sooner or later. Stephen

Hawking, the great English scientist, in his immensely popular book A Brief History

of Time (1988), concludes with the speculation that we may "discover a complete

theory" that "would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would

know the mind of God." Paul Davies, an Australian physicist, echoes that view by

suggesting that the human mind may be able to grasp some of the secrets

encompassed by the title of his book The Mind of God (1992). Other contemporary

scientists write of "theories of everything," meaning theories that explain all

observable physical phenomena, and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, one of the

founders of the current standard model of physical theory, writes of his Dreams of a

Final Theory (1992).Despite the eminence and obvious yearning of these and many other

contemporary scientists, there is nothing in the history of science to suggest that any

addition of data or theories to the body of scientific knowledge will ever provide

answers to all questions in any field. On the contrary, the history of science indicates

that increasing knowledge brings awareness of new areas of ignorance and of new

questions to be omy is the most ancient of the sciences, and its development is a model of

other fields of knowledge. People have been observing the stars and other celestial

bodies since the dawn of recorded history. As early as 3000 B.C. the Babylonians

recognized a number of the constellations. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras

proposed the notion of a spherical Earth and of a universe with objects in it chat

moved in accordance with natural laws. Later Greek philosophers taught that the sky

was a hollow globe surrounding the Earth, that it was supported on an axis running

through the Earth, and chat stars were inlaid on its inner surface, which rotated

westward daily. In the second century A.D., Ptolemy propounded a theory of a

geocentric (Earth-centered) universe in which the sun, planets, and stars moved in

circular orbits of cycles and epicycles around the Earth, although the Earth was not at

the precise center of these orbits. While somewhat awkward, the Ptolemaic system

could produce reasonably reliable predictions of planetary positions, which were,

however, good for only a few years and which developed substantial discrepancies

from actual observations over a long period of time. Nevertheless, since there was no

evidence then apparent to astronomers that the Earth itself moves, the Ptolemaic

system remained unchallenged for more than 13 the sixteenth century Nocolaus Copernicus, who is said to have mastered all

the knowledge of his day in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and theology, became

dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic system. He found that a heliocentric system was both

2

mathematically possible and aesthetically more pleasing, and wrote a full exposition

of his hypothesis, which was not published until 1543, shortly after his death. Early in

the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler became imperial mathematician of the Holy

Roman Empire upon the death of Tycho Brahe, and he acquired a collection of

meticulous naked-eye observations of the positions of celestial bodies chat had been

made by Brahe. On the basis of these data, Kepler calculated that both Ptolemy and

Copernicus were in error in assuming chat planets traveled in circular orbits, and in

1609 he published a book demonstrating mathematically chat the planets travel

around the sun in elliptical orbits. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are still regarded

as basically the first decade of the seventeenth century Galileo Galilei learned of the

invention of the telescope and began to build such instruments, becoming the first

person to use a telescope for astronomical observations, and thus discovering craters

on the moon, phases of Venus, and the satellites of Jupiter. His observations

convinced him of the validity of the Copernican system and resulted in the well-known conflict between Galileo and church authorities. In January 1642 Galileo died,

and in December of chat year Isaac Newton was born. Modern science derives largely

from the work of these two 's contributions to science are numerous. He laid the foundations for

modem physical optics, formulated the basic laws of motion and the law of universal

gravitation, and devised the infinitesimal calculus. Newton's laws of motion and

gravitation are still used for calculations of such matters as trajectories of spacecraft

and satellites and orbits of planets. In 1846, relying on such calculations as a guide to

observation, astronomers discovered the planet calculations based on Newton's laws are accurate, they are dismayingly

complex when three or more bodies are involved. In 1915, Einstein announced his

theory of general relativity, which led to a set of differential equations for planetary

orbits identical to those based on Newtonian calculations, except for those relating to

the planet Mercury. The elliptical orbit of Mercury rotates through the years, but so

slowly that the change of position is less than one minute of arc each century. The

equations of general relativity precisely accounted for this precession; Newtonian

equations did in's equations also explained the red shift in the light from distant stars and

the deflection of starlight as it passed near the sun. However, Einstein assumed chat

the universe was static, and, in order to permit a meaningful solution to the equations

of relativity, in 1917 he added another term, called a "cosmological constant," to the

equations. Although the existence and significance of a cosmological constant is still

3

being debated, Einstein later declared chat this was a major mistake, as Edwin Hubble

established in the 1920s chat the universe is expanding and galaxies are receding from

one another at a speed proportionate to their r important development in astronomy grew out of Newton's

experimentation in optics, beginning with his demonstration chat sunlight could be

broken up by a prism into a spectrum of different colors, which led to the science of

spectroscopy. In the twentieth century, spectroscopy was applied to astronomy to gun

information about the chemical and physical condition of celestial bodies chat was not

disclosed by visual observation. In the 1920s, precise photographic photometry was

introduced to astronomy and quantitative spectrochemical analysis became common.

Also during the 1920s, scientists like Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac

developed quantum mechanics, a branch of physics dealing with subatomic particles

of matter and quanta of energy. Astronomers began to recognize that the properties of

celestial bodies, including planets, could be well understood only in terms of physics,

and the field began to be referred to as "astrophysics."These developments created an explosive expansion in our knowledge of

astronomy. During the first five thousand years or more of observing the heavens,

observation was confined to the narrow band of visible light. In the last half of this

century astronomical observations have been made across the spectrum of

electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and

gamma rays, and from satellites beyond the atmosphere. It is no exaggeration to say

chat since the end of World War II more astronomical data have been gathered than

during all of the thousands of years of preceding human r, despite all improvements in instrumentation, increasing sophistication

of analysis and calculation augmented by the massive power of computers, and the

huge aggregation of data, or knowledge, we still cannot predict future movements of

planets and other elements of even the solar system with a high degree of certainty.

Ivars Peterson, a highly trained science writer and an editor of Science News, writes

in his book Newton's Clock (1993) that a surprisingly subtle chaos pervades the solar

system. He states:In one way or another the problem of the solar system's stability has fascinated

and tormented asrtonomers and mathematicians for more than 200 years. Somewhat

to the embarrassment of contemporary experts, it remains one of the most perplexing,

unsolved issues in celestial mechanics. Each step toward resolving this and related

questions has only exposed additional uncertainties and even deeper r problems pervade astronomy. The two major theories of cosmology,

4

general relativity and quantum mechanics, cannot be stated in the same mathematical

language, and thus are inconsistent with one another, as the Ptolemaic and Copernican

theories were in the sixteenth century, although both contemporary theories continue

to be used, but for different calculations. Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, in

The Emperors New Mind (1989), contends that this inconsistency requires a change

in quantum theory to provide a new theory he calls "correct quantum gravity."Furthermore, the observations astronomers make with new technologies disclose

a total mass in the universe that is less than about 10 percent of the total mass that

mathematical calculations require the universe to contain on the basis of its observed

rate of expansion. If the universe contains no more mass than we have been able to

observe directly, then according to all current theories it should have expanded in the

past, and be expanding now, much more rapidly than the rate actually observed. It is

therefore believed that 90 percent or more of the mass in the universe is some sort of

"dark matter" that has not yet been observed and the nature of which is unknown.

Current theories favor either WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or

MACHOs (massive compact halo objects). Other similar mysteries abound and

increase in number as our ability to observe progress of biological and life sciences has been similar to that of the

physical sciences, except that it has occurred several centuries later. The theory of

biological evolution first came to the attention of scientists with the publication of

Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. But Darwin lacked any explanation of the causes

of variation and inheritance of characteristics. These were provided by Gregor

Mendel, who laid the mathematical foundation of genetics with the publication of

papers in 1865 and ne, according to Lewis Thomas, is the youngest science, having become

truly scientific only in the 1930s. Recent and ongoing research has created uncertainty

about even such basic concepts as when and how life begins and when death occurs,

and we are spending billions in an attempt to learn how much it may be possible to

know about human genetics. Modern medicine has demonstrably improved both our

life expectancies and our health, and further improvements continue to be made as

research progresses. But new questions arise even more rapidly than our research

resources grow, as the host of problems related to the Human Genome Project

even such an abbreviated and incomplete survey of science as this, it

appears that increasing knowledge does not result in a commensurate decrease in

ignorance, but, on the contrary, exposes new lacunae in our comprehension and

confronts us with unforeseen questions disclosing areas of ignorance of which we

5

were not previously the concept of science as an expanding body of knowledge that will

eventually encompass or dispel all significant areas of ignorance is an illusion.

Scientists and philosophers are now observing that it is naive to regard science as a

process that begins with observations that are organized into theories and are then

subsequently tested by experiments. The late Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of

science, wrote in The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1960) chat science starts from

problems, not from observations, and chat every worthwhile new theory raises new

problems. Thus there is no danger that science will come to an end because it has

completed its task, clanks to the "infinity of our ignorance."At least since Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

(1962), it has been generally recognized that observations are the result of theories

(called paradigms by Kuhn and other philosophers), for without theories of relevance

and irrelevance there would be no basis for determining what observations to make.

Since no one can know everything, to be fully informed on any subject (a claim

sometimes made by those in authority) is simply to reach a judgment that additional

data are not important enough to be worth the trouble of securing or carry the analysis another step, it must be recognized that theories are the

result of questions and questions are the product of perceived ignorance. Thus it is

chat ignorance gives rise to inquiry chat produces knowledge, which, in turn,

discloses new areas of ignorance. This is the paradox of knowledge: As knowledge

increases so does ignorance, and ignorance may increase more than its related

own metaphor to illustrate the relationship of knowledge and ignorance is

based on a line from Matthew Arnold: "For we are here as on a " The

dark chat surrounds us, chat, indeed, envelops our world, is ignorance. Knowledge is

the illumination shed by whatever candles (or more technologically advanced light

sources) we can provide. As we light more and more figurative candles, the area of

illumination enlarges; but the area beyond illumination increases geometrically. We

know chat there is much we don't know; but we cannot know how much there is chat

we don't know. Thus knowledge is finite, but ignorance is infinite, and the finite

cannot ever encompass the is a revised version of an article originally published in COSMOS 1994.

Copyright 1995 by Lee Loevinger is a Washington lawyer and former assistant attorney general of

the United States who writes frequently for scientific c publications. He has

6

participated for many years as a member, co-chair, or liaison with the National

Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, and he is a founder and former chair of the

Science and Technology Section of the American Bar Association. Office address:

Hogan and Hartson, 555 Thirteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.人类从古类人猿进化到当前的状态这个长久的进化过程中的最大成就是有关于人类自身、世界以及宇宙众多知识的获得和积聚。这些知识的产物就是那些我们总称为“文化”的所有的东西，包括语言、科学、文学、艺术、所有的物质机器、仪器、我们所用的结构以及社会所依赖的物质基础设施。我们之中大多数人认为现代社会中各种知识在不断增长，与此同时社会或体对新知识的积累也在稳步减少我们对人类自身、世界及宇宙的未知。然而，现有的无垠的未知领域在不断提示着我们需要批判性地分析这个设想。普遍的观点认为，智力的演变与身体的发育相似，虽然要快上许多。生物的进化经常被描述为“个体的进化重演物种的进化”，意思就是个体的胚胎在其从受精卵发展到人类胎儿的过程中经历了几个阶段，在这些阶段中个体胚胎类似人类物种的祖先形式。普遍的观点认为人类从天真无邪的状态进步的，这个状态可以比作婴儿，然后逐渐的获得越来越多的知识，就像一个小孩通过学习通过了教育体系的几个年级一样。这种观点中暗含着一种臆断，那就是种系发育类似个体发育，知识的积累最终能达到一个基本完整的阶段，至少在特定的领域中是如此，就好像社会已获得了所有的高等学位，这些学位表明它已经掌握了各个重要学科的知识。实际上，一些杰出的科学家已经表达了这样的观点。1894年伟大的物理学家Albert Michelson在芝加哥大学的一个演讲中讲到：虽然不能断言未来的物理学不会再取得比过去更惊人的成就，但很可能大多数的重要的基本原理都已经牢固的确立了，那么，进一步的发展将可能主要是如何将这些基本原理精确地应用到我们注意的现象上去。人们很难在物理学领域再作突破。在迈克尔逊讲述上一段话之后的一个世纪，科学家们在物理学上的发现远远超出了对小数点第六位测量的改进，而今天没有人会再进行与Michelson相似的阐述。但是仍有许多人坚持认为知识有迟早达到穷尽的可能性。英国伟大的科学家斯蒂芬·霍金在他的非常流行的<<时间简史>>一书中, 推测得出以下结论, 我们可以“发现一种终极理论,那将是人类理性的最终胜利, 那时候我们将知道上帝在想什么”。澳大利亚物理学家保罗·戴维斯附和斯蒂芬·霍金的观点，在他的书名为《上帝的智慧》一书中提出人类才智能使人类掌握一些上帝的思想的一些秘密。其他一些同时代的科学家有提及“万物之理”，也就是解释所有可以观察到的物理现象的理论。物理理论的现代标准模型的构建者之一诺贝尔奖获得者斯蒂芬·温伯格则提到他的著作《终极理论之梦》。尽管这些科学家和现代的其他科学家做出了卓越贡献并且对知识孜孜以求，但是在科学史上没有任何事情表明任何对于科学知识体系增加的数据和理论曾经给任何领域的所有问题提供答案。相反，科学史表明，增加的知识使人们认识7

到新的无知的领域并带来新的问题。天文学是最古老的科学，它的发展是其他领域知识发展的模型。自从有史记载以来，人们一直在观察星星和天体。早在公元前3000年，巴比伦人认识了一定数量的星座。在第一个五千年或者更早一些的时间，天文学观察仅限于狭窄的可见光波长范围内。在过去的这半个世纪，天文学观察已经可以在电磁辐射波长（包括广播电波、红外、紫外、X射线、伽玛射线）范围内进行，还可以通过大气层外的卫星来观察。可以毫不夸张地说，自从第二次世界大战以来收集的天文学数据，比在人类持续的几千年历史中收集的数据还要多。然而，虽然仪器的应用有了长足的改进，由于计算机以及大量数据和知识的积累，分析和计算的复杂程度有了大幅度的提高，但是我们仍然难以预测出行星未来的运动以及另一些原理甚至是太阳系中被高度确定的原理。一个训练有素的科普作家以及科学新闻的编辑Ivars Peterson，在他的书“牛顿的时钟”里提到一种奇妙的细微的混乱弥漫着太阳系中。他写到：两百多年以来，太阳系的稳定性问题以一种或是另一种方式吸引着并且困扰着天文学家和数学家。而这仍然是天体力学中最为困扰并且未能解决的问题，当代的科学家们对此也感到很尴尬。每一步对于此问题以及与此相关的问题的解决都会产生而外的不确定的问题甚至是更深的奥秘。相似的问题在天文学中中也很流行。关于宇宙的最主要的两个理论，广义相对论以及量子力学不能够用形同的数学语言来表达，因此两者是不一致的，就像16世纪时托勒密和哥白尼的理论一样，虽然当代的理论仍在被应用，但是所用的计算公式不同。牛津大学的数学家Roger Penrose在他的书“新思想的帝国”中提到由于量子论中存在不可调和的争论，因此他提出了一种名为“修正的量子重力“理论”。生物和生命科学的发展过程与物理学的发展过程相似，只是它的发生晚了几个世纪。生物进化论第一次引起科学家的注意是在1859年达尔文的“物种起源“的出版。但是达尔文没有解释造成性状遗传和变异的原因。孟德尔在1865年和1866年发表的论文中运用了基于基因的数学理论解释了这些原因。按照Lewis Thomas的观点，医学是最年轻的科学，二十世纪三十年代才成为真正的科学。正在进行的和将要进行的研究产生了很多不确定东西。有些是关于一些基本的概念，比如：生命是何时诞生的，是怎样诞生的，死亡会在什么时候发生；并且我们现在花费数十亿美元来设法了解我们对于人类的基因能够知道多少。现代医学显著的提高了我们的寿命和健康状况，而且随着研究过程的深入将来还会继续改善。但是新的问题的出现速度要比我们得到的研究成果的增长速度快得多，比如说在有关人类基因工程项目中所出现的大量的问题。仅仅通过对科学如此粗略而浅显的认识来看，认识的增加并没有造成无知相称的减少，相反揭露了我们理解中的新的空缺，还使我们面临着意料之外的问题，这些问题揭开我们不可预料的未知领域。因此，把科学作为能够包围和消除一切重要无知领域的不断扩充的知识的这8

种观念只不过是一种错觉。科学家和哲学家正在认识到，把科学简单的看成先观察，然后根据观察的结果总结成理论再被随后的实验验证的过程，这是很幼稚的。已故的科学哲学先驱Karl Popper，在他1960年的著作《科学知识的发展》中提到，科学起源于问题而非观察，每个有真实价值的新科学理论都引出新的问题。因此不用担心科学会因完成它的使命而走到尽头，这归功于无穷无尽的未知。至少自从Thomas Kuhn在1962年出版了《科学革命史》一书以来，人们普遍认为观测只不过是科学理论的结果，这种观点常常被Kuhn和其他哲学家拿来作范例，这是由于如果没有恰当的和不恰当的理论，要做什么样观察就将没有决定基础。既然没有任何人能够知道一切，那么在某一领域获得全面的了解（有时是权威的观点）只不过达到一种判断（境界），即另外的信息都不重要了，不值得去费神求证和考虑了。进一步分析，我们必须认识到理论是问题的产物而问题是已认知的未知的产物。因此，正是未知引起了探究，探究产生知识然后反过来揭开了新的未知领域。这就是知识的矛盾之处：未知随着知识的增长而增长且有可能比其相关知识增长的更多。我对知识和未知两者关系的形容来自Matthew的一句话：“我们如同置身于一个黑暗笼罩的平原上……”，笼罩我们并包裹着我们的世界的这片黑暗，就是未知。知识是由我们能提供的所有“蜡烛”散发出来的光芒。光照的面积随着我们点亮越来越多的“蜡烛”而扩大，但是光照之外的面积也在几何增长。因此，知识是有限的，而未知是无限的，有限囊括无限永远是不可能的。9

第二课Modular Man by Alvin Toffler

Urbanism -- the city dweller's way of life – has preoccupied sociology since the

turn of the century. Max Weber pointed out the obvious fact that people in cities

cannot know all their neighbors as intimately as it was possible for them to do in

small communities. Georg Simmel carried this idea one step further when he declared,

rather quaintly, that if the urban individual reacted emotionally to each and every

person with whom he came into contact, or cluttered his mind with information about

them, he would be completely atomized internally and would fall into an unthinkable

mental condition.

Louis Wirth, in turn, noted the fragmented nature of urban relationships.

“Characteristically, urbanites meet one another in highly segmental roles ...” he

wrote,“ Their dependence upon others is confined to a highly fractionalized aspect of

the other's round of activity. ”Rather than becoming deeply involved with the total

personality of every individual we meet, he explained, we necessarily maintain

superficial and partial contact with some. We are interested only in the efficiency of

the shoe salesman in meeting our needs; we couldn't care less that his wife is an

alcoholic.

What this means is that we form limited involvement relationships with most of

the people around us. Consciously or not we define our relationships with most people

in functional terms. So long as we do not become involved with the shoe salesman's

problems at home, or his more general hopes, dreams and frustrations, he is, for us,

fully interchangeable with any other salesman of equal competence. In effect, we have

applied the modular principle to human relationships. We have created the disposable

person: Modular Man.

Rather than entangling ourselves with the whole man, we plug into a module of

his personality. Each personality can be imagined as a unique configuration of

thousands of such modules. Thus no whole person is interchangeable with any other.

But certain modules are. Since we are seeking only to buy a pair of shoes, and not the

friendship, love or hate of the salesman, it is not necessary for us to tap into or engage

with all the other modules that form his personality. Our relationship is safely limited.

There is limited liability on both sides. The relationship entails certain accepted forms

of behavior and communication. Both sides understand, consciously or otherwise, the

limitations and laws. Difficulties arise only when one or another party oversteps the

tacitly understood limits, when he attempts to connect up with some module not

relevant to the function at hand.

Today a vast sociological and psychological literature is devoted to the alienation

presumed to flow from this fragmentation of relationships. Much of the rhetoric of

10

existentialism and the student revolt decries this fragmentation. It is said that we are

not sufficiently “involved” with our fellow man. Millions of young people go about

seeking “total involvement.”

Before leaping to the popular conclusion that modularization is all bad, however,

it might be well to look more closely at the matter. Theologian Harvey Cox, echoing

Simmel, has pointed out that in an urban environment the attempt to “involve” oneself

fully with everyone can lead only to self-destruction and emotional emptiness. Urban

man, he writes, “must have more or less impersonal relationships with most of the

people with whom he comes in contact precisely in order to choose certain friendships

to nourish and cultivate. His life represents a point touched by dozens of systems and

hundreds of people. His capacity to know some of them better necessitates his

minimizing the depth of his relationship to many others. Listening to the postman

gossip becomes for the urban man an act of sheer graciousness, since he probably has

no interest in the people the postman wants to talk about.

Moreover, before lamenting modularization, it is necessary to ask ourselves

whether we really would prefer to return to the traditional condition of man in which

each individual presumably related to the whole personality of a few people rather

than to the personality modules of many. Traditional man has been so

sentimentalized, so cloyingly romanticized, that we frequently overlook the

consequences of such a return. The very same writers who lament fragmentation also

demand freedom -- yet overlook the un-freedom of people bound together in totalistic

relationships. For any relationship implies mutual demands and expectations. The

more intimately involved a relationship, the greater the pressure the parties exert on

one another to fulfill these expectations. The tighter and more totalistic the

relationship, the more modules, so to speak, are brought into play, and the more

numerous are the demands we make.

In a modular relationship, the demands are strictly bounded. So long as the shoe

salesman performs his rather limited service for us, thereby fulfilling our rather

limited expectations, we do not insist that he believe in our God, or that he be tidy at

home, or share our political values, or enjoy the same kind of food or music that we

do. We leave him free in all other matters as he leaves us free to be atheist or Jew,

heterosexual or homosexual, John Bircher orCommunist. This is not true of the total

relationship and cannot be. To a certain point, fragmentation and freedom go together.

All of us seem to need some totalistic relationships in our lives. But to decry the

fact that we cannot have only such relationships is nonsense. And to prefer a society

in which the individual has holistic relationships with a few, rather than modular

relationships with many, is to wish for a return to the imprisonment of the past -- a

past when individuals may have been more tightly bound to one another, but when

they were also more tightly regimented by social conventions, sexual mores, political

11

and religious restrictions.

This is not to say that modular relationships entail no risks or that this is the best

of all possible worlds. There are, in fact, profound risks in the situation. Until now,

however, the entire public and professional discussion of these issues has been badly

out of focus.城市居民的生活方式，已经成为社会学家在世纪之交研究的重点。马克思.韦伯指出这样一个明显的事实：因为住在城市里的人交流范围的缩窄，使得他们并不能与所有的邻居保持一种亲密的关系。GXX进一步阐述了这样一种观点，他更巧妙的指出：如果单个城市居民与他周围所有人都保持情感交流，或者他满脑子都被周围这些人的信息所包围，那么他会陷入“精神分裂”，以及难以想象的精神状况中。LXX，进一步指出，城市居民关系的不完整特性：“这很典型，现在城市居民只与其他人中的很少一部分人保持联系”，他写道：“他们与其周围人的相互依赖，被局限在高度分割的一些方面里。”他解释道，我们并不是将遇到的每一个个体都去深度涉及他的完全个性。我们只需要与他们保持一种表面的、部分的关系就可以了。我们只关心卖鞋人的工作效率，我们并不需要关心他的老婆是不是一名酒鬼。这个论点的意思是：我们与周围大多数人形成一种限制关系。自不自觉中，我们以功能来定义我们与周围人的关系。只要我们不被牵涉进卖鞋人的家庭问题、或者他自己的希望、梦想和挫折中，那么他对于我们来讲，在能力上他与其他卖鞋人就是可以完全互换的了。实际上，我们将模块化原理应用到了人际关系中。我们创造了一种可以随意处理的人：模块化的人。我们将他的个性进行模块化，而不是将我们自己卷入到他的整个人性里。这样，我们可以想象每一种个性都具有独特的特性，它是由成千上万的模块组合而成的。因此，没有一个人是可以与其他人进行互换的。但是，特定的模块可以。只要我们的目的只是为了买鞋，而不是为了交朋友，无论对这位卖鞋人或爱或恨，我们都不必卷入或者与构成他个性的所有模块建立联系。我们的友谊是安全有限制的。这种限制依靠双方。人际关系必须只承担行为和交流的特定方面。双方都必须有意识的建立这种理解，或者通过其他手段，例如禁令或者法律。当你或者对方部分的逾越了这种心照不宣的限制，即当他试图与他自己并无关联的功能模块进行接触时，一种功能上的困境就会随之发生。今天，大量的社会学和心理学文献认为异化的发生是来源于这种人际关系的破碎。很多存在主义者和学生用斥责的言词反对这种破碎。他们声称我们并不是与我们的同伴保持“肤浅”的关系。成千上万的青年人正在寻一种“全面的参与”。在立即做出模块化都是不好的这一流行结论前，我们应该更加深入的看待这一问题。神学家XX，回应XX时指出：在城市环境中，那些试图将自己完全“融入”到其他人当中，只会导致他的自我毁灭和精神空虚。他写到：城市人，“必需与大多数人保持一种或多或少的非个人的关系，他与这些人保持这种关系目的是12

为了有选择的培养特定的交友对象…在与众多系统和众多人的接触中，他的生活方式代表了一种点式接触。他有能力认识到与周围中的一些人保持良好的关系，会迫使他缩短与其他人关系的深度。从邮递员那里听到绯闻已经成为城市人寒暄的一种方式，即使这些邮递员讲的故事我们其实并不关心。”此外，在哀悼模块化的关系之前，我们必须扪心自问，我们是不是真的喜欢回归传统人际关系当中，即假定每个个体只与一部分人的全部关系，而不是与大多数人的个性模块发生关系。当我们审视这种回归的时候，会发现传统关系中人们是那么的多愁伤感，那么的厌烦，那么的被浪漫化了。那些哀悼破碎关系的人同样也在要求自由，他们忽视了那些没有自由的人，是被束缚在集权主义的关系中。对于任何一种关系，这里都具有这样一种含义，即关系的双方都具有共同的渴望和期待。随着双方关系变的更加亲密，那么施加在双方那种实现他们共同期望的压力就会增大。也就是说，随着关系变的更加紧密，以及包含的内容更多，那么更多模块就会发挥作用，随之而来就是我们会产生更多的期望。在模块化的关系中，期望是被严格限制的。只要卖鞋人限制自己只是提供我们卖鞋的服务，从而满足我们买鞋的有限期望，那么我们也并不需要坚持让他信仰我们的上帝，或者让他把家里打扫干净，或者与我们分享政治信仰，或者与我们一样喜欢相同的食物或音乐。我们让他在卖鞋以外的其他方面享有充分的自由，正如他对与我们是不是无神论或者犹太人，同性恋或者异性恋，XX和共产主义一样，在这些方面也享有自由。对于那种完全的关系，这不是也不可能是真实的。在一定程度上，破碎与自由是相互结合的。我们所有人似乎在生活中需要一些完全的关系。但是诋毁我们不能拥有单一的人际关系这个事实是没有道理的。而且，对于喜欢那种将个体与少数人建立完全的人际关系，而不是与大多数人建立模块化关系的社会的人来说，这是希望回归到过去那种个体与其他人被紧密束缚的牢笼中，但是，同时他们也是处在被社会习俗，性观念、政治和宗教禁忌严密限制的过去。 这并不意味着模块化关系不需要承担任何风险，这种关系就是对于全世界最好的选择。事实上，这里还是有一些具有深刻风险的情况的……然而直到现在，无论是在整个公共社会或者专业领域对于这个问题的讨论，还远没有抓住问题的关键。13

第3课 西方是特例，不是常例 The West Unique, Not

UniversalIn recent years Westerners have reassured themselves and irritated others by

expounding the notion that the culture of the West is and ought to be the culture of the

world. This conceit takes two forms. One is the Coca-colonization thesis. Its

proponents claim that Western, and more specifically American, popular culture is

enveloping the world: American food, clothing, pop music, movies, and consumer

goods are more and more enthusiastically embraced by people on every continent.

The other has to do with modernization. It claims not only that the West has led the

world to modern society, but that as people in other civilizations modernize they also

westernize, abandoning their traditional values, institutions, and customs and adopting

those that prevail in the West. Both theses project the image of an emerging

homogeneous, universally Western world--and both are to varying degrees misguided,

arrogant, false, and dangerous.

Advocates of the Coca-colonization thesis identify culture with the consumption

of material goods. The heart of a culture, however, involves language, religion,

values, traditions, and customs. Drinking Coca-Cola does not make Russians think

like Americans any more than eating sushi makes Americans think like Japanese.

Throughout human history, fads and material goods have spread from one society to

another without significantly altering the basic culture of the recipient society.

Enthusiasms for various items of Chinese, Hindu, and other cultures have periodically

swept the Western world, with no discernible lasting spillover. The argument that the

spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of

Western civilization depreciates the strength of other cultures while trivializing

Western culture by identifying it with fatty foods, faded pants, and fizzy drinks. The

essence of Western culture is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac.

The modernization argument is intellectually more serious than the Coca-colonization thesis, but equally flawed. The tremendous expansion of scientific and

engineering knowledge that occurred in the nineteenth century allowed humans to

control and shape their environment in unprecedented ways. Modernization involves

industrialization; urbanization; increasing levels of literacy, education, wealth, and

social mobilization; and more complex and diverse occupational structures. It is a

revolutionary process comparable to the shift from primitive to civilized societies that

began in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile, and the Indus about 5000

B.C. The attitudes, values, knowledge, and culture of people in a modern society

differ greatly from those in a traditional society. As the first civilization to modernize,

the West is the first to have fully acquired the culture of modernity. As other societies

14

take on similar patterns of education, work, wealth, and class structure, the

modernization argument runs, this Western culture will become the universal culture

of the world.

That there are significant differences between modern and traditional cultures is

beyond dispute. A world in which some societies are highly modern and others still

traditional will obviously be less homogeneous than a world in which all societies are

comparably modern. It does not necessarily follow, however, that societies with

modern cultures should be any more similar than are societies with traditional

cultures. Only a few hundred years ago all societies were traditional. Was that world

any less homogeneous than a future world of universal modernity is likely to be?

Probably not. "Ming China . . . was assuredly closer to the France of the Valois,"

Fernand Braudel observes, "than the China of Mao Tse-tung is to the France of the

Fifth Republic.''Modern societies have much in common, but they do not necessarily

merge into homogeneity. The argument that they do rests on the assumption that

modern society must approximate a single type, the Western type; that modern

civilization is Western civilization, and Western civilization is modern civilization.

This, however, is a false identification. Virtually all scholars of civilization agree that

Western civilization emerged in the eighth and ninth centuries and developed its

distinctive characteristics in the centuries that followed. It did not begin to modernize

until the eighteenth century. The West, in short, was Western long before it was

modern.

To Modernize, must non-Western societies abandon their own cultures and adopt

the core elements of Western culture? From time to time leaders of such societies

have thought it necessary. Peter the Great and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were

determined to modernize their countries and convinced that doing so meant adopting

Western culture, even to the point of replacing traditional headgear with its Western

equivalent. In the process, they created "torn" countries, unsure of their cultural

identity. Nor did Western cultural imports significantly help them in their pursuit of

modernization. More often, leaders of non-Western societies have pursued

modernization and rejected westernization. Their goal is summed up in the phrases ti-yong (Chinese learning for the fundamental principles, Western learning for practical

use) and woken, yosei (Japanese spirit, Western technique), articulated by Chinese

and Japanese reformers of a century ago, and in Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar bin

Sultan's comment in 1994 that "'foreign imports' are nice as shiny or high-tech

'things.' But intangible social and political institutions imported from elsewhere can

be deadly -- ask the Shah of Iran . . . Islam is for us not just a religion but a way of

life. We Saudis want to modernize but not necessarily westernize." Japan, Singapore,

Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and, to a lesser degree, Iran have become modern societies

15

without becoming Western societies. China is clearly modernizing, but certainly not

westernizing.

Interaction and borrowing between civilizations have always taken place, and

with modern means of transportation and communication they are much more

extensive. Most of the world's great civilizations, however, have existed for at least

one millennium and in some cases for several. These civilizations have a

demonstrated record of borrowing from other civilizations in ways that enhance their

own chances of survival. China's absorption of Buddhism from India, scholars agree,

failed to produce the "Indianization" of China; it instead caused the Sinification of

Buddhism. The Chinese adapted Buddhism to their purposes and needs. The Chinese

have to date consistently defeated intense Western efforts to Christianize them. If at

some point they do import Christianity, it is more than likely that it will be absorbed

and adapted in such a manner as to strengthen the continuing core of Chinese culture.

Similarly, in past centuries Muslim Arabs received, valued, and used their

"Hellenic inheritance for essentially utilitarian reasons. Being mostly interested in

borrowing certain external forms or technical aspects, they knew how to disregard all

elements in the Greek body of thought that would conflict with 'the truth' as

established in their fundamental Koranic norms and precepts." Japan followed the

same pattern. In the seventh century Japan imported Chinese culture and made the

"transformation on its own initiative, free from economic and military pressures," to

high civilization. "During the centuries that followed, periods of relative isolation

from continental influences during which previous borrowings were sorted out and

the useful ones assimilated would alternate with periods of renewed contact and

cultural borrowing." In similar fashion, Japan and other non-Western societies today

are absorbing selected elements of Western culture and using them to strengthen their

own cultural identity. It would, as Braudel argues, almost "be childish" to think that

the "triumph of civilization in the singular" would lead to the end of the plurality of

cultures embodied for centuries in the world's great civilizations.

Modernization and economic development neither require nor produce cultural

westernization. To the contrary, they promote a resurgence of, and renewed

commitment to, indigenous cultures. At the individual level, the movement of people

into unfamiliar cities, social settings, and occupations breaks their traditional local

bonds, generates feelings of alienation and anomie, and creates crises of identity to

which religion frequently provides an answer. At the societal level, modernization

enhances the economic wealth and military power of the country as a whole and

encourages people to have confidence in their heritage and to become culturally

assertive. As a result, many non-Western societies have seen a return to indigenous

cultures. It often takes a religious form, and the global revival of religion is a direct

consequence of modernization. In non-Western societies this revival almost

16

necessarily assumes an anti-Western cast, in some cases rejecting Western culture

because it is Christian and subversive, in others because it is secular and degenerate.

The return to the indigenous is most marked in Muslim and Asian societies. The

Islamic Resurgence has manifested itself in every Muslim country; in almost all it has

become a major social, cultural, and intellectual movement, and in most it has had a

deep impact on politics. In 1996 virtually every Muslim country except Iran was more

Islamic and more Islamist in its outlook, practices, and institutions than it was 15

years earlier. In the countries where Islamist political forces do not shape the

government, they invariably dominate and often monopolize the opposition to the

government. Throughout the Muslim world people are reacting against the

"Westoxification" of their Asian societies have gone through a parallel rediscovery of indigenous

values and have increasingly drawn unflattering comparisons between their culture

and Western culture. For several centuries they, along with other non-Western

peoples, envied the economic prosperity, technological sophistication, military power,

and political cohesion of Western societies. They sought the secret of this success in

Western practices and customs, and when they identified what they thought might be

the key they attempted to apply it in their own societies. Now, however, a

fundamental change has occurred. Today East Asians attribute their dramatic

economic development not to their import of Western culture but to their adherence to

their own culture. They have succeeded, they argue, not because they became like the

West, but because they have remained different from the West. In somewhat similar

fashion, when non-Western societies felt weak in relation to the West, many of their

leaders invoked Western values of self-determination, liberalism, democracy, and

freedom to justify their opposition to Western global domination. Now that they are

no longer weak but instead increasingly powerful, they denounce as "human rights

imperialism" the same values they previously invoked to promote their interests. As

Western power recedes, so too does the appeal of Western values and culture, and the

West faces the need to accommodate itself to its declining ability to impose its values

on non-Western societies. In fundamental ways, much of the world is becoming more

modern and less Western.(Adda B. Bozeman, "Civilizations under Stress," Virginia Quarterly Review,

Winter , p. 7; William E. Naff, "Reflections on the Question of' 'East and West' from

the Point of View of Japan," Comparative Civilizations Review, Fall 1985-Spring

1986, p. 222; Braudel, On History, pp. 212-213.近年来，西方人通过阐述西方文化是并且理应是世界文化这种观念来使自己获得自信，但使其他人感到厌烦。这种观念分为两种，一种是可口可乐殖民理论，这种理论的支持者宣称西方，特别是美国流行文化正在全世界发展，如美国食品、17

衣服、流行音乐、电影和消费品正越来越被各洲人所热爱。另一种理论与现代化有关，该理论宣称不仅西方领导了全球现代化，并且由于其他现代化进程中的人也被西方化，他们抛弃了自己的传统价值观、制度、风俗，但吸收了那些西方流行的东西。这些都影射出正显现同化和全球西方人不同程度上的误导、傲慢、错误和危险。可口可乐殖民主义理论的支持者把文化等同于物质产品的消费。然而文化的核心包括了语言、宗教、价值观、传统和风俗。喝可口可乐没有使鄂罗斯人像美国人那样思考，就像吃寿司也没有使美国人像日本人那样思考一样。统观整个人类历史，时尚和物质商品从一个社会扩散到另一个社会但并没有明显改善那些易接受改变的社会的基本文化。对中国、印度和其他国家各种文化的热衷已经长期的席卷整个西方世界，这种情况没有明显的长时间的影响。全球流行文化和物质消费的扩展代表了西方文明的胜利的这种争论低估了其他国家的力量，他们把西方文化定义为发胖食品、退的牛仔裤和冒泡的饮料。西方文化的本质是大宪章而不是Magna Cac。尽管有关现代化的讨论从理论上看比殖民化命题更知性，但它同样有缺陷。发生在19世纪的科学和工程知识的极度扩展使得人们可以以空前的方法来控制和创造他们的环境。现代化涉及了诸如工业化；都市话；人们文化水平，教育，财富和社会动员的增加与提高；及更复杂更变化多样的职业结构。与大约5000年前发生在底格里斯河，幼发拉底河，尼罗河，印度河村庄的从原始状态进入到人类文明社会的的转变比较，现代化是一个革命的过程。现代社会的人们和一传统社会的人们在看法，价值观念，知识和文化上都有很大差异。作为第一个进入现代化的文明社会，西方第一个完整的获得了现在文化。在现代化争论继续的同时，其他社会接受了类似与教育，工作，财富，阶层结构等诸多方面，从而西方文化将成为世界上最普遍的文化。现代化和传统文化时间存在显著的差异是不用争论的了。一个有些社会高度现代话，而有些社会仍然保持传统的世界明显比一个相对都是现代化社会的世界更没有共同性。仅仅在几百年前所有社会都是传统的，这样的一个世界有可能成为一个比一个普遍现代化的未来世界更没有共同性的世界吗？显然是不可能的。“中国明朝与法国的瓦卢瓦王朝肯定比中国时代与法国第五共和国亲近”。现代社会具有许多共同点，但他们不必须进入同一种社会。他们依据这样的假设认为：现代化社会必须近似一单的西方形态，现代文明就是西方文明，西方文明就是现代文明。然而这是一个假的论断。事实上所有研究文明的学者都认为西方文明出现在八，九世纪而在随后几世纪里发展成其独有特性，直到19世纪才成为现代文明，而不是一开始就是现代的。简单的说，西方在其成为现代化很久以前都只是西方的。对于现代化来说，非西方社会必须放弃他们的自有文化并且采用西方文化的核心元素吗？长久以来，这些社会的领导人认为这是必要的。Peter the Great（彼德大帝）和Mustafa Kemal Ataturk（穆斯塔法．凱莫尔．阿塔土耳克）曾经决定18

将他们的国家进行现代化并且相信这样做意味着采用西方文化，甚至到了要将他们的传统头饰替换为西方的等价物的地步。在这个过程中，他们发明了具有穆斯林习俗但是西方式现代化的国家，这处国家的文化单一性模糊。西方文化的输入在追求现化代的道路上并没有显著地帮到他们。非西方社会的领导人更多地追求现化代但是抵制西方化。他们的目标集中体现在“体用”（中学为体，西学为用）和“woken, yosei”（日本精神，西方技术），这是在一个世纪以前的中国和日本改革者明确地提出的，同时Saudi Arabia（沙特阿拉伯）的Prince Bandar（班达王子）在1994年评论说“‘外国进口’的炫丽的或高技术的东西很好，但是从别国进口的无形的社会和政治制度是致命的—告诉伊朗国王。。。伊斯兰对我们不仅仅是宗教而且是一种生活方式。我们沙特人希望现代化但是不希望不必要的西方化。”日本，新加坡，台湾，沙特阿拉伯以及程度没那么深地伊朗已经在没有变成西方社会的情况下变成了现化代国家。中国显然正在进行现代化，但是当然没有正在西方化。文明间的交叉以及相互借鉴已经是经常发生，进行现代化意思是进行更加广泛的迁移和交流。但是，世界上大多数伟大的文明已经至少存在了一千年，很多已经是好几千年。这些文明已经通过增加自身的生存机会的方式拥有了从其它文明借鉴的示范纪录。学者们同意，中国从印度吸收了佛教，但是没有对中国产生“印度化”；它反而产生了佛教的中国化。中国人依自身的目的和需要对佛教进行了改变。中国人必须持续地战胜西方将中国基督教化的努力。如果在某些时刻他们确实输入了基督教，它将会被吸收和改造以强化中国文化持久的核心。

类似的，在过去的几个世纪里，信奉穆斯林的阿拉伯人出于实用的目的，接收、评价并利用了他们的古希腊文化遗产。他们对于借用一些外界东西或技术方面的东西是最感兴趣的，同时他们知道怎样去忽视所有希腊思想中那些与“真理”相冲突的元素，这些“真理”是在他们最根本的规范和教规中建立的。日本也跟着这么做了，在七世纪，日本引入了中国文化，并在没有经济和军事压力的情况下自己首创性的对中国文化做出了走上更高文明的改变。接下来的几个世纪里，两种时期开始更替，一个时期是与大陆影响隔离，在这期间，先前引入的东西得以整理，有用的东西得以同化，另一个时期则是重建接触和文化引入。同样的方式下，现在的日本和其他非西方社会正在吸收选择过的西方元素，并利用它们来加强自身的文化特征。正如布罗代尔所说的，认为单一文化的胜利会导致世界伟大文明中蕴藏了几个世纪的文化多样性的消亡是幼稚的。现代化和经济发展既不会需求也不会产生文化上的西方化。相反，它们促进了本土文化的复兴，并且是对本土文化的再次承诺。个人层次上，人们迁移到陌生的城市、社会环境和工作破坏了他们传统的地方关系，产生了疏远和不确定的感觉，并且产生了身份危机，而这些常常可以从宗教得到答案。在社会层面上，现代化加强了国家整体的经济财富和军事力量，并鼓励人们在获得对于自己遗产的信心和文化上更自信。结果，很多非西方社会已经回归到本土文化。它经常以宗教的形式出现，并且全球性的宗教复兴正是现代化的直接结果。在非西方社会，19

这种复兴几乎必须是反西化的形式，一些情况下，拒绝西方文化是因为它是基督的是具有颠覆性的，另一些情况是因为它是世俗的和堕落的。本土化的回归在穆斯林和亚洲社会最显著。伊斯兰教的复兴在每一个穆斯林国家得到了证明；几乎所以都体现在社会、文化和知识分子运动，并且大部分对政治有深刻的影响。实际上，1996年，除了伊朗的每个穆斯林国家都在看法上、实践上和制度上比15年前更加伊斯兰化。在伊斯兰政治力量没能组建政府的国家，他们一定支配并经常垄断政府反对派。所以穆斯林世界的人都正在反对他们社会的西方化。东亚社会都经历了一个同样的重新发现本土价值观的过程并日益引起了本土文化和西方文化平等的比较。几百年来，他们以及其他非西方国家的人民，羡慕西方社会的经济繁荣，技术先进，军事强大和政治凝聚。他们寻求这一在西方实践和习俗中成功的秘密，当他们认为他们想到的可能是答案时，他们便试图将其运用到自己的社会中。然而，现在这一情形已经从根本上发生了改变。今天，东亚没有将其惊人的经济发展归因于输入西方文化，而是归因于坚持他们自己的文化。他们成功了，他们认为，这并不是因为他们变得像西方国家，而是因为他们一直不同于西方。有点相似地是，当非西方社会认为弱于西方时，他们的许多领导人援引西方价值观的自决，自由主义，民主，和自由来证明他们反对西方统治全球是正当的。现在，他们不再是弱者，而是越来越强大，他们谴责作为“人权帝国主义”所有相同的价值观，他们曾经援引来以促进他们的利益。由于西方力量消退，西方价值观和文化的吸引力也同样消退，西方国家面临着需要调整其自身能力的下降来适应将其价值观强加在非西方社会上。在根本的习俗上，世界许多地方正变得越来越现代化和较少西方化。20

第四课 科学的事实：如何与基督徒的信仰协调？Scientific Facts: Compatible with Christian Faith?One would think the battle between science and Christianity had been resolved

long ago. Recent statements by both scientists and theologians belie that thought,

however. For instance, Richard Dawkins, an outspoken anti-Christian biologist,

wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." On the

theological side, the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), a fundamentalist Christian

organization, continues to publish anti-evolutionary material such as: ". . . the notion

that a reptile gradually evolved into a mammal is scientifically unacceptable." As

flawed as some of the scientific statements of ICR have been, though, they seem to be

more informed in science than the anti-Christian scientists have been in causes of the science vs. Christianity battle may be traced to three errors.

First, the proponents on both sides often neglect to define the term "evolution."

Second, both sides have failed to see science as a product of a Christian worldview.

Third, both sides confuse the realms (limits) of science and American Scientific Affiliation has published an excellent book, Teaching

Science in a Climate of Controversy, for high school science teachers. In it, they list a

variety of definitions of "evolution." Micro evolution (breeding programs that have

produced hybrids and species adapting to changing environments in minor ways) is

the most obvious. No educated person would argue with that. Macro evolution (the

hypothesis that homo sapiens evolved from a single cell or even from inorganic

compounds) is not obvious and is much more debatable. Finally, evolution sometimes

is used as a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith that man is the result of a

purposeless and natural process. Few, if any, would disagree that minor changes are

seen over time in the plant and animal kingdoms. Conversely, few would agree that

homo sapiens, along with the rest of the universe, are a product of chance or random

some biologists refer to the macro evolutionary hypothesis as a "fact,"

they distort the evidence and cloud the issue. There is considerable debate among

biologists and paleontologists about the mechanism and possibility of macro

evolution. Consequently, overstating the case for macro evolution raises a large target

for some Christian fundamentalists. This results in attacks on evolutionary biology,

which distracts biologists from a critical study of their own hypotheses and causes

them to band together against a common ing scientific hypotheses into a theological (metaphysical) worldview

21

under the guise of being scientific is completely unwarranted. Whatever hypotheses

evolutionary biologists espouse (as long as they are limited to biology) say nothing

about who started and sustains the process. Likewise, theologians who read the Bible

as a scientific text engage in faulty analyses. It has been argued convincingly that a

correct interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative says nothing about the

scientific mechanism God used to create the origin of modern scienceIt surprises many to discover that modern science basically is a product of a

Christian worldview. The well-known Cambridge University historian, Herbert

Butterfield, in his book, The Origins of Modern Science, convincingly argues that

what happened in the 16th century and following was not so much a result of new

data, but of changed minds. While other cultures have given great discoveries to the

human race, such as the introduction of zero from the Hindus and algebra from the

Muslims, the Christian West had the unique set of assumptions required by science:

the universe (world) is orderly; this orderly universe can be known; and there is a

motive to discover the Greek and Roman cultures had none of these assumptions. The gods were

fickle and unpredictable; who could know their intentions? Math and philosophy were

ends in themselves and not means to discover a rational universe. The traditional

Hindu culture saw the universe as cyclical, again with the gods being capricious. Who

could know the mind of Kali or Shiva? There was no incentive to show that they ruled

over an orderly system.

Islam would adapt the Judeo-Christian concept of a creator God and, therefore,

conceive of an orderly universe, but Allah is so transcendent that he could not be

known in the Christian sense, nor could his universe. There was, then, little incentive

to argue for the order of his universe.

Classical atheism must hold to strict metaphysical naturalism in which

everything occurs by chance or random events. To many, such a world view takes

more "faith" than belief in a Creator. At any rate, such a view in the 16th Century

would hardly bespeak an orderly universe. If the world is illogical, how can one

understand it? If all is a result of chance, what incentive would there be to discover

order? Of course, we know that understanding science and technology greatly

improves our quality of life, but this is insight after the fact and really borrows from

the presuppositions of a Christian a Christian world view seems to fit the three criteria. The created universe

is logical as can be seen from numerous Biblical references such as Jeremiah 31:35,

"...the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and

the stars for light " This universe can be known because the Creator can be

known as Paul in Romans 1:19-20 declares, "For what can be known about God is

22

plain ...his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have

been made." Finally, the incentive exists in the direct command in Genesis where God

says to "...fill the earth and " Thus mankind is to be not only a steward but

to master God’s surprises some is that many of the founders of modern science were not

only Christians, but they were scientists in order to demonstrate that we lived in an

orderly universe. They believed that such a demonstration would be powerful

evidence that such a universe was created by an orderly God who could be example Copernicus (1463-1543), one of the first to question Aristotlean

cosmology and the geo-centric solar system, was a devout Christian and tolerant

toward the reformation. Bacon (1561-1626), another outspoken Christian, formulated

the "scientific method" and brought a more quantitative approach to conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo (1564-1642) has

been used to support the anti-scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but for

one who knows the history (see Hummel’s book, The Galileo Connection), Galileo

had many high ranking Catholics on his side, among whom was Cardinal Baronius

who wrote "[The Bible teaches] how one goes to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

Galileo, no paragon of tact, delighted in alienating his fellow professors, who were

Aristotelians and believed in a geo-centric solar system. It was mainly they who

caused the Pope to condemn Galileo’s teachings, but Galileo’s other Catholic

supporters helped broker the final plea bargain. Unfortunately, professors have a

history of irrational actions which continues to the present.

Kepler (1571-1630) upon whose discoveries our space program rests, wanted to

be a minister of the Gospel, but was persuaded to pursue his talents in math and

astronomy. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and explicitly relates the order

of his discoveries to God’s rational creation.

Pascal (1625-1662) is certainly one of the greatest minds in this line of founders.

He is credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass transit,

modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics. His Pensees (notes

defending the Christian faith) is a classic (1642-1662) considered his theological writings more important than

this scientific. Harvey (1578-1657), Boyle (1627-1691), Faraday (1791-1867), and

Maxwell (1831-1879) to name a few, were all devout Christians. Boyle, the first to

show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher. Faraday,

the discover of electro-magnetic induction, once only read from the Bible for a

sermon saying his words could add nothing to God’s. Maxwell, who discovered

magnetic flux, wrote: Lord, it belongs not to my care whether I die or live To love and

serve Thee is my share and that Thy guard must is an interesting historical question as to why, science, conceived in a Christian

23

culture by many Christians, was turned against Christianity and why Christians

allowed this to happen. I give the Huxleys, starting with Thomas (1825-1895),

considerable credit along with others who saw science, and especially biology, as

answers to questions that had previously been attributed directly to God. Christians,

instead of realizing that their own creation was being used against them, "threw the

baby out with the bath water" and considered science the problem rather than the

misuse of science.

There has (and continues to be) a confusion between primary causes and

secondary causes. The study of natural science deals with secondary causes while

theology studies primary causes. For example, we may explain rain by saying that

moisture in the air is cooled below the dew point causing water molecules to condense

around dust particles thereby generating precipitation. This is a secondary cause. The

primary cause is simply, "God made it rain." In other words, God, who created the

physical system, is the cause behind the observable people attempt to explain unknown causes in nature by God’s direct

intervention. This has been called, "the God of the gaps." While God could certainly

intervene in the natural process (called a miracle), to make God responsible for

common natural phenomena means that as each scientific discovery finds a natural

explanation of what was previously attributed to God, the direct intervention of God

becomes unnecessary. That is, as the gaps in knowledge become smaller, the God of

these gaps becomes correspondingly smaller. People with this mentality see science as

a threat to their faith. Obviously, were such a view held by the founders of modern

science, there would have been no incentive to find answers to the natural

phenomena. Understanding these natural phenomena as secondary causes, places God

above them where increased ability to explain how they occur not only does not

"decrease" God, but adds wonder to His ARE THE REALMS OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY?Having discussed the historical rise of modern science and some of the conflicts,

the present day battles can be solved by understanding the limits of both science and

theology. The following table illustrates the almost complete separation of the realm

of theology from that of science. They do not conflict, they complement each that the only intersection of the two almost disjoint sets (columns) is

nature. So those who see theology and science as completely unconnected miss the

point. Historically, this intersection of nature has lead to what is called the

"Teleological Argument," that is, the order of the universe points to an orderly

creator, the same point made by many of the founders of modern science. Scientists

may study this mechanistic universe and be impressed by it, but in order to understand

anything about the Creator, they have to go outside of the four dimensional time-space continuum which limits their studies. Theologians may study the Creator who

24

made this order, but they are bound by His revelations (the Bible) and cannot

extrapolate these to make scientific order of the universe is all the more amazing when we understand that order

contains information and, according to the more general Second Law of

Thermodynamics, nature destroys order (information). That is, just as water runs

downhill, the energy in the universe is "running down" and, baring some intervention,

the sun and all the stars will burn out and all that will be left is low level Gange, in his book, Origins and Destiny, points out that the amount of

information in the simplest bacterium is 7 million bits (not the computer bit, but

information bits). Think of this number as an exponent. The question then becomes, if

the information (order) in the universe is being destroyed, where did the original

information come from? Moreover, the universe seems to have been designed to

support life. The laws of the universe are so finely tuned to this end, that some

scientists have called this order "The Anthropic Principle." For example, if the

difference in expansion rate of the universe were different by 10-14 [1.0E-14], the

universe would either collapse or no stars could form. It seems that more theoretical

physicists than biologists are impressed with this order. The book by physicist Paul

Davies’, The Mind of God give compelling evidence for a SIONSTwo quotations on the limits of science are instructive."Science proves nothing

absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even produce evidence."

Vannevar Bush, past Chairman of the Board of MIT "It has become increasingly

evident our century that science is uncertain in its Indeed one thing of

which scientists can be quite certain is that they will not achieve a complete solution

of any worthwhile problem." George Gaylord Simpson, Professor of Vertebrate

Paleontology, Harvard.

Two quotations on the limits of theology comes from an unlikely source. It was

St. Augustine, who wrote in the 5th Century:"We must be on guard against giving

interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing

the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers." He also wrote:"The Spirit of God who

spoke through them [authors of the Bible] did not choose to teach about the heavens

to men, as it was of no use for salvation."

Notice that it was scientists who understood the limitations of their field and it

was a theologian who understood the limits of theology. The final word is for both

scientists and theologians to understand and use the "two book" model that goes back

at least to Cardinal Baronius of Galileo’s time which says that the Bible reveals God’s

words while nature reveals God’s works.

In other words: The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Science and theology are meant to be complements, not combatants. Science gives

25

theology perspective while theology gives science meaning. It is time for a truce.有人会认为，科学与基督教之间不必要的争斗已在很久之前完满结束。然而，科学家及神学家近年的言论显示他们并 不认同这看法。例如， Richard

Dawkins ——一位敢言的无神论者——认为「达尔文使成为知性上完满的无神论者变得可能」。在神学界方面，一个基要派的基督徒组织 Institute of Creation

Research (ICR) 不断出版反进化论的刊物，其中提及「……爬虫类动物进化成哺乳类动物，是科学上不能接纳的主张」。有趣的是，正如 ICR 过去的出版物都有瑕疵一样，这些言论在科学界比起反基督教的科学家在神学界更广为人知。

科学与基督教争斗的原因可追溯至三个错误。首先，双方的支持者都无法介定「进化」一词。此外，双方都不能接受科学是基督徒世界观的一种产物。最后，双方对科学与神学的限制都产生混淆。

甚么是进化？

The American Scientific Affiliation 出版了一本超卓的著作，名为 Teaching

Science in a Climate of Controversy ， 对象是任教高中科学的老师。书中对「进化」有五个解释。微观进化 ( 即在繁殖项目中产生杂交品种，或因适应环境而产生轻微变化的品种 ) 经常发生。宏观进化 ( 即假设人类从单细胞或无机混合物进化而来 ) 的学说并不明显，争议性亦较高。最后，「进化」有时被视为自然主义者的富宗教彩的信念，认为「人类是无目的及自然过程中的产物」。只有少数人 ( 如果有的话 ) 会否认，随着时间的过去，植物界及动物界会有轻微的变化。相反地，只有少数人会认为人类 ( 以及宇宙中其余的生物 ) 只是随机而来的产物。

当一些生物学家把宏观进化论的假设指为「事实」时，他们会歪曲证据或掩饰事情的真相。生物学家与古生物学家之 间，正掀起有关宏观进化论的机制及可能性的辩论。结果是，过份强调宏观进化论反倒成为基要派基督徒起反对的目标。基于这基督徒对生物进化学的攻击，生 物学家不能专注其理性的研究，反而联盟起来以应付共同敌人。

正如接着下来会讨论的一样，在科学化的伪装下，把科学的假设延伸至神学

( 形而上学 ) 的世界观是亳无理由的。不论生物进化学家主张甚么假设，只要是在生物学范围以内的，都不会说是谁开始或延续生物过程。同样地，视圣经为科学化文章的神学家 正处于错误的诠释之内。现时已有论据指出在创世记创造宇宙的描述中，丝毫没有提及上帝以甚么机制创造宇宙。

现代科学的起源

很多人或会惊讶现代科学其实基本上是基督徒世界观的产物。 Herbert

Betterfield 是剑桥著名的的历史学家，他在其著作 The Origins of Modern

Science 中有力地指出， 16 世纪及之后产生的科学，大都不是新发现，而是思维的转变。正当其它文化对人类历史作出贡献，如印度教引入「零」，以及伊斯兰教教引入「代数」的概念，西方的基督教为科学提供了一套独特的假设。

现代科学的三个假设为：

26

宇宙 ( 世界 ) 是有秩序的；

有秩序的宇宙可以为人所知；

[ 科学 ] 有发掘这个秩序的动机。

希腊及罗马文化没有这些假设。它们的神都是无常的，而且无法预测。谁会知道他们的意图？数学及哲学本身就是终 结，并不是发掘充满理性的宇宙的方法。传统的印度文化视宇宙为周期性的，它们的神也是反复无常的。谁会知道

Kali 及 Shiva 的脑海中想着甚么？因此，人们没有意欲证明这些神正掌管着整个有秩序的宇宙。

伊斯兰教采纳犹太基督教有关创造主的概念，因此，它相信世界是井然有序的。然而，亚拉超越得基督徒无法明白，甚至世界上无人能知。在这情况下，人们亦难有意欲证明宇宙的秩序。

经典的无神论主义必须坚持严格的形而上的自由主义。在这个主义中，所有事情的发生都是随机的。对很多人来说， 这世界观要求人对创造主有「信心」多于信念。不管怎样，这观念在 16 世纪都难以表明一个井然有序的宇宙。如果世界不合逻辑，我们怎能明白它？如果所有事情都是随机发生的话，人们还有甚么动机发掘秩序？当然，我们知道科学及 技术的理解大大改善我们生活的质素，但这是发现事实之后的启发，亦实在是从基督徒文化的前设而来的。

只有基督徒的世界观乎合三个要求。被造宇宙的逻辑性可从无数的经文中引证，例如「……那使太阳白日发光，使星 月有定例，黑夜发光……」 ( 杰里迈亚书 31 章 35 节中 ) 。宇宙可被知道，因为创造主亦向我们启示祂自己，正如保罗在罗马书 1 章 19 至 20 中宣称：「神的事……原显明在人心里……神的永能和神性……借着所造之物就可以晓得……」。最后的一个动机在创世纪中神的一个命令可见，祂说「……要创造 世界」。因此，人类不单管理，更是掌管神的创造。

使人感到惊奇的是，很多现代科学的创始人都不单是基督徒，更是致力证明我们生存在井然有序的宇宙的科学家。他们相信，这个证明将提供有力的证据，表明宇宙是由有秩序，而且可被认识的神创造。

举例说， Copernicus (1463—1543 年 ) 是其中一位最先质疑亚里士多德的宇宙论以及地心论的科学家。他是虔诚的基督徒，对改革持宽容的态度。

Bacon (1561—1626 年 ) ，另一位敢言的基督徒，创立了「科学的方法」，为科学带来更量化的方法。

罗马天主教教会与 Galileo (1564—1642 年 ) 的冲突，曾被用作支持基督徒反科学的偏见。然而，任何一个懂历史的人都知道 ( 见 Hummel 的著作：

The Galileo Connection ) ， Galileo 的支持者中也有很多位高权重的天主教徒，其中包括 Cardinal Baronius ，其名句为「 [ 圣经教导 ] 人如何上天堂，不是天堂如何运作」。 Galileo 不算得上是机智的典范，他宁愿与其身旁的教授保持疏远的距离，因为他们都是亚里士多德派学者，相信太阳系以地球为中心。就是他们使教宗谴责 Galileo 的教导，但 Galileo 其它的天主教支持者都有协助抗辩。27

不幸地，教授们至今都有不理性行为的记录。

基于 Kepler (1571—1630 年 ) 的发现，我们才有今天的太空计划。他希望成为传道人，却被别人说服发展其数学及天文的才能。在他的写作中，经常引用诗篇，将其发现的次序与神合理的创造拉上关系。

Pascal (1625—1662 年 ) 无疑是与他同期的 ( 科学 ) 奠基者中最出的一位。他有概率论、 hydrostatics 、 mass transit 、现代法国散文、计算机以及基督教护教学之父的美誉。 Pensees ( 说明如何捍卫基督徒信心的笔记 ) 是其经典之作。

Newton (1642—1662 年 ) 视其神学著作比科学著作更重要。 Harvey

(1578—1657 年 ) 、 Boyle (1627—1691 年 ) 、 Faraday (1791—1867 年 ) 以及 Maxwell (1831—1879 年 ) ，虽是冰山一角，但全都是虔诚的教徒。

Boyle ，首位分辨混合物与元素的科学家，同时是一位布道家。 Faraday 发明电磁感应，有一次他阅毕圣经的其中一篇讲章，感叹自己的说话不能像神的话一般完满。 Maxwell ，发现 magnetic flux 者，写道：

「主啊！生与死不是我所关心的。

我只知道爱你、事奉你是我的福份，

你的保护亦常与我同在。」

有趣的历史问题是：为何科学融合于基督教文化中，却渐渐成为基督教的敌人，而基督徒又容许它发生？我需要对以 Thomas (1825—1895) 为首的

Huxleys 表示欣赏。他们与很多人一样，视科学，特别是生物学，为直接解答与神有关的问题。基督徒非但不以为科学的发明正与他们对峙，更进一步视科学本身，而不是科 学的误用为问题所在。

主因及次因之间曾经 ( 及一直 ) 存在混淆。自然科学关乎次因，而神学则研究主因。举例说，要解释雨的形成，我们可以说是空气中的水份因冷却，导致其分子与尘的粒子一同凝固，于是从天上降 下来。这是次因，主因很简单：「神创造雨水」。换言之，创造整个物质系统的神，是可观察的原因背后的原因。

有些人尝试将自然界中未知的原因解释为神的直接干预，将神称为「鸿沟的神」。虽然神绝对有能力干预自然的过程 ( 称为神迹 ) ，但将所有自然现象都与神扯上关系，只代表在科学发明能解释自然现象的情况下，神的干预已不再成立。当知识之间的鸿沟愈来愈少，鸿沟的神亦愈来愈少。抱持 这种观念的人视科学为他们信心的威胁。显然地，若现代科学的创始人都持这种观念，人们便再没有动力为自然现象寻答案。把这些自然现象理解为次因，并将神 放在它们之上，以更大的力量解释它们如何发生，非但不会「亏缺」神的荣耀，反使其创造更显奇妙。

科学与神学的领域是甚么？

讨论过现代科学及一些冲突的历史起源后，现今的战场可从对科学及神学范围的理解而得到解决。下表显示神学领域与科学领域的不同：两者不但没有冲突，反而互相补足。

28

要留意的是， 大自然 是两个 差不多 完 全无关的栏目的唯一交汇点。因此，视科学及神学完全没有关系的人会遗忘了这点。历史上，本质的交汇导致「目的论」的产生。换言之，宇宙的秩序指向一位井然 有序的神。这与很多现代科学的创始人的论点相同。科学家或可研究这个机械性的宇宙，陶醉其中，但要明白这位创造者，就必须走出时间与空间的四维，否则只会 阻碍他们的研究。神学家或会研究创造秩序的创造主，但他们受衪的启示 ( 圣经 ) 所限制，不能由此推断出科学性的公告。

科学与神学的领域

项目

假设

主题

来源

目的

语言

方法

结果

验证

限制

没有解释「如何」

圣经的原则、个人经验 内在的一致、以实际经验为依据的测试

没有解释「谁」以及形而上的「为何」

圣经研究、讲求经验、研究人员有个人投入

应该的、知道神

观察、研究人员保持抽离态度

甚么是

质量的、主观的 数量的、客观的

谁，以及形而上的为何 怎样，以及实时的为何

神、人类、灵界、绝对真理、

大自然

圣经、圣灵

大自然 、力量、物质的宇宙

自然宇宙、事件

神是主因，连同耶稣及圣经 有秩序的宇宙、因果等等

神学 科学

当我们知道秩序包含信息，而根据热力学的第二定律，大自然摧毁秩序 (

信息 ) ，我们便不难发现宇宙的奇妙。换言之，当水从山上流下来的时候，宇宙的能量亦下降。加上某些干预，太阳与星宿的能量会耗尽，剩下来的只是低水平的幅射。

Robert Gange 在其书 Origins and Destiny 指出，一个 最简单的细菌细胞的信息量是七兆位 ( 不是计算机的位，是信息的位 ) 。 试把这数字想象为一个指数，问题便成为，假若宇宙中的信息都被破坏，最初的信息来自哪里？而且，宇宙好像是为支持生命而设计的，其定律与这目的很配合，有 科学家更称这定律为「人择原理」。例如，若宇宙扩张率的分别大于 10-14 ，它将会崩溃，或再29

无星宿。这秩序似乎影响理论物理学家多于生物学家。理论物理学家 Paul

Davies 的著作 The Mind of God 便为宇宙的创造者提供有力的证据。

结论

以下两则带启发性的引文关乎科学的限制。 Board of MIT 的前主席

Vannevar Bush 写道：

「科学不能绝对证明甚么。在最重要的问题上，它甚至不能提供任何证据。」

「在我们身处的年代，科学的本质愈来愈不明朗……其实科学家反而可以肯定的是，他们不能为任何有价值的问题到完满的解决方法。」 ( 哈佛大学脊椎动物化 石学 教授 George Gaylord Simpson )

以下两则关乎神学限制的引文来自不大可能写出如此文字之手。 St.

Augustine 在公元五世纪写道：

「解释圣经时，若过份以科学左证，或与科学对抗，我们都要提高警觉。面对非信徒的嘲讽，我们更应如是。」

他亦写道：

「圣灵透过他们 ( 圣经的作者 ) 说话的时候，并不是向人类解释有关天堂的事，因为这与拯救毫无关系。」

必须注意的是，科学家明白科学的限制，而神学家则明白神学的局限。最后，科学家及神学家 应采用「两书」模式，返回 Galileo 时代的 Cardinal

Baronius ，它指出圣经显明神的话，而大自然显明神的工作。换言之，圣经告诉我们如何到天堂，而不是天堂是甚么一回事。科学及神学互相补足，而不是互相对抗。科学给 神学发展的层面，而神学使科学有涵义。双方是时候停战了。30

第5课 科学、谎言和终极真理Science, Lies and the Ultimate Truth

If there is any specimen lower than a fornicating preacher, it must be a shady

scientist. The dissolute evangelist betrays his one revealed Truth, but the scientist who

rushes half-cocked into print or, worse yet, falsifies the data subverts the whole idea

of truth. Cold fusion in a teacup? Or, as biologists (then at M.I.T.) David Baltimore

and Thereza Imanishi-Kari claimed in a controversial 1986 article that the National

Institutes of Health has now judged to be fraudulent, genes from one mouse

mysteriously "imitating" those from another? Sure, and parallel lines might as well

meet somewhere or apples leap back up onto ore, the Nobel laureate and since 1990 president of Rockefeller

University, has apologized, after a fashion, for his role in the alleged fraud, and many

feel that the matter should be left to rest. He didn't, after all, falsify the data himself;

he merely signed on as senior scientist to Imanishi-Kari's now discredited findings.

But when a young postdoctoral fellow named Margot O'Toole tried to blow the

whistle, Baltimore pooh-poohed O'Toole's evidence and stood by while she lost her

job. Then, as the feds closed in, he launched a bold, misguided defense of the sanctity

of does one more lie matter anyway? Politicians "misspeak" and are forgiven

by their followers. Pop singers have been known to dub in better voices. Literary

deconstructionists say there's no truth anyway, just ideologies and points of view.

Lies, you might say, are the great lubricant of our way of life. They sell products,

flatter the powerful, appease the electorate and save vast sums from the IRS.

Imanishi-Kari's lie didn't even hurt anyone: no bridges fell, no patients science is different, and the difference does define a kind of sanctity.

Although we think of it as the most secular of human enterprises, there is a little-known spiritual side to science, with its own stern ethical implications. Through

research, we seek to know that ultimate Other, which could be called Nature if the

term didn't sound so tame and beaten, or God if the word weren't loaded with so much

human hope and superstition. Think of it more neutrally as the nameless Subject of so

much that happens, like the It in "It is raining": something "out there" and vastly

different from ourselves, but not so alien that we cannot hope to know Its I was a graduate student in biology -- at Rockefeller, where Baltimore also

earned his Ph.D. -- I would have winced at all this metaphysics. The ethos of the

acolyte was humility and patience. If the experiment didn't succeed, you did it again

31

and then scratched your head and tried a new approach. There were mistakes, but

mistakes could be corrected, which is why you reported exactly how you did things,

step by step, so others could prove you right or wrong. There were even, sometimes,

corners cut: a little rounding off, an anomalous finding falsifying data lay outside our moral universe. The least you could do as a

scientist was record exactly what you observed (in ink, in notebooks that never left

the lab). The most you could do was arrange the experimental circumstances so as to

entrap the elusive It and squeeze out some small confession: This is how the enzyme

works, or the protein folds, or the gene makes known its message. But always, and no

matter what, you let It do the talking. And when It spoke, which wasn't often, your

reward, as one of my professors used to say, was "to wake up screaming in the night"

-- at the cunning of Its logic and the elegance of Its was the ideal, anyway. But Big Science costs big bucks and breeds a more

mundane and calculating kind of outlook. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars a

year to run a modern biological laboratory, with its electron microscopes,

ultracentrifuges, amino-acid analyzers, Ph.D.s and technicians. The big bucks tend to

go to big shots, like Baltimore, whose machines and underlings must grind out

"results" in massive volume. In the past two decades, as federal funding for basic

research has ebbed, the pressure to produce has risen to dangerous levels. At the same

time, the worldly rewards of success have expanded to include fat paychecks (from

patents and sidelines in the biotech business) as well as power and celebrity status.

And these are the circumstances that invite hi-Kari succumbed, apparently, to the desire to make a name for $ herself

and hence, no doubt, expand her capacity for honest research. But Baltimore is a more

disturbing case. He already had the name, the resources and the power that younger

scientists covet. What he forgot is that although humans may respect these things, the

truth does not. What he lost sight of, in the smugness of success, is that truth is no

respecter of hierarchy or fame. It can come out of the mouths of mere underlings, like

the valiant O' if no one was physically hurt, still there was damage done. Scientists

worldwide briefly believed the bogus "findings" and altered their views accordingly

or wasted time trying to follow the false lead in their labs. Then there is the inevitable

damage from the exposure of the lie: millions of people, reading of the scandal, must

have felt their deepest cynicism confirmed. If a Nobel laureate in science could sink

to the moral level of Milli Vanilli or a White House spin doctor, then maybe the

deconstructionists are right and there is no truth anywhere, only self-interest masked

as objective ore should issue a fuller apology, accounting for his alleged cover-up of

the initial fraud. Then he should reflect for a week or two and consider stepping down

32

from his position as president of Rockefeller Universityand de facto science

statesman. Give him a modest lab to work in, maybe one in the old Rockefeller

buildings where the microbe hunters toiled decades ago. I picture something with a

river view, where it is impossible to forget that Manhattan is an island, that the earth

is a planet, and that there is something out there much larger, and possibly even

cleverer, than ourselves.如果有比一位通奸的传教士品质还低的人，那一定是一位可疑科学家。放荡传教士只是背叛了上帝，但是科学家把不成熟的成果发表，伪造数据把整个真理推翻了。在茶杯里面能进行核聚变？然而作为生物学家的DAVID Baltimore和Thereza Imanishi-Kari1986年在一个有争议的文章声称，老鼠的基因能神奇的“模仿”其他老鼠的基因。这个发现已经被美国国立卫生研究院认定是。如果那样的结论成立，那平行线就有可能在某处相交，或者说掉地上的苹果可以跳回树上。Baltimore是一位诺贝尔奖获得者，并且从1990开始担任洛克菲勒大学的校长。他已经勉强为他涉嫌参与道歉，很多人认为此事就到此为止吧。Baltimore

自己毕竟没有伪造数据，只是在Imanishi-Kari不光彩的“发现”上署一个高级科学家的名字。但是当年轻的博士后Margot试图进行反驳时，Baltimore对Margot的证据嗤之以鼻，直到让她丢掉工作。随后，当官方介入时，他又进行了关于的大胆，误导科学神圣的辩护。一个谎言又有什么呢？政治家会失言，然后被他的支持者原谅。流行歌手为获得更好的音效进行假唱已经是公开秘密了。文学解构学家认为世上没有任何真理，只有一时形态和观念。你可能说谎言是我们生活的润滑剂。谎言可以让增加产品销售，可以阿谀权贵，安抚选民和逃避税收。Imanishi-Kari的谎言并没有没有伤害到任何人。没有一座桥因此倒塌，没有一个病人因此死亡。然而科学是不一样的，这种不一样就是科学的神圣。尽管科学被认为是人类最普遍精神。但是科学在精神方面却很少为人了解，科学是有其严格的道德含义。我们通过研究去认识对象。为了听起来不是那么乏味和沮丧称这种对象为自然吧，或者让人感觉没有承载过多的期望和迷信称之为上帝。更中立的观点把科学看作是如此多难以形容的运动着的东西，就如“它（天气）在下雨 ”中的“它”一样。某种外在的东西，和我们自身存在非常大差别，但差别又不是大到让我们无法知道到“它”的行为方式当我还是洛克菲勒大学的生物学研究生的时候，我曾因为那些形而上学的观点有过退缩的想法。研究者的精神非常谦逊和有耐心。假如实验没有成功，你就必须重复做，摸摸自己的脑袋，想办法尝试新的方法。错误是存在的，但是错误可以不断的得到更正。这就是为什么你必须如实报道你一步一步如何做的，那样其他人就可以证明你的是对的还是错误的。有时候只是因为取整，一个异常的发现就会被忽略。33

伪造数据却是超出了人类的基本道德。作为一个科学家至少要做到严格记录吓所观察到的东西（用钢笔记录再实验室的固定记录本上）。科学家最多能所做的就是安排好实验环境诱使那个难以琢磨的“它”并让“它”表现出来:这就是酶，和蛋白质折叠， 基因表现其信息的作用原理。但是常常是不管对“它“做什么，“它”却很少表现，当“它”表现出的时候就是你的收获的时候了。正如我的一个教授经常说的:为“它”逻辑的巧妙和和设计的完美而“夜晚醒来尖叫”。不管怎么样，这是一种理想的情况。但是，重大的科学研究需要大量的金钱，并产生出更为世俗的，可计算的前途。运行一个配有电子显微镜、超高速离心机和氨基酸分析仪等高级设备，拥有许多博士和技师的现代生物实验室，每年都需要几十上百万美元的经费。而这样的大的经费只有象Baltimore这样能够大量产出科研成果的的大人物才能得到。过去20年来，国家用于基础研究的经费已经减少所造成的压力和拿到世界大奖就可以拿到大量的奖金并拥有巨大的权威和名声的诱惑都成为欺骗产生的潜在原因。Imanishi-Kari为了名利在研究中，这一点是不容置疑的。然而更令人不思其解的是Baltimore也。Baltimore他已经拥有年轻科学家梦寐以求的名声、资源和权力。他恰恰忘记了人们尊重名声、资源和权力，而真理却不是这样。在这个的胜利中，他没看到的是，真理是不会尊重等级和名声的，它只会出自于勇敢、坚毅的O’Toole勇士口中。就算没人因此（Baltimore学术）受到物质上的伤害，但是它还是带来了很大的破坏。全球的科学家简单地相信他们这个伪造的“发现”并为此改变他们的观点，跟随这个错误的引导去做研究，从而浪费了大量的时间和金钱。此外，还有谎言暴露时所造成的不可避免的损失。当人们读到这样的丑闻时，都会感到深深的讽刺。如果一个Nobel科学奖得主在道德上堕落到象Milli Vanili和白宫的游医那样，那么也许结构分解主义者所说的这个世界上本来就没有真理，有的只是被客观事实包围的自我利益这一观点是正确的。Baltimore必须为此事发表完整的道歉，并为他的所谓的首次欺骗负责。然后他必须好好地反思一到两个星期，并考虑辞去Rockefeller大学校长职位和学术权威桂冠。给他一个简陋的实验室工作，也许可以安排他到Rocefeller大学旧大楼那个很多微生物研究者辛勤工作了几十年的实验室。我用河流的观点描绘事物，在那里人们不会忘记Manhattan是一个岛屿，地球是一颗行星，在此之外还有比我们更强大，甚至更聪明的人存在。34

第六课 如何判断自己能否搞科学研究？How Can I Tell If I Am Cut out to Be a Research Worker?People who believe themselves cut out for a scientific life are sometimes dismayed

and depressed by, in Sir Francis Bacon’s words, “The subtilty of nature, the secret

recesses of truth, the obscurity of things, the difficulty of experiment, the implication

of causes and the infirmity of man’s discerning power, being men no longer excited,

either out of desire or hope, to penetrate farther.”There is no certain way of telling in advance if the daydreams of a life dedicated

to the pursuit of truth will carry a novice through the corroborate dearly loved

hypotheses that later proved to be groundless; times such as these are hard for

scientists – days of leaden gray skies bring with them a miserable sense of oppression

and inadequacy. It is my recollection of these bad times that accounts for the

earnestness of my advice to young scientists that they should have more than one

string to their bow and should be willing to take no for an answer if the evidence

points that is especially important that no novice should be fooled by old-fashioned

misrepresentations about what a scientific life is like. Whatever it may have been

alleged to be, it is in reality exciting, rather passionate and – in terms of hours of work

– a very demanding and sometimes exhausting occupation. It is also likely to be tough

on a wife or husband and children who have to live with an obsession without the

compensation of being possessed by it themselves.A novice must stick it out until he discovers whether the rewards and

compensations of a scientific life are for him commensurate with the disappointments

and the toil; but if once a scientist experiences the exhilaration of discovery and the

satisfaction of carrying through a really tricky experiment – once he has felt that

deeper and more expansive feeling Freud has called the “oceanic feeling” that is the

reward for any real advancement of the understanding – then he is hooked and no

other kind of life will SWhat about the motives for becoming a scientist in the first place? This is the kind of

subject upon which psychologists might be expected to make some pronouncement.

Love of finicky detail was said by Lou Andreas Salome to be one of the outward

manifestations of – uh – “anal erotism,” but scientists in general are not finicking, nor,

luckily, do they often have to be. Conventional wisdom has always had it that

curiosity is the mainspring of a scientist’s work. This has always seemed an

inadequate motive to me; curiosity is a nursery word. “Curiosity killed the cat” is an

35

old nanny’s saying, through it may have been that same curiosity which found a

remedy for the cat on what might otherwise have been its able scientists I know have something for which “exploratory impulsion” is

not too grand a description. Immanuel Kant spoke of a “restless endeavor” to get at

the truth of things, though in the context of the not wholly convincing argument that

nature would hardly have implanted such as ambition in our breasts if it had not been

possible to gratify it. A strong sense of unease and dissatisfaction always goes with

the lack of comprehension. Laymen feel it, too; how otherwise can we account for the

relief they feel when they learn that some odd and disturbing phenomenon can be

explained? It cannot be the explanation itself that brings relief, for it may easily be too

technical to be widely understood. It is not the knowledge itself, but the satisfaction of

knowing that something is known. The writings of Francis Bacon and of Jan Amos

Comenius – two of the philosophic founders of modern science whose writing I shall

often refer to – are suffused by the imagery of light. Perhaps the restless unease I am

writing of is an adult equivalent of that childish fear of the dark that can be dispelled,

Bacon said, only by kindling light in nature.I am often asked, “What made you become a scientist?” But I can’t stand far

enough away from myself to give a really satisfactory answer, for I cannot distinctly

remember a time when I did not think that a scientist was the most exciting possible

thing to be. Certainly I had been stirred and persuaded by the writings of Jules Verne

and H. G. Wells and also by the not necessarily posh encyclopedias that can come the

way of lucky children who read incessantly and who are forever poring over books.

Works of popular science helped, too: six penny – in effect, dime – books on stars,

atoms, the earth, the oceans, and suchlike. I was literally afraid of dark, too – and if

my conjecture in the paragraph above is right, that may also have I BRAINY ENOUGH TO BE A SCIENTIST?An anxiety that may trouble some novices, and perhaps particularly some women

because of the socially engendered habit – not often enough corrected – of self-depreciation, is whether they have brains enough to do well in science. It is an anxiety

they could well spare themselves, for one does not need to be terrifically brainy to be

a good scientist. An antipathy or a total indifference to the life of the mind and an

impatience of abstract ideas can be taken as contraindications, to be sure, but there is

nothing in experimental science that calls for great feats of ratiocination or a

preternatural gift for deductive reasoning. Common sense one cannot do without, and

one would be the better for owning some of those old-fashioned virtues that seem

unaccountably to have fallen into disrepute. I mean application, diligence, a sense of

purpose, the power to concentrate, to persevere and not to be cast down by adversity –

by finding out after long and weary inquiry, for example, that a dearly loved

hypothesis is in large measure mistaken.36

An Intelligence TestFor full measure I interpolate an intelligence test, the performance of which will

differentiate between common sense and the dizzily higher intellections that scientists

are sometimes thought to be capable of or to need. To many eyes, some of the figures

(particularly the holy ones) of El Greco’s paintings seem unnaturally tall and thin. An

ophthalmologist who shall be nameless surmised that they were drawn so because El

Greco suffered a defect of vision that made him see people that way, and as he saw

them, so he would necessarily draw such an interpretation be valid? When putting this question, sometimes to

quite large academic audiences, I have added, “Anyone who can see instantly that this

explanation is nonsense and is nonsense for philosophic rather aesthetic reasons is

undoubtedly bright. On the other hand, anyone who still can’t see it is nonsense even

when its nonsensicality is explained must be rather dull.” The explanation is

epistemological – that is, it has to do with the theory of e a painter’s defect of vision was, as it might easily have been, diplopia –

in effect, seeing everything double. If the ophthalmologist’s explanation were right,

then such a painter would paint his figures double; but if he did so, then when he

came to inspect his handiwork, would he not see all the figures fourfold and maybe

suspect that something was amiss？ If a defect of vision is in question, the only

figures that could seem natural (that is, representational) to the painter must seem

natural to us also, even if we ourselves suffer defects of vision; if some of El Greco’s

figures seem unnaturally tall and thin, they appear so because this was El Greco’s

intention.I do not wish to undervalue the importance of intellectual skills in science, but I

would rather undervalue them than overrate them to a degree that might frighten

recruits away. Different branches of science call for rather different abilities, anyway,

but after deriding the idea that there is any such thing as the scientist, I must not speak

of “science” as if it were a single species of activity. To collect and classify beetles

requires abilities, talents and incentives quite different from, I do not say inferior to,

those that enter into theoretical physics or statistical epidemiology. The pecking order

within science – a most complicated snobismus – certainly rates theoretical physics

above the taxonomy of beetles the order of nature is thought to spare us any great feat

of judgement or intellection: is not there a slot waiting for each beetle to fit into?Any such supposition is merely inductive mythology, however, and an

experienced taxonomist or paleobiologist will assure a beginner that taxonomy well

done requires great deliberation, considerable powers of judgement and a flair for the

discernment of affinities that can come only with experience and the will to acquire all events scientists do not often think of themselves as brilliantly brainy

people – and some, at least, like to avow themselves rather stupid. This is a

37

transparent affectation, though – unless some uneasy recognition of the truth tempts

them to fish for reassurance. Certainly very many scientists are not intellectuals. I

myself do not happen to know any who are Philistines unless – in a very special sense

– it is being a Philistine to be so overawed by the judgments of literary and aesthetic

critics as to take far more seriously than they e so many experimental sciences call for the use of manipulative skills, it

is part of conventional wisdom to declare that a predilection for or proficiency at

mechanical or constructive play portends a special aptitude for experimental science.

A taste for Baconian experimentation is often thought significant, too – for example,

an interest inner impulsion to find out what happens when several ounces of a mixture

of sulfur, saltpeter and finely powdered charcoal is ignited. We cannot tell if the

successful prosecution of such an experiment genuinely portends a successful

research career because only they become scientists who don’t find out. To devise

some means of ascertaining whether or not these conventional beliefs hold water is

work for sociologists of science. I do not feel, though, that a novice need be turned

away from science by clumsiness or an inability to mend radio sets or bikes. These

skills are not instinctual; they can be learned, as dexterity can be. A trait surely

incompatible with a scientific career is to regard manual work as undignified or

inferior, or to believe that a scientist has achieved success only when he packs away

test tubes and culture dishes, turns off the Bunsen burner, and sits at a desk dressed in

collar and tie. Another scientifically disabling belief is to expect to be to carry out

experimental research by issuing instructions to lesser mortals who scurry hither and

thither to do one’s bidding. What is disabling about this belief is the failure to realize

that experimentation is a form of thinking as well as a practical expression of OutThe novice who tries his hand at research and finds himself indifferent to or bored by

it should leave science without any sense of self-reproach or is easy enough to say, but in practice qualifications required of scientists are

so specialized and time-consuming that they do not qualify him to take up any other

occupation; this is especially a fault of the current English scheme of education and

does not apply with the same force in America, whose experience of general

university education is so much greater than our own.A scientist who pulls out may regret it all his life or he may feel liberated; if the

latter, he probably did well to quit, but any regret he felt would be well-founded, for

several scientists have told me with an air of delighted wonderment how very

satisfactory it is that they should be paid – perhaps even adequately paid – for work

that is so absorbing and deeply pleasurable as scientific research.有些人认定自已是搞科学研究的材料。不过，他们有时会因此而沮丧。其原38

因正如培根所说的那样，是因为“大自然是如此扑朔迷离，真理是如此深藏不露，事实是如此模棱两可，实验是如此煞费苦心，原因是如此闪烁不明，精力是如此难以持久，皆可使因失望而不复振奋者返巡不前。”梦寐以求地向往献身于对真理的追求，这是否就能使初出茅庐者受得住目睹自己实验失败时的烦恼，经得起发现自己痴迷的观点竟成无稽之谈时的懊丧呢？这很难预料。在我的生涯中，曾有两次为了给自己一心宠爱的假说寻支点而搞得身心交瘁，结果只是无端地耗费了两年时光，到头来却发现这些假说原来是不着边际的东西，于科学上一无所获。对科学家来说，这种日子真是不好过，就像终日生活在灰蒙蒙的天空下，总是感到一种阴惨惨的沮丧和不适。正是因为难以忘怀这样的悲惨时光，我才真心诚意地向青年科学家进言，希望他们不要单打一，不要一条胡同走到黑，而要能在有否定证据出现时，接受一个“错”字。还有一点对新手是尤其重要的，就是切不要为那些陈旧而失实的有关科学生涯的描述所蒙蔽。无论它可能被煞有介事地说成什么样子，事实上大家要记住的是：科学生涯是一种振奋人心的、充满激情的体验；就其占去的时间而言，它还是十分拖累人的，有时简直是累死人的活动。对于科学家的家属来说，还可以说从事科学研究是个狠心的生涯。科学家的家属不得不和中了魔的人一起生活，但自己却不能享受到一起人迷的补偿。（参见第五章中“科学家的家庭会不会不美满？”一节。）新手都要这样熬上一段时间，直至看出科学生涯给他带来的酬报和补偿是否抵得上它所造成的失望和辛苦为止。不过，一旦科学家体验到了做出某个发现的欣喜，领略到了巧妙地实现某个实验的满足；这就是说，一旦他感受到了弗洛伊德称之为“海洋般的情感”这一更为深切、更为辽阔的激情——这是一切为真知的真正发展做出贡献的人所能得到的报偿。就会与之结下不解之缘，其它的一切都会黯然失。动 机首先要提出的一个问题是：当科学家的动机是什么？这个问题或许应该由心理学家来回答。世俗之见多半认为，好奇心乃是科学家身上最有力的发条。我一向认为，这并不是正常的动机。““好奇”是针对娃娃们说的。有句老掉牙的俗话说：“因为好奇，死了猫咪”——其实，好奇这个东西，有时固然会要命，但有时也能救命哩。在我所知道的有才能的科学家中，大多数都具备这样一种品质，把这种品质称之为“进行探究的冲动”也许并不过分。康德也提到过一种“追求真理的不懈努力”。当然，他的论证却不那么令人信服。他认为，大自然既然已将这种雄心壮志放入人类的灵魂之中，人类当然就能实现自己的这一抱负。知道存在着知识上的欠缺，就会产生强烈的不安与不满足。就连门外汉也都是如此。当他们听到别39

人提起，某个奇特而搅扰人心的现象已能得到解释时，心里也会生出一种如释重负之感。对这一现象，恐怕只有用上述理由才能说得通。具体的解释未必会使他们释然——这一过程太容易使人陷入专业细节，因而难于达到为人普遍理解的水平。所以，使他们满意的倒不是知识本身，而是得知知识已被人们获得这一事实。在培根和夸美纽斯这两位现代科学哲学奠基人的大作中——下面我常要援引他们的大作——有关光的比喻比比皆是。我提到的人们对存在着未知事物的无休止的不安，正相当于孩子对黑暗的惧怕。而培根就说过，驱走黑暗的办法只有一个，就是点燃起思想上的火炬。时常有人问我：“是什么原因使你决定要当个科学家呢？”可惜我不能旁观者清地给出真正能令人满意的回答。我似乎始终认为，当科学家是最最令人激动的职业。少年时代里，凡尔纳和威尔斯的作品使我怦然心动，我有幸一睹的百科全书这一堂皇巨著使我心驰神往。（诚然，对于酷爱读书、锲而不舍的少年来说，能有百科全书可看，自然是很幸运的。但并不是非得拜读不可。）科普作品也对我起过很大作用。那种化上几枚硬币就能买来的小册子，对我谈星星，讲原子，说地球， 道海洋，真是海阔天空。再有一点就是——如果我在前面一段话中提到的内容称得上正确的话——我这个人也“怕黑”。要当科学家，我的脑子够用吗？有些新人，特别是一部分女性，或许会怀有一种妄自菲薄的心理。这就是担心自己的头脑不能胜任科学研究工作。这是一种相当普遍的社会现象，目前尚未得到充分纠正。请放心。莫忧虑。当一名好科学家，不一定非得有出类拔萃的头脑不可。诚然，对能使大脑有所活动的工作毫无兴趣，甚至十分憎恶，认为抽象概念简直不能容忍，这当然不能说是有利于科学工作的因素。不过，实验科学并不要求什么高深的三段论论证，也无须什么令人叹为观止的演绎过程。当然，基本的识见是不可缺少的。另外，最好还能具备若干种老派的品行——它们目前的名声似乎已经不那么响亮了。这几种品行是：用功、勤勉、有目的感、全神贯注、坚持不懈，以及逆境难挫。这里所说的逆境，是指进行了长期而艰苦的劳动后，到头来却发现自已心爱的假说原来竟是一错到底的。一项智力测验为了充分说明间题，我这里给出一个智力测验题目。由于这个题目可以区分出基本识见和有些人心目中的唯科学家才具有或应该具有的“高等脑力”：在很多人看来，格列科画笔下的许多人物（特别是宗教人物）都被画成又高又瘦的古怪相。据一位眼科医生——这里且不披露他的姓名——的解释，这些人物被画成这副样子，是因为格列科本人有视觉缺陷，因此。看到的就是这种模样的人。看到的既然是这样，画出来自然便也如此了。40

这一解释说得通吗？我在向别人——有时是向做学问的人——提出这个测验时，又加上这样一句话：“谁能一下子看出这种解释纯属胡扯，而且是属于科学上的而非美学上的胡扯，他就是个聪明人；另一方面，如果有谁听了说这种解释纯属胡扯的理由之后，仍然闹不清子午卯酉，就该算是不开窍的了。”这里给出的解释与认识论有关。设想某个画家，有一种常见的视觉缺陷——复视，即看到的东西都是双影的。如果那位眼科医生的理由是真的，这个画家就应该把画画成双影的。但是，一旦这样画出来以后，他在审视自己的作品时，岂不该看出四重影来，从而意识到一定是在什么地方有些不对头吗？即使视觉缺陷确实存在，在画家看来是正常的（即没有走样的）形象，我们——即使我们自己也有视觉缺陷——看来也一定是正常的。格列科的人物看起来高瘦得出奇，完全是因为格列科本人正有意要画成这个样子。我无意低估智力在科学中的作用。不过，与其将它抬得太高而吓跑新人，倒不如低估些为好。而且，科学中有不同的分支，它们要求的能力各不相同。我在前面反对了称某个人代表科学家的提法，这里，我再反对一下将科学作为单纯一类活动的观点。采集昆虫并加以分类，这需要本领、才能和动机，但它们又和搞理论物理学或流行病统计学所需要的本领、才能和动机不同——只是表现不同，而不是水平不同。当然，用科学界内部的一种十分复杂的青白眼标准来衡量，理论物理学要排在昆虫分类学的前面。这大概是有人认为，凡有一种昆虫，就该有个分类学空档属于它，因此不需要太高的智力水平罢！然而，诸如此类的看法纯系想当然。有经验的分类学家或古生物学家．会斩钉截铁地告诉初学者说，要干好他们这一行，需要有远大的目标、出的判断力和明察秋毫的眼力。这只有靠经验和意志力才能获得。无论如何，科学家未必常常认为自己是什么大脑出的人物，倒是有些人愿意把自己说成笨伯。当然，这纯属故作谦虚之态，要不然就是在发现自己工作中出了错误时这样说说，好让别人给自己打气。许多实验科学都需要有动手能力的人参加，因此，一般都认为，喜好并擅长摆弄仪器设备的人，是特别适合投身实验科学的。是否看重培根型的实验（参见第九章）——比如，是否愿意不懈地探知诸如点燃硫、硝、木炭粉会有什么结果——也常被当作一个重要标准。其实，能进行实验，并不等于能做出发现。因此，我们无法断言，只要能成功地进行这样的试验，就是好的研究人员。至于订出几条标准来，好据以判断这类众见是否站得住脚，这是科学社会学家的任务。不过，我个人并不认为，一个人要是不会修自行车，或是不能装收音机，就跟科学没有缘分。其实这些技术并不是天赋的本领，而是可以学会的，也是可以熟能生巧的。当然，那种觉得自己动手干活不够体面、低人一等的想法，那种认为科学家可以将试管、培养皿、本生灯等设备束之高间，只消自己正襟危坐在书桌后面，就可以作出发现的观点，也是与科学事业不相容的。还有人以为，科学实验可以由第二流角按照“名角”的吩咐一板一眼地搞出来。这对于科学事业也是有损无益的。41

因为持这一看法的人未能认识到，实验也是思维活动的一种形式，是思想活动的具体反映。抽身退步新手如果在试过一两项研究工作而未能萌生出对它的感情，甚至还生出厌倦之心来，那便应该就此止步，而无须自责和惘然。这句话说起来容易做起来难，实际上，对于科学家的种种资格上的要求是如此消耗时力，以至使改弦易辙往往成为不现实的幻想。英国当前的教育制度尤其反映出了这个缺陷。美国的教育制度便不那么糟糕——它的大学通才教育要比英国出得多。 抽身退步者也许会终身怅悔，也许会如释重负。如果属于后者，便说明他的抉择或许是明智的；如果属于前者，也是很有道理的——一有的科学家便对我惊喜有加地说过，他们所从事的工作是那样有趣，那样能带来深切的欢愉，竟然还能为此而得到报酬，而且通常还是不低的报酬，这个职业是太令人满意了！42

第7课 饮毒和摄取营养物质Drinking Hemlock and Other Nutritional Matters在一个阴冷的早晨，我早早地起来之后心想（诚然一项情愿地）应该适时打开电视与外界交流一下。令我大吃一惊的是，电视上有位几年前著名的影星正在讲述糖的害处。这位前好莱坞偶像强烈地谴责这种乙醣二聚体， 特别是它的纯化的晶体形态。她斥之为“非天然食品”，这种称呼极大地损坏了进行光合作用的甘蔗和甜菜的形象。给人的感觉就像一位庄严的法官永久地宣判一种“反常行为”一样。我马上就被这位伟大的女士的讨伐行动吸引住了，并且心里一直在嘀咕“讨厌蔗糖”，同时调好一种非天然的咖啡豆提取物并且往里面扔了一片高度合成的糖精。过了一会儿，当睡意消去时，对原因的怀疑取代了情绪的自信，我开始纳闷，多年来我的同事们一直在生化营养物方面迷惑不解，我的电影女主角在这方面那么有把握，她的自信从何得来？或许所有这些脏乱的实验工作，如碾磨和提炼组织以及其他类似无聊的实验室里的工作，都不是获取“真理”的最便捷的途径。也许我们这穿着白大褂的人忽略了一条通往真理的神秘通道，在这里一些人靠令人无法理解的洞察力来发现有关营养学的“真正的”知识，这些知识改变了其信奉者的生活。所有这一切都使唤起了生物医学家们一次次频繁痛苦的经历，这种经历就像反复出现的噩梦一样时刻萦绕在心头。某一回是在鸡尾酒会或者别的社交聚会上，有人出现在人中，然后就对“好营养”问题开始慷慨陈词。所阐述的“事实”与众所周知的代谢途径、细胞组织生理学、酶学和常识经常不一致。如果有听众斗胆提出疑问，“你是怎么知道的？”迎接他或她的眼神就像当年哥伦布问“你怎么知道，世界是平的”时所受的那样。营养学似乎很像政治，对此人人都是专家。于是，百姓大众就以为，一个人不管他熟知一门复杂学科的多少事实和理论，他多年受到的教育，与不费吹灰之力就可获取的知识相比，仍显得苍白而无用。所描述的情况绝非仅限于食物的选择，当然我觉得还没有准备好要去介入蔗糖辩论。然而，营养学领域是许多领域中的一个好例子，在这些领域里我们经常会受到许多教条式言论的影响，这些言论或真，或假，还有许多是不确定的。应对所有这些论断应当质疑，“你怎么知道你说的话确实是实话？”在这方面，我认为我们的教育体制已经彻底失败。我们如何获取知识的学问属于哲学的认识论学科（关于知识的理论）的一部分，这种学问通常只在高年级或者研究生的哲学课程里传授，因而仅限于一小大学生。但是，对于教育而言，还有比这更基本的学习吗？难道不是每个高中毕43

业生都应该准备好应付每天所遇到的种种不正确的和误导的说法吗？表面上看来奇怪的是，掌握判断各种说法的正确性的技能却不是学校课程的一个核心要素。教育，现在看来，很大程度上是将学科内容从老师传递给学生的问题，而对于那些没有把握的东西则通过求助于专家、教师、教科书，或百科全书来解决。关于知识是怎样获得的方法性问题却很少涉及。因而，一个受教育者本应该拥有的最重要的分析工具之一却被忽视了。这并不是说要反对信息的传递，而是要说明，在现实世界里有着形形的政客、骗子和贩子，他们为所欲为就是因为几乎没有人提出合适的疑问，在这样一个世界里知识传递本身提供不了足够的保护。在分清真伪这个问题上，博士们并不比中小学生聪明多少。同样，许多学术学科将精力花在了无根据的论证上，如果用认识论的标准来衡量的话，这些论点都应被抛弃。这使得我们暂时又回到了营养话题，在这里由于方法问题使得很难获得甚至真实有效的信息。当我们不知道形成平均数的分布函数时，我们就在人口平均的基础上做出结论。由于不可能在人中进行大规模的实验，因此需要在动物中进行推断或在小规模人中测定，在其测定范围内所采用的推断程序的正确与否未知。因此，营养学受到脱离认识论本质的困扰，直到这些问题得到解决，认真的科学家们才不会受制于非常有限的言论。教条式的说法仍将属于鸡尾酒会上演说家的天地。认识论为什么不在学校里传授， 这个问题比较容易明白。毕竟，认识论是一门危险的学科。如果我们开始怀疑各种说法的正确性的话，那么教师本身也会受到怀疑。所有关于教育、既定的宗教形式、政府和社会习俗的说法也都要根据它们怎么知道是真的理由来证实。对于没有经历过如何求真的父母和老师们来说，不断地被孩子们追问知识的根源会令他们沮丧不安。调查，对于接受事物的真相来说确实是一种挑战。为了意识到我们所讨论的分析类型中发现的既成方式的危险性，我们需要回到古雅典，在那里哲学家苏格拉底教他年轻的追随者们怀疑一切及寻求答案的技巧。正如Will Durant写道：“苏格拉底从事窥探人类的灵魂，揭露假说和怀疑必然的工作”。这已经被称为苏格拉底方法。古希腊城邦的公民们用毒芹处死了这位爱寻根究底的老师，对他最严厉的指控之一就是“腐蚀青年人”。认识论始祖的命运也许充当了某种警示，使得这门学科被拒于学校体系之外。有人仍然反对向年轻人传授探究真理的艺术和科学，认为这样做很危险。而我认为不这样做更危险，因为这会使年轻人易于受到江湖骗子和冒牌货的伤害，这些骗子们正将大众传媒纳入他们行骗的范围内。如果我们认为理性会导致问题的解决的话，那么我们一开始就应该使辨别真伪成为大家思维的一部分。如果不服权威的年轻人令人讨厌的话，试想：如果年轻人都步调一致地前行并且从不问他们要去哪里，这会有多危险！解决办法似乎显然。当我们将教育回归为阅读、写作和算术等基本训练时，44

我们还应该加上第四个“R”，即“真相”。从小学一年级开始直到研究生教育阶段，我们必须看到学生对所说的含义以及意识到有效的知识是如何建立起来的很敏感。如果这看起来激进的话，那它确实如此。相对于轻信电视上每天播出的一些胡言乱语而言，喝毒药可就没那么痛苦了。45

第八课 抱负的美德The Virtues of AmbitionJoseph Epstein (1937-), noted essayist, short story author and novelist, was born

in Chicago and grew up in Rogers Park. He then attended the University of Chicago and is now a prominent member of the literature faculty at Northwestern University. He won the 1998 Harold Washington Literary Award for the most prominent men or women of letters in Chicago.

1. Ambition is one of those Rorschach words: define it and you instantly reveal a great deal about yourself. Even that most neutral of works, Webster's, in its seventh

New Collegiate Edition, gives itself away, defining ambition first and foremost as " an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ardent immediately assumes a heat incommensurate with good sense and stability, and rank, fame, and power have come under fairly heavy attack for at least a century. One can, after all, be ambitious for the public good, for the alleviation of suffering, for the enlightenment of mankind, though there are some who say that these are precisely the ambitious people most to be distrusted.

2. Surely ambition is behind dreams of glory, of wealth, of love, of distinction,

of accomplishment, of pleasure, of goodness. What life does with our dreams and expectations cannot, of course, be predicted. Some dreams, begun in selflessness, end in rancor; other dreams, begun in selfishness, end in large-heartedness. The unpredictability of the outcome of dreams is no reason to cease dreaming.

3. To be sure, ambition, the sheer thing unalloyed by some larger purpose than

merely clambering up, is never a pretty prospect to ponder. As drunks have done

to alcohol, the single-minded have done to ambition--given it a bad name. Like a taste for alcohol, too, ambition does not always allow for easy satiation. Some people cannot handle it; it has brought grief to others, and not merely the ambitious alone. Still, none of this seems a sufficient cause for driving ambition under the counter.

4. What is the worst that can be said---that has been said--about ambition? Here is a

(surely) partial list: To begin with, it, ambition, is often antisocial, and indeed is

now outmoded, belonging to an age when individualism was more valued and useful than it is today. The person strongly imbued with ambition ignores the collectivity; socially detached, he is on his own and out for his own. Individuality and ambition are firmly linked. The ambitious individual, far from identifying himself and his fortunes wi46

th the group, wishes to rise above it. The ambitious man or woman sees the world as a battle; rivalrousness is his or her principal emotion: the world has limited prizes to offer, and he or she is determined to get his or hers. Ambition is, moreover, jesuitical; it

can argue those possessed by it into believing that what they want for themselves is good for everyone --that the satisfaction of their own desires is best for the commonweal. The truly ambitious believe that it is a dog-eat-dog world, and they are distinguished by wanting to be the dogs that do the eating.

5. From here it is but a short hop to believe that those who have achieved the

common goals of ambition--money, fame, power--have achieved them through corruption of a greater or lesser degree, mostly a greater.

Thus all politicians in high places, thought to be ambitious, are understood to be, ipso

facto, without moral scruples. How could they have such scruples--a weighty burden in a high climb--and still have risen as they have?

6. If ambition is to be well regarded, the rewards of ambition--wealth, distinction,

control over one's destiny--must be considered worthy of the sacrifices made on ambition's behalf. If the tradition of ambition is to have vitality, it must be widely shared; and it especially must be esteemed by people who are themselves admired, the educated not least among them. The educated not least because, nowadays more than ever before, it is they who have usurped the platforms of public discussion and wield the power of the spoken and written

word in newspapers, in magazines, on television. In an odd way, it is the educated who have claimed to have given up on ambition as an ideal. What is odd is that they have perhaps most benefited from ambition--if not always their own then that of their parents and grandparents. There is a heavy note of hypocrisy in this; a case of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped--with the educated themselves astride them.

7. Certainly people do not seem less interested in success and its accoutrements

now than formerly. Summer homes, European travel, BMWs--the locations place names and name brands may change, but such items do not seem less in demand today than a decade or two years ago. What has happened is that people cannot own up to their dreams, as easily and openly as once they could, lest they be

thought pushing, acquisitive, vulgar. Instead we are treated to fine pharisaical spectacles, which now more than ever seem in ample supply: The revolutionary lawyer quartered in the $250,000 Manhattan luxurious apartment; the critic of American materialism with a Southampton summer home; the publisher of radical books who takes his meals in three-star restaurants; the journalist advocating participatory democracy in all phases of life,47

whose own children are enrolled in private schools. For such people and many more

perhaps not so egregious, the proper formulation is, "Succeed at all costs but refrain from appearing ambitious."8. The attacks on ambition are many and come from various angles; its public

defenders are few and unimpressive, where they are not extremely unattractive.

As a result, the support for ambition as a healthy impulse, a quality to be admired and

inculcated in the young, is probably lower than it has ever been in the United States. This does not mean that ambition is at an end, that people no longer feel its stirrings and prompting, but only that, no longer openly honored, it is less often openly professed. Consequences follow from this, of course, some of which are that ambition is driven

underground, or made sly, or perverse. It can also be forced into vulgarity, as witness

the blatant pratings of its contemporary promoters. Such, then, is the way things stand: on the left angry critics, on the right obtuse supporters, and in the middle, as usual, the majority of earnest people trying to get on in life.

9. Many people are naturally distrustful of ambition, feeling that it represents

something intractable in human nature. Thus John Dean entitled his book about his involvement in the Watergate affair during the Nixon administration blind Ambition as if ambition were to blame for his ignoble actions, and not the constellation of qualities that make up his rather shabby character. Ambition, it must once again be underscored, is morally a two-sided street. Place next to John Dean Andrew Carnegie, who, among other philanthropic acts, bought the library of Lord Acton, at a time when Acton was in financial distress, and assigned its custodianship to Acton, who never was told who his benefactor

was. Need much more be said on the subject than that, important though ambition is, there are some things that one must not sacrifice to it?

10. But going at things the other way, sacrificing ambition so as to guard against

its

potential excesses, is to go at things wrongly. To discourage ambition is to discourage dreams of grandeur and greatness. All men and women are born, live, suffer, and die; what distinguishes us one from another is our dreams, whether

they be dreams about worldly or unworldly things, and what we do to make them come about.

11. It may seem an exaggeration to say that ambition is the linchpin of society,

holding many of its disparate elements together, but it is not an exaggeration by

much. Remove ambition and the essential elements of society seem to fly apart. Ambition, as opposed to mere fantasizing about desires, implies work and discipline to achieve goals, personal and social, of a kind society cannot survive without. Ambition is intimately connected with family, for men and women not only work partly for their families; husbands and wives are often ambitious for each other, but harbor some of thei48

r most ardent ambitions for their children. Yet to have a family nowadays--with birth control readily available, and inflation a good economic argument against having children--is nearly an expression of ambition in itself. Finally, though ambition was once the domain chiefly of monarchs and aristocrats, it has, in more recent times, increasingly become the domain of the middle classes. Ambition and futurity--a sense of building for tomorrow--are inextricable. Working, saving, planning--these, the daily aspects of ambition--have always been the distinguishing marks of a rising middle class. The attack against ambition is not incidentally an attack on the middle class and what it stands for. Like

it or not, the middle class has done much of society's work in America; and it, the middle class, has from the beginning run on ambition.

12. It is not difficult to imagine a world shorn of ambition. It would probably be

a

kinder world: without demands, without abrasions, without disappointments. People would have time for reflection. Such work as they did would not be for themselves but for the collectivity. Competition would never enter in. Conflict would be eliminated, tension become a thing of the past. The stress of creation would be at an end. Art

would no longer be troubling, but purely celebratory in its functions. The family would become superfluous as a social unit with all its

former power for bringing about neurosis drained away. Longevity would be increased, for fewer people would die of heart attack or stroke caused by tumultuous endeavor. Anxiety would be extinct. Time would stretch on and on, with ambition long departed from the human heart.

13. Ah, how unrelievedly boring life would be!抱负也是具有罗夏墨迹检验功能的一个词：你对其下的定义会立刻会揭示你自己的很多情况。对此，目口使最中立的著作《韦伯斯特词典》也不例外，在其新的大学版第七版中将抱负首先定义为“一种追求地位、名誉或权力的强烈的愿望”。“强烈的”这个词很快就呈现出与高雅的品味和稳定的情绪极不相称的过于热衷的彩，而地位、名誉和权力受到相当猛烈的抨击至少长达一个世纪。毕竟，一个人可以立志于促进公益事业，减轻人们的痛苦，或是启蒙人类，尽管有些人说，正是这些使有抱负的人最不可信。可以肯定抱负含有对荣耀、财富、爱情、声望、成就、快乐和美德的梦想。当然，人们无法预料生活是如何改变梦想与希望的。一些梦想源于自私，终于怨恨；另一些梦想源于自私，终于慷慨。梦想结果的不可预料性决不是停止梦想的理由。当然，抱负是纯洁的，不仅仅是向上爬，而是有某个更远大的目标使它是纯粹的，难以想象抱负实际上有多么美好。就像醉鬼败坏酒的名声一样，那些唯利49