【2016-11-22】 @爱贝睿学堂 #用心父母#孩子犯错，到底该不该惩罚他呢？惩罚他觉得孩子还小，可是如果不惩罚的话，他又怎么能学好？这可真是左右为难，怎么办呢？ @赵昱鲲 节目中介绍了三个步骤来培养孩子责任心，你和孩子实践过了么？[兔子]O网页链接 ​​​​ @赵昱鲲:#用心父母# 我反对任何形式的惩罚，而是让孩子承担自然后果，这样他才能有真正的责任心，不至于到将来被社会惩罚。 @whigzhou: 为何你要拒绝成为自然的一部分呢？ @whigzhou: 1）比如儿子叫我婊子， 我给他一个耳光，这个后果好像挺『自然』的，他在外面这么做也会吃耳光 @whigzhou: 2）我不认为父母的责任仅限于充当孩子成长的自然环境，有些事情无法经由平滑的学习路径习得，在无辅导学习过程中，可能1/4的学习者死掉了，比如辨别毒蘑菇， @whigzhou: 3）有些错误行为没有直接可感知的负面反馈，除了人为施加的惩罚，比如从欺骗和背约中获利 @赵昱鲲:辉总没有听这个节目吧？[哈哈] 我在里面提到了，孩子打了你，你也可以打回去，这就是自然后果的一部分。我说的惩罚是没有因果关系的惩罚 @whigzhou: 嗯嗯没听，只看了微博帖 @赵昱鲲: @whigzhou 这是文字版的一部分。在微博上讨论育儿，其实很费劲，因为育儿是一件很复杂的事情，孩子的年龄、父母的性格、家庭的社会经济地位、外界环节的影响等等，都得考虑进去，什么都说，就什么都没法说，最后就只能讲大道理了。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 照这么说，我们只是对什么叫『惩罚』有不同看法，依我看，惩罚当然是基于受罚者对因果关系之认识的，否则不构成激励反馈，只能叫『光火』或『暴跳』，如此改变词义是要安抚玻璃心？呵呵 @赵昱鲲:另外，有些惩罚时间拉得太长，我就见过家长在从幼儿园接孩子回家时说，回去看我怎么收拾你，那其实孩子不太会明白晚上受的惩罚与白天干的坏事之间的联系的。 @whigzhou: 嗯回路要短，所以以前老人兜里都揣着糖果～  

HOW CULTURE DROVE HUMAN EVOLUTION A Conversation with Joseph Henrich  文化如何推动人类进化：与Joseph Henrich对话 时间:@ 2012-09-04 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:慕白(@李凤阳他说) 来源:https://www.edge.org/conversation/joseph_henrich-how-culture-drove-human-evolution Part of my program of research is to convince people that they should stop distinguishing cultural and biological evolution as separate in that way. We want to think of it all as biological evolution.  导言：我的研究课题之一就是要让人们相信，我们应该停止以常见的方式在文化进化和生物进化之间做出截然区分。我们应该将整件事情当作生物进化过程来看待。 JOSEPH HENRICH is an anthropologist and Professor of Psychology and Economics. He is the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Coevolution at University of British Columbia. 约瑟夫·亨里奇是一名人类学家，同时还担任心理学与经济学教授。他还是英属哥伦比亚大学（UBC）文化、认知和协同进化“加拿大首席研究员”。 [JOSEPH HENRICH:] The main questions I've been asking myself over the last couple years are broadly about how culture drove human evolution. Think back to when humans first got the capacity for cumulative cultural evolution—and by this I mean the ability for ideas to accumulate over generations, to get an increasingly complex tool starting from something simple. One generation adds a few things to it, the next generation adds a few more things, and the next generation, until it's so complex that no one in the first generation could have invented it. 约瑟夫·亨里奇：过去几年，我反复追问自己的一个主要问题，大体上就是文化如何推动人类进化。我会回溯至人类刚刚获得累积性的文化进化能力的时候。我说的这种能力是指，观念在代际间不断积累，从很简单的东西发展出日益复杂的工具的能力。一代人添加一点点东西，下一代人又添加一点点东西，如此接力，直到最后得出的工具无比复杂，以至第一代人无论如何不可能发明出来。 This was a really important line in human evolution, and we've begun to pursue this idea called the cultural brain hypothesis—this is the idea that the real driver in the expansion of human brains was this growing cumulative body of cultural information, so that what our brains increasingly got good at was the ability to acquire information, store, process and retransmit this non genetic body of information. 这在人类进化中确实是非常重要的一条线索，我们现在已经开始探究一种叫做文化大脑假说的观点，这种观点认为，人脑增大的真正动力就是，文化信息以这种方式不断累积，由此导致我们的大脑越来越善于获取信息，存储、处理和传递这种非基因信息体。

~~~~~~~~

The two systems begin interacting over time, and the most important selection pressures over the course of human evolution are the things that culture creates—like tools. Compared to chimpanzees, we have high levels of manual dexterity. We're good at throwing objects. We can thread a needle. There are  aspects of our brain that seem to be consistent with that as being an innate ability, but tools and artifacts (the kinds of things that one finds useful to throw or finds useful to manipulate) are themselves products of cultural evolution. 随着时间推移，两个系统开始相互作用。在人类进化的过程中，最重要的选择压力正是文化所生成的事物，比如工具。与黑猩猩相比，我们的手要灵巧得多，比如我们善于抛掷东西，我们能够穿针引线。我们大脑的某些方面与此高度协调，使得这种能力看上去似乎与生俱来，但工具和人工制品——那种我们觉得扔出去有用或操作起来有用的东西——本身则是文化进化的产物。 Another example here is fire and cooking. Richard Wrangham, for example, has argued that fire and cooking have been important selection pressures, but what often gets overlooked in understanding fire and cooking is that they're culturally transmitted—we're terrible at making fires actually. We have no innate fire-making ability. But once you got this idea for cooking and making fires to be culturally transmitted, then it created a whole new selection pressure that made our stomachs smaller, our teeth smaller, our gapes or holdings of our mouth smaller, it altered the length of our intestines. It had a whole bunch of downstream effects. 另外一个例子就是用火和烹饪。Richard Wrangham就提出，用火和烹饪一直都是非常重要的选择压力。但在看待用火和烹饪的问题上，经常容易忽略的一点是，它们实际是通过文化进行传递的——人类原本是不怎么会生火的。我们不具备生火的先天能力。但一旦烹饪和生火的观念通过文化得以传递，就创造出一种全新的选择压力，使我们的胃容量变小、牙齿变小、嘴能张开的幅度变小，一口能吃下的东西也变少，而且我们肠道的长度也发生改变。这就带来了一系列的下游效应。 Another area that we've worked on is social status. Early work on human status just took humans to have a kind of status that stems from non-human status. Chimps, other primates, have dominant status. The assumption for a long time was that status in humans was just a kind of human version of this dominant status, but if you apply this gene-culture co-evolutionary thinking, the idea that culture is one of the major selection pressures in human evolution, you come up with this idea that there might be a second kind of status. We call this status prestige. 我们研究的另一个领域是社会地位。有关人类社会地位的早期研究只是简单地假定，人类的地位有其非人类时期的根源。黑猩猩和其他灵长类社群中都有拥有宰制地位的个体。长期以来，人们假定，人类的地位属性只不过是动物群体中的宰制地位的人类版本。但如果运用这种“基因和文化协同进化”的观念，也就是说把文化作为人类进化中的一种主要选择压力，你就会意识到或许存在另外一种类型的地位。我们称其为“威望地位”。 This is the kind of status you get from being particularly knowledgeable or skilled in an area, and the reason it's a kind of status is because once animals, humans in this case, can learn from each other, they can possess resources. 当你在某个领域的知识特别丰富或技能特别熟练时，你就能得到这种地位。这之所以能成为一种地位，是因为一旦动物（此处就是人）能够彼此学习，它们自身便可拥有资源【编注：此句较绕口，意思是相互学习的可能性，使得个体所拥有的知识成为一种对他人也有价值的人力资源】。 You have information resources that can be tapped, and then you want to isolate the members of your group who are most likely to have a lot of this resources, meaning a lot of the knowledge or information that could be useful to you in the future. This causes you to focus on those individuals, differentially attend to them, preferentially listen to them and give them deference in exchange for knowledge that you get back, for copying opportunities in the future. 如果存在可资利用的信息资源，那你就会想把你所属团体之中最有可能拥有大量此类资源的人单独区分出来，这是一大堆你将来有可能用得上的知识或信息。这会促使你关注这些人，特别地留意他们，更乐于倾听他们的意见，敬重他们，以此作为从他们那里获得知识、在未来运用这些知识的回报。

~~~~~~~~

From this we've argued that humans have two separate kinds of status, dominance and prestige, and these have quite different ethologies. Dominance [ethology] is about physical posture, of size (large expanded chest the way you'd see in apes). Subordinates in dominance hierarchies are afraid. They back away. They look away, where as prestige hierarchies are quite the opposite. 基于此，我们认为人类存在两种不同类型的地位，分别是宰制和威望，分别对应着不同的动物行为学。宰制（行为学）核心在于身体块头的展示（你能在猿类身上看到的那种大块胸肌）。在宰制等级中，处于从属地位的个体会感到害怕。他们会退缩。他们不会正视上级，而在威望等级中情况则正好相反。 You're attracted to prestigious individuals. You want to be near them. You want to look at them, watch them, listen to them, and interact with them. We've done a bunch of experimental work here at UBC and shown that that pattern is consistent, and it leads to more imitation. There may be even specific hormonal profiles with the two kinds of status. 你会被有威望的个体所吸引。你渴望亲近他们。你渴望看着他们，观察他们，倾听他们，与他们交往。在UBC（不列颠哥伦比亚大学），我们已经就此做过一连串实验，证明了这种模式总是存在，而且会引发更多的模仿。这两种不同的地位可能还对应着各自不同的激素配置。 I've also been trying to think broadly, and some of the big questions are, exactly when did this body of cumulative cultural evolution get started? Lately I've been pursuing the idea that it may have started early: at the origins of the genus, 1.8 million years ago when Homo habilis or Homo erectus first begins to emerge in Africa. 此外，我也一直在试图思考一些更为宏大的问题，比如，这一累积性的文化进化体到底是从什么时候开始的？最近，我一直致力于澄清一个想法，那就是它可能开始得很早：很可能在人属出现时就开始了，也就是180万年前能人或直立人最早出现于非洲的时候。 Typically, people thinking about human evolution have approached this as a two-part puzzle, as if there was a long period of genetic evolution until either 10,000 years ago or 40,000 years ago, depending on who you're reading, and then only after that did culture matter, and often little or no consideration given to a long period of interaction between genes and culture. 通常，研究人类进化的人在处理这一问题时，会把它看作是一个“两部分谜题”，就好像从一开始直到距今1万或4万年以前（具体时间取决于你正在阅读谁的研究），曾经存在过一个长时段的基因进化，自此以后，文化才开始发挥作用。他们很少或根本不会考虑基因和文化之间曾长期相互作用这种情形。 Of course, the evidence available in the Paleolithic record is pretty sparse, so another possibility is that it emerged about 800,000 years ago. One theoretical reason to think that that might be an important time to emerge is that there's theoretical models that show that culture, our ability to learn from others, is an adaptation to fluctuating environments. If you look at the paleo-climatic record, you can see that the environment starts to fluctuate a lot starting about 900,000 years ago and going to about six or five hundred thousand years ago. 当然，我们能得到的旧石器时代证据相当少。因此，另一种可能性是，这一文化进化体开始于大约80万年前。这个时间点之所以成为一个重要的起源时间选项，一个理论依据在于，已经有理论模型表明，文化——即我们从他人身上学习的能力——是我们对持续的环境变动的一种适应。翻一翻古气候记录就会发现，环境大概在距今90万年前的时候开始剧烈变动，直到距今60或50万年前才消停。 This would have created a selection pressure for lots of cultural learning for lots of focusing on other members of your group, and taking advantage of that cumulative body of non-genetic knowledge. 这有可能创造出一种选择压力，催生了更多的文化学习，促使人更多关注团体中的其他成员，也促使人们更多地利用那种累积性的非基因的知识体。

~~~~~~~~

Another signature of cultural learning is regional differentiation and material culture, and you see that by about 400,000 years ago. So, you could have a kind of late emergence at 400,000 years ago. A middle guess would be 800,000 years ago based on the climate, and then the early guess would be, say, the origin of genus, 1.8 million years ago. 文化学习的另外一个鲜明特征是地区分化和物质文化，这一点在大约40万年前可以看到。所以还有一种说法，认为这一文化进化体始于40万年前。这一时间比较晚，持中的猜测则是基于气候的80万年前起源说，更早的猜测则是人属出现的时候，即180万年前。 Along these same lines, I've been trying to figure out what the ancestral ape would have looked like. We know that humans share a common ancestry with chimpanzees about five or six million years ago with chimpanzees and bonobos, and the question is, what kind of ape was that? 沿着同样的思考线索，我还一直试图弄清祖猿长成什么样子。我们知道，大概500万或600万年前，人类和黑猩猩、倭黑猩猩拥有共同的祖先，问题是，这是种什么样的猿？ One possibility, and the typical assumption, is that the ape was more like a chimpanzee or a bonobo. But there's another possibility that it was a different kind of ape that we don't have in the modern world: a communal breeding ape that lives in family units rather than the kind of fission fusion you might see in chimpanzees, and that actually chimpanzees and bonobos took a separate turn, and that lineage eventually went to humans spurred off a whole bunch of different kinds of apes. In the Pliocene, we see lots of different kinds of apes in terms of different species of Australopithecus. 其中一种可能是，这种祖猿更像黑猩猩或倭黑猩猩，这也是通常的假设。但还有另外一种可能性，它们可能是一种当今世界已经不存在的完全不同的猿：一种以家庭为单位、合作繁殖的猿，而不是黑猩猩那种裂变融合群体【译注：指群体的规模和成员不断变动】，而且黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩实际上是往另外一个不同方向上演变了，而最终进化出人类的那一谱系则进化成为一系列不同种类的猿。在上新世，我们可以看到大量不同种类的猿，他们都是南猿的不同种。 I'm just beginning to get into that, and I haven't gotten very far, but I do have this strong sense that we now have evidence to suggest that humans were communal breeders, so that we lived in family groups maybe somewhat similar to the way gorillas live in family groups, and that this is a much better environment for the evolution of capacities for culture than typical in the chimpanzee model, because for cultural learning to really take off, you need more than one model. 我才刚刚开始研究这一问题，成果还不多，但我强烈地感觉到，我们现在已经有证据说人类曾是合作繁殖的，因此我们是生活于家庭群体之中的，某种程度上就像大猩猩现在的那种家庭群体生活一样。相比黑猩猩的那种模式，这一模式为文化能力进化提供的环境要好得多，因为文化学习要真正实现飞跃，必须得有多种模式。 You want a number of individuals in your social environment to be trying out different techniques—say different techniques for getting nuts or for finding food or for tracking animals. Then you need to pay attention to them so you can take advantage of the variation between them. If there's one member of your group who's doing it a little bit better, you preferentially learn from them, and then the next generation gets the best technique from the previous generation. 这需要你所在的社会环境中拥有许多个体去尝试各不相同的技术，比如说取出果仁或找到食物或追踪猎物的不同技术。然后你就需要细心关注他们，以便能充分利用他们彼此之间的差异变化。如果群体之中有一个成员比其他成员做得稍微好一点点，你就更乐于向他们学习，于是下一代就能从上一代学到最好的技术。 Other things I've been thinking about along these lines are just trying to think through all the different adaptations that would have resulted from this gene culture interaction. One thing that's been noted by a number of people is that humans are strangely good at long distance running. We seem to have long distance running adaptations. 沿着这条线索，我还在考虑其他一些问题，那就是基于这种基因与文化的相互作用，到底我们会出现哪些不同的适应性变化。其中许多人已经注意到的一点是，人类特别善于长距离奔跑，这一点相当令人诧异。我们身上似乎出现了长距离奔跑的适应性变化。 Our feet have a particular anatomy. We have sweat glands and we can run really far. Hunter-gatherers can chase down game by just running the antelope down until it collapses. We run marathons. We seem generally attracted to running, and the question is, how did we become such long distance runners? 我们的脚具有一种独特的生理构造。我们拥有汗腺，可以跑得很远。狩猎采集者要追捕羚羊的话，只需要追着它跑，直到猎物筋疲力尽自己倒下。我们能跑马拉松。我们似乎全都对跑步感兴趣。问题是，我们是如何变得这样善于长跑的呢？ We don't see this in other kinds of animals. We think if it was an obvious adaptation, we'd see it recurring through nature, but only humans have it. The secret is that humans who don't know how to track animals, can't run them down, so you need to have a large body of tracking knowledge that allows you to interpret spoors and identify individual animals and track animals over long distances when you can't see the animal, and without that body of knowledge, we're not very good at running game down. 在其他动物身上，我们看不到这一点。我们认为，如果这是一种简单的适应，那我们就应该能在自然界中看到它重复出现，但这一现象只有人类身上有。这里的隐秘在于，如果有的人类不知道如何追踪猎物，那他就不可能尾随追捕，所以你需要拥有一大套的追踪知识，以便你能在看不到猎物的时候分析足迹，能正确辨识猎物个体并能长距离追踪到它。如果没有这一知识体系，我们是不善于把猎物追倒的。 There's an interaction between genes and culture. First you have to get the culturally transmitted knowledge about animal behavior and tracking and spoor knowledge and the ability to identify individuals, which is something you need to practice, and only after that can you begin to take advantage of long distance running techniques and being able to run animals down. 在基因与文化之间存在着相互作用。首先你需要拥有那套关于动物行为和追踪的知识、足迹知识和辨识猎物个体的能力，而这是通过文化传递的，是一种需要练习的东西，只有这样，你才能用上长跑技巧，才能把猎物追倒。 That's a potential source for figuring out the origins of capacities for culture, because to the degree that we have information about the anatomy of feet, we can use that to figure out when it started. The same idea follows from cooking and fire. Since we know that those are culturally transmitted now, when we begin to see evidence that that affected our anatomy, that gives us clues to the origins of our capacities for culture. 要弄清人类文化能力的起源，这是一个可以思考的方向，因为凭借对人类足部构造的了解，我们可以弄清文化进化开始的时间。同样的思路也可以用在烹饪和用火问题上。因为我们现已知道烹饪和用火都是通过文化传递的，因此，如果我们能够找到它们影响身体构造的证据，就有了探究我们的文化能力之起源的线索。

~~~~~~~~

Most recently I've been also thinking about the evolution of societal complexity. This is the emergence of complex societies that happens after the origins of agriculture, when societies begin to get big and complex and you have lots of interactions among strangers, large-scale cooperation, market exchange, militaries, division of labor, substantial division of labor. We have a sense of the sequence of events, but we don't have good process descriptions of how it was. What are the causal processes that bring these things about? 最近，我还在思考社会复杂性的进化问题。这里说的是农业起源之后复杂社会的出现，社会开始变大、变复杂，在其中你能看到陌生人之间的大量互动、大范围的合作、市场交换、军队、劳动分工、深度劳动分工。我们对这些事件的发生次序有所了解，但对于它们到底是如何发生的，我们还没能形成一个很好的过程描叙。引发这些事件的因果过程到底是什么样的？ One of the ideas I've been pursuing is that after the origins of agriculture, there was an intense period that continues today of intergroup competition, which favors groups who have social norms and institutions that can more effectively expand the group while maintaining internal harmony, leading to the benefits of exchange, of the ability to maintain markets, of division of labor and of higher levels of cooperation. Then you get intense competition amongst the early farming groups, and this is going to favor those groups who have the abilities to expand. 我一直在思考的一个想法是，在农业出现之后，曾有过一个群体之间激烈竞争的时期，一直持续到现在。这种竞争使得拥有社会规范和制度、从而能够更有效地在扩张的同时维持内部和谐的一类群体脱颖而出，进而凸显出了交易、维持市场的能力、劳动分工和更高水平的合作所能带来的好处。早期农耕群体之间存在激烈竞争，那些拥有扩张能力的群体在这种竞争中更占优势。 You need to be precise about what you mean by these cultural traits and norms. I've worked in a couple of different areas on this, and one is religion. We just got a big grant to study the cultural evolution of religion with the idea being that the religions of modern societies are quite different than the religions we see in hunter gatherers and small scale societies, because they've been shaped by this process over millennia, and specifically they've been shaped in ways that galvanize cooperation in larger groups and sustained cooperation amongst non relatives. 在谈及文化特征和规范时，需要精确界定它们表达的意思。我在许多不同领域中都研究过这一问题，其中一个领域就是宗教。我们刚刚拿到一大笔资金，来研究宗教的文化进化，主要的观点就是，现代社会的宗教与狩猎采集群体和小规模社会中的宗教大不相同，因为它们已经被这一进程不断塑造了几千年，特别是，它们已经被塑造得能够有助于大规模群体中的合作，以及非亲属之间的持续合作。 The emergence of high-moralizing gods is an important example of this. In small-scale hunter-gatherer religions, the gods are typically whimsical. They're amoral. They're not concerned with your sexual behavior or your social behavior. Often you'll make bargains with them, but as we begin to move to the religions in more complex societies, we find that the gods are increasingly moralizing. They're concerned about exactly the kinds of things that are going to be a problem for running a large-scale society, like how you treat other members of your religious group or your ethnic group. 这方面的一个重要例子就是具有高度道德教化意义的神的出现。在小规模狩猎采集群体的宗教中，神通常都是反复无常的。它们是非道德的。它们并不关心你的性行为或社会行为。通常你会跟它们讨价还价。但在更为复杂的社会中，我们发现神会变得越来越具有道德教化意义。它们所关注的，恰好就是会对大规模社会运行构成麻烦的那一类事情，比如你如何对待同一宗教团体或本种族中的其他成员。 Experiments run at UBC and elsewhere have shown that when you remind atheists, it doesn't matter, but if you remind believers of their god, believers cheat less, and they're more pro social or fair in exchange tasks, and the kinds of exchange tasks that they're more pro social in are the ones with anonymous others, or strangers. UBC和其他一些地方所做的实验都表明，如果你提醒无神论者注意自己的言行，基本没有什么效果，但如果你提醒有神论者，并抬出他们的神，他们就会更少说谎，在参与交易时也会表现得更亲社会或更公平，而且他们在其中表现得更亲社会的这类交易，其对象都是匿名人士或陌生人。 These are the kinds of things you need to make a market run to have a successful division of labor. We've been pursuing that hypothesis and, in fact, we've just sent a number of psychologists and anthropologists to the field, and we'll be doing more of that in the coming years to do these kinds of experiments in a diverse range of societies, seeing if the moralizing gods of a variety of religions create these same kinds of effects. 这恰好是维持市场运转、成功维系劳动分工所需要的特征。我们近来一直在研究这个假说，事实上，我们不久前刚派出了一批心理学家和人类学家就此去做田野研究，未来几年还会加大力度，在大量不同社会群体中去做这类实验，以检验不同宗教中的教化性神是否都能造成以上同样的效果。

~~~~~~~~

We also think that ritual plays a role in this in that rituals seem to be sets of practices engineered by cultural evolution to be effective at transmitting belief and transmitting faith. By attending a ritual, you elevate the degree of belief in the high-moralizing gods or the priests of the religion by the ritual practice. If you break down rituals common in many religions, they put the words in the mouths of a prestigious member of the group, someone everyone respects. That makes it more likely to transmit and be believed. 我们还认为，仪式在文化进化中发挥了作用。仪式似乎是文化进化所创造出来的一整套行为，有助于信念和信仰的传递。通过参与仪式，你就能通过仪式行为提高对高度教化性的神或传教者的信仰程度。如果你分析一下在许多宗教中都能找到的仪式行为就会发现，它们会借群体中某个威望很高、大家都尊重的人物之口来宣之于众。这会令其更易传播、更可能被相信。 People also engage in what we call credibility-enhancing displays [during rituals]. These are costly things. It might be an animal sacrifice or the giving of a large sum of money or some kind of painful initiation rite like circumcision, which one would only engage in if one actually believed in it. It's a demonstration of true belief, which then makes the observers more likely to acquire the belief. （在仪式过程中，）人们也会参与我们称为“提升可信度”的行为。这是一种代价颇高的事情。可能是以动物献祭，或者捐出大笔钱财，或者是某种痛苦的加入仪式，比如割礼，这些事都是只有真正的信徒才会参与的，是真信仰的展示，并能增加旁观者接受这些信仰的可能性。 Speaking in unison, large congregations saying the same thing, this all taps our capacity for conformist transmission; the fact that we weight what everybody believes in deciding in what we believe. 齐声说话，大规模集会倾诉同样的内容，这些都是在利用人们实现从众传递的潜力——也就是说我们在选择自己要相信什么的时候会考虑其他人都相信些什么。 These seem to want to tap our cultural transmission abilities to deepen the faith, and one of the interesting kind of ways that this has developed is that high-moralizing gods will often require rituals of this kind, and then by forcing people to routinely do the rituals, they then guarantee that the next generation acquires a deepened faith in the god, and then the whole thing perpetuates itself. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle. 这就像是要利用文化传递能力来加深信仰，它发展出来的有趣方式之一是，高度教化性的神通常都要求执行这类仪式，通过强迫人们经常性地履行仪式，就能保证下一代人对神能够拥有更深一层的信仰，然后整套体系就能实现永续。它创造出了一个自我存续的循环。 We think religions are just one element, one way in which culture has figured out ways to expand the sphere of cooperation and allow markets to form and people to exchange and to maintain the substantial division of labor. 我们认为，文化已经发展出了许多方式来扩大合作领域、允许市场形成、促进人们之间的交易，并维持明确的劳动分工，而宗教只是其中之一。 One of the interesting things about the division of labor is that you're not going to specialize in a particular trade—maybe you make steel plows—unless you know that there are other people who are specializing in other kinds of trades which you need—say food or say materials for making housing, and you have to be confident that you can trade with them or exchange with them and get the other things you need. 关于劳动分工，有一点非常有趣：你要选择专门从事某一特定行业，比如打造铁犁具，这需要一个前提，那就是你得知道有人专门从事你对之有需求的其他一些行业，比如食品或建材，而且你需要确信，自己能与他们进行贸易或交换，能够得到你需要的其他东西。 There's a lot of risk in developing specialization because you have to be confident that there's a market there that you can engage with. Whereas if you're a generalist and you do a little bit of farming, a little bit of manufacturing, then you're much less reliant on the market. 发展专业分工有很大的风险，因为你必须确信存在一个你能够利用的市场。如果你是个多面手，能做一点农活，再从事一些制造，那么你对这个市场的依赖度就大幅降低。 Markets require a great deal of trust and a great deal of cooperation to work. Sometimes you get the impression from economics that markets are for self-interested individuals. They're actually the opposite. Self-interested individuals don't specialize, and they don't take it [to market], because there's all this trust and fairness that are required to make markets run with impersonal others. 市场的运转需要很高的信任和大量的合作。你会从经济学得知，市场是由自利的个体组成的。实际上正好相反。自利的个体没法专业化，不能形成市场，因为要使市场在素昧平生的陌路人之间运作，那需要非常高的信任和公平。

~~~~~~~~

In developing this line of thought, one of the things you need to be clear about is what you mean by culture and culture evolution. Culture is one of those terms that has lots of different meanings, and people have used it lots of different ways. In the intellectual tradition that I'm building on, culture is information stored in people's heads that gets there by some kind of social learning—so imitation, teaching, any kind of observational learning. 沿着这条思路想问题时，你需要清晰界定的事物之一就是文化和文化进化的含义。文化是那种带有很多不同含义的词汇，人们已经在用不同方式使用它。在我所背靠的智识传统中，文化指的是人们通过某种形式的社会化学习——如模仿、教育或任何形式的观察学习——而获得并储存在自己头脑中的信息。 We tend to think of cultural transmission, or at least many people think of cultural transmission as relying on language, but that's in part because in our culture, especially among academics, there tends to be a lot of talking, but in lots of small-scale societies, it's quite clear that there is a ton of cultural transmission that is just strictly by observational learning. 我们，或至少很多人，都倾向于认为文化传递是依赖语言的，但造成这种理解的部分原因在于，在我们的文化里，特别是在学术界，人们倾向于进行大量的语言交流，但是在众多小型社群中，很明显大量的文化传递纯粹是依靠观察学习来实现的。 If you're trying to make a tool, you're mostly watching the physical movements of the hands and the strategies taken. You might get tips that are transmitted verbally as you go along. In building a house, you're looking at how the house is built together, again with verbal comments as supplements to getting a sense for how the house goes together. 如果你想学习制造工具，就得主要观察手部的物理运动，以及其中的技巧。在这个过程中你可能会获得一些口头传达的指点。如果要学建房子，你要观察房子到底是怎么建造起来的，当然也会得到一些口头评论，帮助你理解房子到底如何拼起来。 If you're copying how to shoot an arrow, you're watching body position and bow position and aiming, and you're not listening to a lot of exposition on it, although clearly the verbal part of the transmission helps. We think and there's experimental evidence that show you can transmit lots of stuff without using any words. 如果你是在学习射箭，你观察的是身体的姿势、弓箭的位置及如何瞄准，你不会去听一大堆阐释，虽然很明显这种传达的口头部分也是有帮助的。我们认为，而且也有很多实验证据表明，无需使用任何词语，也能传达很多信息。 This is information stored in people's brains, and when we look at other animals, we find that the evolutionary models of culture make really good predictions about culture in fish. Fish will learn food foraging preferences from each other, and non-human primates can learn from each other, but what we don't see amongst other animals is cumulative cultural evolution. The case in which the cultural transmission is high enough fidelity that you can learn one thing from one generation, and that begins to accumulate in subsequent generations. 这是储存在人脑中的信息，当我们观察其他动物的时候，我们发现文化的进化模型能够很好地预测鱼类的文化。鱼类能够相互学习觅食偏好，人类之外的灵长类也能相互学习，但我们在其他动物身上看不到累积性的文化进化。也就是那种能从一代人身上学会某样事物，然后在接下来的数代人中间开始逐步累积的足够准确的文化传递。 One possible exception to that is bird song. Bird songs accumulate in such that birds from large continents have more complex songs than birds from islands. It turns out humans from smaller islands have less complex material culture than humans from larger islands, at least until recently, until communication was opened up. One of the interesting lines of research that's come out of this recognition is the importance of population size and the interconnectedness for technology. 此处有一个可能的例外，那就是鸟鸣。鸟类的鸣叫方式能够累积，以至于大陆鸟类的鸣叫方式要比海岛鸟类的更复杂。我们还发现，直到不久之前，也就是直到交流开放之前，在物质文化的复杂程度方面，来自小型海岛的人群不如来自更大型海岛的人群。源于这一认知的有趣研究领域之一，就是人口规模和互联程度对科技的重要影响。

~~~~~~~~

I began this investigation by looking at a case study in Tasmania. Tasmania's an island off the coast of Southern Victoria in Australia and the archeological record is really interesting in Tasmania. Up until about 10,000 years ago, 12,000 years ago, the archeology of Tasmania looks the same as Australia. It seems to be moving along together. It's getting a bit more complex over time, and then suddenly after 10,000 years ago, it takes a downturn. It becomes less complex. 调查开始之初，我回顾了一个关于塔斯马尼亚岛的案例研究。塔斯马尼亚岛是澳大利亚的维多利亚州南部海洋上的一个岛屿，这里的考古记录非常有趣。直到约1万年前，和1.2万年前，塔斯马尼亚岛的考古记录看起来都跟澳洲大陆是一样的。两者似乎是齐头并进的，随着时间推移而变得日渐复杂。但在距今1万年以后，突然它就衰退了，变得没有澳洲大陆复杂了。 The ability to make fire is probably lost. Bone tools are lost. Fishing is lost. Boats are probably lost. Meanwhile, things move along just fine back on the continent, so there's this kind of divergence, and one thing nice about this experiment is that there's good reason to believe that peoples were genetically the same. 生火的能力可能丢失了。骨制工具丢失了。不会打渔了。船可能也没有了。与此同时，大陆上的事物则照常发展，所以就出现了这种分化。这一案例特别好的一点在于，我们有很好的理由相信两地的人群原本拥有相同的基因。 You start out with two genetically well-intermixed peoples. Tasmania's actually connected to mainland Australia so it's just a peninsula. Then about 10,000 years ago, the environment changes, it gets warmer and the Bass Strait floods, so this cuts off Tasmania from the rest of Australia, and it's at that point that they begin to have this technological downturn. 最开始两个群体在基因方面是相互混杂的。塔斯马尼亚最早是跟澳大利亚本土连在一起的，因此只是个半岛。大约在距今1万年前，气候发生了变化，越来越暖，于是巴斯海峡形成了，把塔斯马尼亚岛和澳大利亚其余部分分隔开来。也就是在这时，他们开始出现这种技术上的倒退。 You can show that this is the kind of thing you'd expect if societies are like brains in the sense that they store information as a group and that when someone learns, they're learning from the most successful member, and that information is being passed from different communities, and the larger the population, the more different minds you have working on the problem. 假如把各个社会群体比作不同人的大脑，就可以说发生上述这种事情毫不奇怪。因为社会群体以集体的方式储存信息，如果某人要学习，他就会向最成功的成员学习，而且这种信息会在不同社群之间传播，人口规模越大，你在处理问题时所能依靠的不同头脑就更多。 If your number of minds working on the problem gets small enough, you can actually begin to lose information. There's a steady state level of information that depends on the size of your population and the interconnectedness. It also depends on the innovativeness of your individuals, but that has a relatively small effect compared to the effect of being well interconnected and having a large population. 如果处理问题时能够依靠的头脑数目少到一定程度，你实际上会开始丢失信息。信息的稳态水平依赖于人口规模和互联程度。它也依赖于个体的创造性，但后一方面的影响相对而言比较小，良好的互联水平和大量的人口更加重要。 There have been a number of tests of this recently, the best of which is this study by Rob Boyd and Michelle Kline in which they took the fishing technologies of different Oceanic islands from the time when Europeans first arrived, and they looked at how the population size of the island relates to the tool complexity, and larger islands had much bigger and more complex fishing technologies, and you can even show an effective contact. Some of the islands were in more or less contact with each other, and when you include that, you get the size effect, but you also get a contact effect, and the prediction is that if you're more in contact, you have fancier tools, and that seems to hold up. 在这方面，最近已经有了很多测试，其中最好的当属Rob Boyd和Michelle Kline所做的研究。他们研究了自欧洲人初次抵达以后大洋洲不同岛屿上的捕鱼技术，考察了岛上人口规模如何影响渔具的复杂度，结果发现更大的岛屿拥有更大型、更复杂的捕鱼技术。有效接触也会发挥作用。其中某些岛屿跟其他岛屿之间存在或多或少的接触，如果把这个考虑在内，就既能发现规模效应，又能发现接触效应，理论上的预测是，更多的接触就意味着更好的渔具，这似乎也得到了验证。 If you follow this idea a little bit further, then it does give you a sense that rates of innovation should continue to increase, especially with the emergence of communication technologies, because these allow ideas to flow very rapidly from place to place. 如果你顺着这一想法再进一小步，它就会促使你产生一种想法，那就是创新的速度应该还会继续提高，特别是在通信技术出现以后，因为这使得观念从一地到另一地的流动速度变得非常快。 An important thing to remember is that there's always an incentive to hide your information. As an individual inventor or company, you're best off if everybody else shares their ideas but you don't share your ideas because then you get to keep your good ideas, and nobody else gets exposed to them, and you get to use their good ideas, so you get to do more recombination. 这里要记住的重要一点是，对于你自己知道的信息，你总是有动力进行隐瞒。对于个体发明家或单个公司而言，如果其他所有人都分享他们的想法，而你不分享你的想法，那你就是最受益的。因为这种情况下你能保守自己的好想法，别人没法知道，而你却能使用他们的好想法，这样你就能尝试更多的组合。 Embedded in this whole information-sharing thing is a constant cooperative dilemma in which individuals have to be willing to share for the good of the group. They don't have to explicitly know it's for the good of the group, but the idea that a norm of information sharing is a really good norm to have because it helps everybody do better because we share more ideas, get more recombination of ideas. 信息分享本身就存在合作困境，这种情形是一致存在的。为了集体的利益，个体要有分享的意愿。他们不需要明确地知道这是为了集体的利益，但他们需要建立一个观念，即认为有一个信息分享的规范是件好事，因为这能帮助所有人过得更好，因为我们分享的观念越多，我们得到的观念组合就越多。

~~~~~~~~

I've done a lot of work on marriage systems with the evolution of monogamy. We have a sort of human nature that pushes us towards polygyny whenever there are sufficient resources. Eighty-five percent of human societies have allowed men to have more than one wife, and very few societies have adopted polyandry which would be the flip side of this, and then there's actually a number of societies that allowed both, but they tended to be polygynous because, assuming you have enough resources, the men are going to be more interested in having more wives than the wives are interested in having more husbands, and the husbands aren't inclined to be second husbands as much as the women are willing to be second wives. 我在婚姻体制方面下了很多功夫，研究过一夫一妻制的进化。我们有某种天性，促使我们在资源充分的前提下追求一夫多妻。85%的人类社会曾允许男人拥有一个以上妻子，极少有社会采用过这一制度的对立面，即一妻多夫制。有些社会实际上两者都允许，但最终更可能出现一夫多妻，因为假定有充足的资源，男人会对拥有更多妻子更感兴趣，女人对于拥有更多丈夫就没那么感兴趣，而且丈夫们并不太愿意成为别人的二号丈夫，而女人在做别人的二号妻子方面意愿相对更强。 But in the modern world, of course, monogamy is normative, and people who have too many wives are thought poorly of by the larger society. The question is, how did this ever get in place? And of course, it traces back through Europe. 但是在现代社会，当然一夫一妻制是规范性的，而且那些拥有很多妻子的人会被更大社群当中的人瞧不起。问题是，到底怎么会变成这样的？当然，这要从欧洲往上追溯。 One of the things that distinguished Europe from the rest of the world was something called the European Marriage Pattern, and part of that was normative monogamy, the idea that taking a second wife was wrong as long as you still had the first wife, and this actually traces back to Rome and eventually to Athens. Athens legislates the first rules about monogamous marriage just before the Classical period. 欧洲区别于世界其他地方的一个要点就是欧洲婚姻模式，规范性一夫一妻制就是其中之一。认为只要你的第一个妻子还在，娶第二个妻子就是错误的，这种观念实际上可以追溯到古罗马，甚至古雅典。在古典时代开始之前，雅典人就正式奠定了一夫一妻制的最初规则。 This was an example of a case where people are ready to moralize it, and I like to view it as the evolution of this marriage system of monogamy. It's peculiar. It doesn't fit with what we know about human nature, but it does seem to have societal level benefits. It reduces male-male competition. 人们会把一些东西道德化，婚姻制度就是例证之一，而且我倾向于从一夫一妻制婚姻体制的进化这个角度来考虑。这是很特别的。它跟我们对人性的认知相左，但确实具有社会层面的好处。它能减少男性之间的竞争。 We think there's evidence to say it reduces crime, reduces substance abuse, and it also engages males in ways that cause them to discount the future less and engage in productive activities rather than taking a lot of risks which include crime and other things. Depending on what your value systems are, if you think freedom is really important, then you might be for polygyny, but if you want to trade freedom off against other social ills like high crime, then you might favor the laws that prohibit polygamy. 我们认为，有证据表明这一制度可以减少犯罪，减少毒品滥用，而且它还能吸引男性更多地重视未来，更多地参与生产性活动，而不是到处冒险，制造犯罪及其他事端。这取决于你的价值观体系，如果你认为自由非常重要，那么你可能会支持一夫多妻，但如果你愿意为了减少社会麻烦（如高犯罪率）而牺牲一些自由，那么你可能就会支持立法禁止多偶制。 When I talk about success and un-success, I don't mean anything moralizing. I'm talking about the cultural evolutionary processes that favor the spread of one idea over another. If I talk about normative monogamy as being successful, I mean that it spread, and in this case the idea is that it spread despite the fact that it's contrary to some aspects of human nature. It does harness our pair bonding in some aspects, so it's a complex story there, but it creates societal level benefits. 我所说的成功或不成功，并不具有任何道德意味。我要表达的只是，在文化进化的过程中，某个理念的传播压倒了另外一个理念。当我说规范性一夫一妻制成功了的时候，我的意思只是它传播开了，而且在这个例子中，尽管它与人性某些方面相抵触，但仍然得以传播开来。它确实在某些方面约束了我们的结成配偶的行为，所以这个故事很复杂，但它带来了社会层面的好处。 Societies that have this are better able to maintain a harmonious population, increase trade and exchange, and have economic growth more than societies that allow polygamy, especially if you have a society with widely varying amounts of wealth, especially among males. Then you're going to have a situation that would normally promote high levels of polygyny. 实行一夫一妻制的社会更能维持人与人之间的和谐，增加贸易和交易，实现更快的经济增长，而允许多偶制的社会在这些方面就要差一些，特别是如果这一社会里财富差异非常大时（尤其是在男性之间）。如果存在上述情形，通常都会加剧一夫多妻的程度。 The absolute levels of wealth difference of, say, between Bill Gates and Donald Trump and the billionaires of the world, and the men at the bottom end of the spectrum is much larger than it's ever been in human history, and that includes kings and emperors and things like that in terms of total control of absolute wealth. 比如说，一边是比尔·盖茨、唐纳德·特朗普以及世上的亿万富翁，另一边则是处于财富分配末端的众多人口，财富差异绝对水平远远超过人类历史上的任何时候，而且这还把历史上那些国王、帝王等人物都考虑了在内，他们可是绝对财富的全权控制者。 Males will be males in the sense that they'll try to obtain extra matings, but the billionaires are completely curbed in terms of what they would do if they could do what emperors have done throughout the ages. They have harems and stuff like that. Norms of modern society prevent that. 男性作为男性，就会力图拥有更多的配偶，但现在的亿万富翁在这一点上却受到了完全的约束；本来如果他们可以这么做，他们会这么做的，历史上的所有帝王都不例外。他们会形成后宫体制，或类似的体制，但现代社会的道德规范阻止了他们。 Otherwise, there would be massive male-male competition, and even to get into the mating and marriage market you would have to have a high level of wealth if we were to let nature take it's course as it did in the earliest empires. It depends on what your views are about freedom versus societal level benefits. 否则的话，如果我们像早期帝国那样，让天性不加阻碍地发展，那将会出现大规模的男性竞争，甚至是仅仅想进入配偶和婚姻市场，你就得拥有很多的财富。这取决于你如何看待自由和社会层面利益之间的取舍。

~~~~~~~~

Part of my program of research is to convince people that they should stop distinguishing cultural and biological evolution as separate in that way. We want to think of it all as biological evolution. 我的研究课题之一就是要说服人们相信，人们应该停止在文化进化和生物进化之间做出截然区分。我们希望将所有这些事情整个当作生物进化看待。 We want to distinguish genetic evolution and cultural evolution, and then at some point we may have epigenetic evolution, and there are other kinds of inheritance systems. 我们要区分基因进化和文化进化，在某些情况下我们可能还发生了表观进化，此外还有其他种类的继承机制。 It's going to be a little bit more of a complex story. Culture is part of our biology. We now have the neuroscience to say that culture's in our brain, so if you compare people from different societies, they have different brains. Culture is deep in our biology. 接下来的故事更加复杂一点。文化是我们生物属性的一部分。现在，神经科学告诉我们，文化存在于我们的大脑中，所以如果你把来自不同社会的人进行比较，会发现他们拥有不同的大脑。文化深嵌于我们的生物属性之中。 We have people with different cultural backgrounds that have different hormonal reactions as well as having different brains on the MRI scan. So culture is just part of our biology, and we shouldn't take this dualistic view that there's this realm of ideas that somehow are separate from this realm of biology, and you're either talking about the realm of ideas or the realm of biology. 我们看到，来自不同文化背景的人会有不同的激素反应，而且在核磁共振扫描上显示的大脑也不一样。所以文化只是我们生物属性的一部分，我们不应该采取一种二元区分的观点，认为存在一个观念领域，和一个生物领域，两者截然分开，只能分别谈论。 Cognition and our ability to think are all interwoven, and we're a cultural species, which means one of our genetic programs is to be able to acquire ideas, beliefs and values and weave them into our brain such that they then affect our biology. A good example of this is the placebos. 认知和思考能力是相互交织的，我们就是一个文化物种，这就是说我们的基因程序之一就是使我们获得观念、信念和价值观并将它们编入我们的大脑，我们的生物属性也因而受到影响。 Placebos are something that depend on your cultural beliefs. If you believe that something will work, then when you take it, like you take an aspirin or you take a placebo for an aspirin, it initiates the same pathways as the chemically active substance. 这方面的一个恰当例子就是安慰剂。安慰剂的作用取决于你的文化信念。如果你相信某物会起作用，那在你服用它之后，比如把安慰剂当作阿司匹林来服用，那么安慰剂就会像阿司匹林那样开启同样的路径。 Placebos are chemically inert but biologically active, and it's completely dependent on your cultural beliefs. If you don't believe that cures come in pills, then taking a placebo aspirin does not have any effect on you. That's a case where it shows the ability of a cultural belief to activate biological processes, and then it's something we know a little bit about. 从化学角度来说，安慰剂是不会起效的，但从生物学上来说，它能起到跟阿司匹林一样的作用，这完全取决于你的文化信念。如果你不相信药能治病，那么服用阿司匹林安慰剂就不会对你产生任何效果。这是表明文化信念能够激发生物过程的一个案例，我们对此稍微有所了解。

~~~~~~~~

One of the large research projects that I run in an effort to understand human sociality is called The Root of Human Sociality Project. In the mid '90s I was working in the Peruvian Amazon and I was working with a group called the Machiguenga. Traditionally, the Machiguenga lived in single-family units scattered throughout the forest. I had been exposed through my advisor, Rob Boyd, at the time to something called the Ultimatum Game, and the Ultimatum Game seemed to provide evidence that humans were innately inclined to punish unfairness. 为了理解人类社会，我正在做的大型研究项目中包括一个“人类社会性探源项目”。上世纪90年代中期我在秘鲁的亚马逊地区工作，跟一个叫做Machiguenga的群体一起。传统上，该群体的人们以独户家庭为单位分散居住在森林里。通过我的导师Rob Boyd，我那时知道了一个叫做“最后通牒博弈”的东西，而这个博弈似乎能够证明人类天性倾向于对不公加以惩罚。 In the Ultimatum Game, two players are allotted a sum of money, say $100, and the first player can offer a portion of this $100 to the second player who can either accept or reject. If the second player accepts, they get the amount of the money, and the first player gets the remainder. If they reject, both players get zero. 在“最后通牒博弈”中，两个参与者会拿到一笔钱，比如100块。参与者A可以开价，将100块中的一部分给予参与者B，后者既可以接受，也可以拒绝。如果参与者B接受，他就能拿走提议数目的钱，剩下的归参与者A。如果他拒绝，那两个参与者都拿不到钱。 Just to give you an example, suppose the money is $100, and the first player offers $10 out of the $100 to the second player. If the second player accepts, he gets the $10 and the first player gets $90. If he rejects, both players go home with zero. If you place yourself in the shoes of the second player, then you should be inclined to accept any amount of money if you just care about making money. 举个例子，假设总数为100块，参与者A开价将100块中的10块给参与者B。如果B接受，他就得10块，而A得90块。如果他拒绝，两人都只能空手而归。如果你站在参与者B的角度想问题，如果你只关心赚钱与否，那你就应该接受任何开价。 Now, if he offers you zero, you have the choice between zero and zero, so it's ambiguous what you should do. But assuming it's a positive amount, so $10, you should accept the $10, go home with $10 and let the other guy go home with $90. 如果A提出不给你钱，那无论如何选择，你都只能空手而归，在这种情况下你应该如何选择就是不确定的。但是，假定A提议分给你一个正数，比如10块，那你就应该接受这10块钱，拿着10块钱回家，让另外那个家伙拿90块回家。 But in experiments with undergraduates, Western undergraduates, going back to 1982, behavioral economists find that students give about half, sometimes a little bit less than half, and people are inclined to reject offers below about 30 percent. 但在实验中，在1982年针对大学生——西方大学生——的实验中，行为经济学家发现，学生们会开价给一半，有时候是略少于一半，一旦开价低于30%，人们就倾向于拒绝接受了。 Subsequent work with non-student adults in the West show that it's an even a stronger result. The older you get, even if you have more wealth and more income, you're especially inclined to only offer half, and you'll reject offers below 40 percent. 针对非学生的西方成人的后续研究显示出了比这更强的结果。随着年龄增长，不管你多么有钱收入多高，你都会特别倾向于只拿出一半钱来分享，而且你会拒绝任何低于40%的开价。 In 1995, it had been done in a number of different countries, and it seemed to be robust. I was thinking that the Machiguenga would be a good test of this, because if they also showed this willingness to reject and to make equal offers, it would really demonstrate the innateness of this finding, because they don't have any higher level institutions, and it would be hard to make a kind of cultural argument that they were bringing something into the experiment that was causing this behavior. 到1995年，研究者已在许多不同国家做过同一实验，这一关系都很明显。我当时想，拿Machiguenga人做个测试会相当好，因为如果他们也显示出拒绝的意愿和平等分享的意愿，那就真的能证明这一发现确属天性，因为这个群体中并没有任何高层次的制度，因此我们很难提出一种文化论证，说他们在参加实验时带入了某些（文化方面的）东西，影响了他们的行为。 I went and I did it in 1995 and 1996 there, and what I found amongst the Machiguenga was that they were completely unwilling to reject, and they thought it was silly. Why would anyone ever reject? They would almost explain the subgame perfect equilibrium, the solution that the economists use, back to me by saying, "Well, why would anybody ever reject? You lose money then." And they made low offers, the modal offer was 15 percent instead of 50, and the mean comes out to be about 25 percent. 我1995年和1996年去那里做了实验，而我从Machiguenga人那里得到的结论是，他们绝不愿意拒绝，而且他们觉得拒绝是愚蠢的做法。为什么有人会拒绝？而且他们几乎都能跟我解释经济学家使用的那个解，即子博弈完美均衡：“为什么会有人拒绝呢？拒绝了你就会损失钱啊。”而且他们还会给出很低额度的开价，开价的众数是15%而非50%，而平均值则是大约25%。 Rob Boyd then was my advisor, and we went to the MacArthur Foundation for some funding, and they funded us, and we were able to put together a team of anthropologists. We brought them to UCLA. We had some economists there, including Ernst Fehr, Sam Bowles, and Herb Gintis, and we taught them some game theory. Rob Boyd那时候是我导师，我们跑去麦克阿瑟基金会要资助，他们资助了我们。我们由此得以组建了一个人类学家团队，把他们带到加州大学洛杉矶分校。我们在那还有一批经济学家，包括Ernst Fehr, Sam Bowles和Herb Gintis，我们就教了他们一些博弈论。 There was large discussion about methods, about whether we could actually pull this off, and then over the next two summers these field anthropologists went to the field and conducted the ultimatum game as well as a few other games—not systemically across the societies— but it gave us insight that we would then later use, and what we found is that societies vary dramatically, from societies that would never reject, to societies that would even reject offers above 50 percent, and we found that mean offers ranged across societies from about 25 percent to even over 50 percent. We had some of what we called hyper fair societies. The highest was 57 percent in Lamalera, Indonesia. 当时就方法论有很多争论，还争论到了我们到底能否做成这事。但接下来的两个夏季，我们的田野人类学家就到了实地，实施了“最后通牒博弈”和其他一些博弈（并没有在不同社群中系统性实施），这给我们提供了一些见解，后来都能够用上。我们发现的是，社群与社群之间差别极大，有些社群绝不会选择拒绝任何开价，而有些社群甚至连高于50%的开价都会拒绝。而且我们发现，不同社群的平均开价从25%到高于50%不等。有些社群我们称为“极度公平”社会。其中最高的是印度尼西亚的Lamalera人，（开价）高达57%。 We found we were able to explain a lot of the variation in these offers with two variables. One was the degree of market integration. More market-integrated societies offered more, and less market integrated societies offered less. But also, there seemed to be other institutions, institutions of cooperative hunting seemed to influence offers. Societies with more cooperative institutions offered more, and these were independent effects. 我们发现，我们可以用两个变量解释开价方面的很大一部分差异。其中一个变量是市场整合的程度。市场整合度越高的社群开价越高，整合度越低的社群开价越低。不过似乎也还有其他的机制，比如合作狩猎的机制似乎也会影响开价。合作机制越多的社群开价越高，而且两者是独立发挥作用的。 This then led to a subsequent project where we measured market integration much more carefully along with a large number of other variables, including wealth, income, education, community size, and also religion. We did the Ultimatum Game along with two other experiments. The two other experiments were the Dictator Game (the Dictator Game is like the Ultimatum Game except the second player doesn't have the option to reject) and the Third Party Punishment Game. 这又引出了我们后来的项目，我们更加细致地测量了市场整合度，以及很多其他变量，包括财富、收入、教育、社区规模，还有宗教。除“最后通牒博弈”之外，我们还一同做了另外两个实验。一个是“独裁者博弈”（跟“最后通牒博弈”类似，只是参与者B没有拒绝的选项），另一个是“第三方惩罚博弈”。 In the Third Party Punishment Game, there are three players and the first two players play a Dictator Game. They're allotted a sum of money, say $100, and the first player can offer any portion of the $100 to the second player, player B. Now, player B in this game can't do anything, and they just get whatever they're offered. But there is a third player, player C, and player C is given half the amount that A and B are dividing up, and he can use some of his money (20 percent of it actually) to pay to take money away from A at three times the rate. If he's given $50, he can use $10 of it to take $30 away from player A. Suppose player A gives only $10 to player B and keeps $90 for himself, then player B will go home with $10. Now, player C can pay $10, so he goes home with $40 instead of $50 in order to take $30 away from player A. Player A would go home with $60 instead of $90, because he got punished. Player B goes home with $10, and player C goes home with $40 instead of $50 because he chose to punish. 在“第三方惩罚博弈”中有三个参与者，头两个进行“独裁者博弈”。他们会得到一笔钱，比方说100块。然后参与者A可以提议将100块中的任意数目分给第二个参与者，参与者B。在这个游戏中，参与者B不能做任何事，A给他多少，他就只能得到多少。但是还有第三个参与者，参与者C。参与者C手里有相当于A和B所分数额一半的钱，他可以拿出其中的一部分（20%）去抵消掉参与者A手中的一部分钱，而且能1抵3。比如，C手里有50块，他就能花掉其中的10块去抵消掉参与者A手中的30块。假设参与者A只分了10块给B参与者，自己留下了90块，那么参与者B就得10块。但因为参与者C拿出了10块钱，那他拿回家的就是40块而非50块，又因为参与者A手中钱被抵消掉了30块。A拿回家的就是60块而非90块，因为他遭到了惩罚。参与者B拿回家10块，参与者C拿回家40块而非50块，因为他选择进行惩罚。 This gives us two different measures of willingness to punish strangers, ephemeral interactions—people that you don't know and won't see again. In the experiment, one is rejection in the Ultimatum Game, and then this Third Party Punishment measure, and it gives us three measures of fairness in this kind of transaction. 对于我们惩罚陌生人和一次性交往（那些你不认识并且以后也不会再见到的人）的意愿，这就提供了两种测量办法。在试验中，一种测量是看“最终通牒博弈”中的拒绝选项，另一个则是看“第三方惩罚”。并且，它还给我们提供了此类交易中关于公平的三种测量方式。 It gives us offers in all three games and what we found there is that market integration again predicts higher offers in all three games, and size of the community predicts willingness to punish and this fits with a lot of theoretical work, suggesting that if you have small communities, you don't need punishment. You don't need costly punishment. You need some kind of sanctioning system to keep people in line, but you're probably not going to do it with single individuals punishing. You have some other mechanism. It could be some kind of reputational mechanism like if they don't cooperate in this situation, then you won't interact with them in some other situation. It's a withdrawal of interaction rather than direct punishment. There's a number of different ways to create norm systems that operate like that. 在三种博弈中都有出价，而且我们再次发现，在三种博弈中，市场整合度能够预测出价的高低，社区的规模能够预测惩罚的意愿，而且这跟许多理论研究成果相吻合；这意味着，如果社区规模足够小，根本不需要惩罚。根本不需要代价高昂的惩罚。你需要建立某种处罚机制，以便人人都能守规矩，但你可能无需对个体施加单独的惩罚。你还有其他一些机制。可能是某种声誉机制，比方说如果他们在这种情况下不能够合作，那碰到其他情况你就不会与他们互动。这是取消交往，而不是直接惩罚。有许多办法可以创造出按照这个模式运行的规范制度。 In a big society punishment can be most effective because reputational mechanisms can be weak. If you're in a big society and you encounter somebody, you probably don't have friends in common through which you could pass reputational information for which punishment could be generated. You might want to punish them right on the spot or someone who observes the interaction might want to punish them right on the spot or call the authorities or whatever, which is also costly. 在大型社群中，惩罚可能是最有效的，因为声誉机制的效力可能很微弱。如果你在一个大型社群中与某人打交道，你和他之间可能并没有共同的朋友，那你就没法传递声誉信息，也就无从构成惩罚。你可能希望当场惩罚他，或者你们打交道时的某个旁观者可能想要当场惩罚他，或者诉诸权威，这样的代价都是很高的。

~~~~~~~~

This creates a puzzle because typically people think of small-scale kinds of societies, where you study hunter-gatherers and horticultural scattered across the globe (ranging from New Guinea to Siberia to Africa) as being very pro social and cooperative. This is true, but the thing is those are based on local norms for cooperation with kin and local interactions in certain kinds of circumstances. 这就给我们制造了一个谜题。因为通常人们认为，小规模的社区——比如当你研究的是散布全球各地的狩猎采集者群体（从新几内亚到西伯利亚到非洲）——都是非常亲社会的、非常具有合作精神的。事实的确如此，但问题是这只是基于地方性的与亲族合作的的规范，以及在特定情形下的地方性交往规范。 Hunter-gatherers are famous for being great at food sharing, but these norms don't extend beyond food sharing. They certainly don't extend to ephemeral or strangers, and to make a large-scale society run you have to shift from investing in your local kin groups and your enduring relationships to being willing to pay to be fair to a stranger. 狩猎采集者在食物分享上的慷慨是出了名的，但这些规范并不会延伸到食物分享以外。它们绝对不会延伸到一次性交往或陌生人身上。要维持一个大型社会运转，你必须要转型，从投资于你的本地亲族群体和长久关系，转变为愿意为了公平对待陌生人而付出代价。 This is something that is subtle, and what people have trouble grasping is that if you're going to be fair to a stranger, then you're taking money away from your family. In the case of these dictator games, in order to give 50 percent to this other unknown person, it meant you were going home with less money, and that meant your family was going to have less money, and your kids would have less money. To observe modern institutions, to not hire your brother-in-law when you get a fancy job or you get elected to an office is to hurt your family. Your brother-in-law doesn't have a job now. He has to have whatever other job he has, a less good job. 这种情形非常微妙。人们不容易理解的是，如果你想要公平对待陌生人，那就会让你家里的钱变少。在上述独裁者博弈中，如果你要拿出50%的钱给另外一个陌生人，那就意味着你拿回家里的钱会变少，也就是你家的钱会变少，你孩子的钱会变少。要遵守现代的制度，比如在你得到一个好工作或被选为官员以后不要雇佣自己的小舅子，这就会对自己家庭造成伤害。你的小舅子现在没有工作。他必须自己去找其他工作，一个没那么好的工作。 A commitment to something like anti-nepotism norms is something that runs against our evolutionary inclinations and our inclinations to help kin and to invest in long-term close relationships, but it's crucial for making a large-scale society run. Corruption, things like hiring your brother-in-law and feathering the nest of your close friends and relatives is what really tears down and makes complex societies not work very well. In this sense, the norms of modern societies that make modern societies run now are at odds with at least some of our evolved instincts. 服膺于像反裙带关系这种规范，这是与我们的进化偏好相悖的，与我们帮助亲族、投资于长期亲密关系的偏好相悖，但它对大型社群的运转则至关重要。腐败，比如雇佣自己的小舅子、为自己的好友和亲属谋私利这种事，才真正会撕裂复杂社会，并令其不能良好运转。在这个意义上，令现代社会得以运转的现代社会规范是与我们进化形成的至少一部分本能相违背的。 Lately we've been focused on the effects of religion. One of the things I didn't mention from the experimental games project is that in addition to market integration in the second project, we found independently that adherence to a world religion matters. People from world religions were willing to give more to the other person in the experiment, the anonymous stranger. 近来我们研究的焦点是宗教的作用。关于我们的博弈实验项目，有一件事我还没有提到，那就是在第二个项目中，除了市场整合度之外，我们还独立地发现，人们对世界宗教的信仰也有关系。在实验中，信仰世界宗教的人会愿意分更多钱给另外一个人，另外一个匿名的陌生人。 We've been using these experiments in the context of behavioral games. There's since been a number of additional papers coming out of economics showing the relationship between market integrations using measures like distance from market and people's willingness to build impartial institutions. Part of this is your willingness to acquire a norm of impartial roles; that we have a set of rules that governs this system. 我们还将这些实验应用到了行为博弈的情境中去。自那以后至今，经济学领域已经又发表了很多论文，证明市场整合度（用与市场的距离之类方式测量）与人们建构公平制度之意愿之间的关系。内容之一包括，你习得一套关于公平角色的规范的意愿，也就是我们有一套规则来管理这个体系。 Sometimes historians or political scientists call it the rule of law. We have an impartial set of rules that we're going to follow, and those rules apply independently of the identities and our emotional reactions towards the participants. 有时候，历史学家或政治科学家会把它叫做法治。我们有一套需要遵守的公平规则，而且不管我们的身份如何，不管我们对其他参与者的感情态度如何，这套规则都适用。 One of the things we find with the relationship between norms and these risk-managing institutions is that when you have risk managing institutions these impartial norms can spread. Otherwise, people are strongly biased towards maintaining these local relationships. If you want the rule of law to spread or to be maintained, you need conditions in which you're managing risk. 关于规范和这类风险管理机制之间的关系，我们有一个发现是，如果你拥有风险管理机制，那么这种公平规范就能得以传播。否则，人们会强烈偏向于固守他们的地方性关系。如果你希望法治得到传播或维持，那就需要一个有风险管控的环境。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

科学的退化 Scientific Regress 作者:William A. Wilson @ 2016-05 译者:小聂(@PuppetMaster) 校对:龙泉 来源:First Things,https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. 科学研究的问题在于，它们中的很大一部分其实根本不科学。去年夏天，开放科学合作组织（OSC）宣布他们曾试图重复100个选自三本行业权威杂志上的心理学实验。科学论断建基于这样一个观念：在几乎相同的条件下重复实验，其结果也应该相同。但是直到最近为止，此前几乎没有人系统性地验证是不是真的如此。 The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes. OSC小组的工作是迄今最大规模的对于心理学的验证，结果非常惊人。小组几乎采用了原初的实验材料，有些甚至在原来研究者的指导下进行实验。在所有结果阳性的研究中，竟然有65%在统计上不显著，剩下中也有很多的重复结果不如原先的显著。 Their findings made the news, and quickly became a club with which to bash the social sciences. But the problem isn’t just with psychology. There’s an unspoken rule in the pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate. 他们的发现上了新闻，并且很快成了用来攻击社会科学的大棒。但是问题不只是出在心理学领域。医药产业心照不宣的法则是，半数生物医学研究最终会被证明为假，而在2011年拜耳的一组研究者们决定试验一下。在研究了最近的67个基于临床前癌症生物学研究的新药计划之后，他们发现其中75%以上的实验发表的数据和他们内部重复实验的数据对不上。 These were not studies published in fly-by-night oncology journals, but blockbuster research featured in Science, Nature, Cell, and the like. The Bayer researchers were drowning in bad studies, and it was to this, in part, that they attributed the mysteriously declining yields of drug pipelines. Perhaps so many of these new drugs fail to have an effect because the basic research on which their development was based isn’t valid. 这些研究都不是那些发表在无足轻重的肿瘤学期刊上的研究，而是发表在《科学》、《自然》、《细胞》之类期刊上的大手笔。他们发现人们被垃圾研究淹没了，认为这就是临床药物试验离奇衰落的原因。或许如此多的新药研制失败是因为它们所基于的科学研究不靠谱。 When a study fails to replicate, there are two possible interpretations. The first is that, unbeknownst to the investigators, there was a real difference in experimental setup between the original investigation and the failed replication. These are colloquially referred to as “wallpaper effects,” the joke being that the experiment was affected by the color of the wallpaper in the room. This is the happiest possible explanation for failure to reproduce: It means that both experiments have revealed facts about the universe, and we now have the opportunity to learn what the difference was between them and to incorporate a new and subtler distinction into our theories. 当研究结果无法被重复时，有两种可能性。一种是，确实有某项研究者不知道的实验装置区别存在。这种情况俗称“墙纸效应”，戏谑的认为实验会被墙纸的颜色所影响。这是一个皆大欢喜的解释，表明这两个实验揭示了一些事实，现在我们有机会研究这些差异并将这个更微妙的新发现融入理论中。 The other interpretation is that the original finding was false. Unfortunately, an ingenious statistical argument shows that this second interpretation is far more likely. First articulated by John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, this argument proceeds by a simple application of Bayesian statistics. Suppose that there are a hundred and one stones in a certain field. One of them has a diamond inside it, and, luckily, you have a diamond-detecting device that advertises 99 percent accuracy. After an hour or so of moving the device around, examining each stone in turn, suddenly alarms flash and sirens wail while the device is pointed at a promising-looking stone. What is the probability that the stone contains a diamond? 而另一种可能是，原实验的结果为假。很不幸的是，一项设计巧妙的统计学论证显示出第二种解读更有可能。该论证最早由斯坦福医学院John Ioannidis教授提出，现在被一个简单的贝叶斯统计应用所取代。假设一块田里有101块石头，其中的一块里面有钻石，并且，你正好有个号称准确率99%的钻石探测器。在经过了近一个小时的来回，一个一个的检查石头之后，突然警报响起，探测器指向一个有可能的石头。该石头含钻石的可能性是多少？ Most would say that if the device advertises 99 percent accuracy, then there is a 99 percent chance that the device is correctly discerning a diamond, and a 1 percent chance that it has given a false positive reading. But consider: Of the one hundred and one stones in the field, only one is truly a diamond. Granted, our machine has a very high probability of correctly declaring it to be a diamond. But there are many more diamond-free stones, and while the machine only has a 1 percent chance of falsely declaring each of them to be a diamond, there are a hundred of them. So if we were to wave the detector over every stone in the field, it would, on average, sound twice—once for the real diamond, and once when a false reading was triggered by a stone. If we know only that the alarm has sounded, these two possibilities are roughly equally probable, giving us an approximately 50 percent chance that the stone really contains a diamond. 大多数人会说既然探测器的准确率是99%，那么就有99%的可能性该探测器正确的判断出了钻石的所在，和1%的可能性探测器给出了误报。但是请考虑这一点：101块石头中，只有一块有钻石。毋庸置疑，我们的探测器可以以很高的可能性正确判断一块石头里面是否有钻石。但是大多数石头里面是没有钻石的，所以尽管探测器仅有1%的可能性错误的判断出它们中的某一个有钻石，但是这样的石头有100个。于是如果我们在每一块石头上挥舞探测器，则它会报警的期望值是两次，一次为真正的钻石，一次为误报。如果我们仅仅只是听到报警而已，那么这两个情况出现的可能性是相等的，得出的结论就是石头里面有钻石的可能性是大约50%。 This is a simplified version of the argument that Ioannidis applies to the process of science itself. The stones in the field are the set of all possible testable hypotheses, the diamond is a hypothesized connection or effect that happens to be true, and the diamond-detecting device is the scientific method. A tremendous amount depends on the proportion of possible hypotheses which turn out to be true, and on the accuracy with which an experiment can discern truth from falsehood. Ioannidis shows that for a wide variety of scientific settings and fields, the values of these two parameters are not at all favorable. 这是Ioannidis教授关于科学研究过程的统计学论证的一个简化版本。田里的石头就是所有可验证的理论假设的集合，钻石就是那个恰好为真的假设，而探测器就是科学的方法。至关重要的两个参数是真假设占所有可行假设的比例，以及用实验来判断真假的准确性。Ioannidis教授向我们说明了在大部分科研情景和领域里面，这两个参数的值都不容乐观。 For instance, consider a team of molecular biologists investigating whether a mutation in one of the countless thousands of human genes is linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s. The probability of a randomly selected mutation in a randomly selected gene having precisely that effect is quite low, so just as with the stones in the field, a positive finding is more likely than not to be spurious—unless the experiment is unbelievably successful at sorting the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, Ioannidis finds that in many cases, approaching even 50 percent true positives requires unimaginable accuracy. Hence the eye-catching title of his paper: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” 比如说，设想一个分子生物学研究小组想要决定人类无数基因中的某一个基因变异是否会增加阿尔兹海默症的风险。一个随机选择的基因里面产生的随机变异，正好产生一个给定的效果，这个可能性是很低的。所以就像田里的石头一样，阳性结果在大多数情况下都很有可能是假的，除非该实验有着令人难以置信的准确率。确实，Ioannidis教授发现在很多情况下，即使是接近50%的真阳性结果也需要惊人的准确率。正是因为这样，他才给他的论文起了个吸引眼球的标题：“为什么被发表的多数研究结论都是假的？” What about accuracy? Here, too, the news is not good. First, it is a de facto standard in many fields to use one in twenty as an acceptable cutoff for the rate of false positives. To the naive ear, that may sound promising: Surely it means that just 5 percent of scientific studies report a false positive? But this is precisely the same mistake as thinking that a stone has a 99 percent chance of containing a diamond just because the detector has sounded. What it really means is that for each of the countless false hypotheses that are contemplated by researchers, we accept a 5 percent chance that it will be falsely counted as true—a decision with a considerably more deleterious effect on the proportion of correct studies. 那准确率又如何呢？也不是太令人乐观。首先，许多研究领域实际上能接受的上限是20个结果里面有一个假阳性。对普通人来说，这个听起来很不错：这想必表明仅仅只有5%的科学研究结果是假阳性的吧？但这和那些认为诱发探测器报警的石头会有99%的可能性藏有钻石的人正好犯了同一个错误。这个数字真正的意义在于，对于研究者们考虑的无数种可行假设中的每一个错误理论，我们接受有5%的可能性它们会被当成是正确理论。这是一个可以显著减少结果正确科学研究的做法。 Paradoxically, the situation is actually made worse by the fact that a promising connection is often studied by several independent teams. To see why, suppose that three groups of researchers are studying a phenomenon, and when all the data are analyzed, one group announces that it has discovered a connection, but the other two find nothing of note. Assuming that all the tests involved have a high statistical power, the lone positive finding is almost certainly the spurious one. However, when it comes time to report these findings, what happens? The teams that found a negative result may not even bother to write up their non-discovery. After all, a report that a fanciful connection probably isn’t true is not the stuff of which scientific prizes, grant money, and tenure decisions are made. 吊诡的是，当数个独立研究小组对同一理论假设做研究的时候，情况反而更糟了。这里用一个例子来说明为什么。设想有三个小组在研究同一现象，在分析完了所有数据之后，一个小组宣布他们发现了现象之间的联系，但是其它两个小组没有发现任何值得一提的东西。假如所有的实验都具有很强的统计学判断力，那么这个孤立的阳性结果几乎一定是可疑的。尽管如此，当要对实验结果做报告发表的时候，会发生什么呢？得出阴性结论的小组甚至都不会去把他们的毫无建树的实验写成论文。毕竟，科研奖项、经费、或是终身教授是不会给一个对有前景的理论假说持否定结论的。 And even if they did write it up, it probably wouldn’t be accepted for publication. Journals are in competition with one another for attention and “impact factor,” and are always more eager to report a new, exciting finding than a killjoy failure to find an association. In fact, both of these effects can be quantified. Since the majority of all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no findings. When tallies are actually made, though, the precise opposite turns out to be true: Nearly every published scientific article reports the presence of an association. There must be massive bias at work. 而且就算他们写成了论文，也很可能不会被发表。期刊之间会争夺学术界的注意力和“影响因子”，因此更乐意发表激动人心的新发现，而不是那些煞风景的阴性结果。事实上，这两个效应是可以被量化的。既然大多数被研究的理论假设应该为假，则如果阴性结果和阳性结果一样被写成论文发表的话，那么大多数期刊论文都应该报告说没有任何发现才对。可是事实上却恰好相反，几乎所有得以发表的论文都认为现象之间存在关联。这个过程中必有大量的偏差。 Ioannidis’s argument would be potent even if all scientists were angels motivated by the best of intentions, but when the human element is considered, the picture becomes truly dismal. Scientists have long been aware of something euphemistically called the “experimenter effect”: the curious fact that when a phenomenon is investigated by a researcher who happens to believe in the phenomenon, it is far more likely to be detected. 即便科学家都如同天使一般，不受任何恶意驱使，Ioannidis教授的论证也一样成立。但是在考虑到人为因素之后，情况就真的差到难以想象了。科学家很久以来都熟悉所谓“观察者期望效应”的委婉说法，即当研究者相信某些现象存在的时候，他们就更有可能在实验中发现这些现象。 Much of the effect can likely be explained by researchers unconsciously giving hints or suggestions to their human or animal subjects, perhaps in something as subtle as body language or tone of voice. Even those with the best of intentions have been caught fudging measurements, or making small errors in rounding or in statistical analysis that happen to give a more favorable result. Very often, this is just the result of an honest statistical error that leads to a desirable outcome, and therefore it isn’t checked as deliberately as it might have been had it pointed in the opposite direction. 这种效应很多源自于：研究者无意识的给他们的人类或动物被试的一些暗示建议，这些暗示可以微妙到肢体语言或是声调变化。就算是最自律的研究者也曾被发现捏造测量，或是在取整的时候犯些小错误，抑或是偏向于统计分析给出的好结果等。经常是一个无心的统计偏差造成了研究者想要的结果，因而就不会被刻意的复查。如果结果指向相反的结论，恐怕就不会被这么轻易的放过了。 But, and there is no putting it nicely, deliberate fraud is far more widespread than the scientific establishment is generally willing to admit. One way we know that there’s a great deal of fraud occurring is that if you phrase your question the right way, scientists will confess to it. In a survey of two thousand research psychologists conducted in 2011, over half of those surveyed admitted outright to selectively reporting those experiments which gave the result they were after. Then the investigators asked respondents anonymously to estimate how many of their fellow scientists had engaged in fraudulent behavior, and promised them that the more accurate their guesses, the larger a contribution would be made to the charity of their choice. 但难以粉饰的事实是，学术圈内造假的广泛程度已经远超学界主流共识所愿意承认的那些。有一种方式可以让我们知道大批的造假行为正在发生，那就是巧妙的使用问卷调查来让科学家们坦白。在2011年的一次涉及两千多位心理学家的问卷调查里，半数以上直接承认了自己有选择性的报告了想要的实验结果。调查者之后让他们匿名估算同事中有多少人从事学术不诚信行为，并许诺向他们指定的慈善机构捐款，额度和估算的准确程度正相关。 Through several rounds of anonymous guessing, refined using the number of scientists who would admit their own fraud and other indirect measurements, the investigators concluded that around 10 percent of research psychologists have engaged in outright falsification of data, and more than half have engaged in less brazen but still fraudulent behavior such as reporting that a result was statistically significant when it was not, or deciding between two different data analysis techniques after looking at the results of each and choosing the more favorable. 经过数轮匿名估算，辅以自我报告的学术不诚信行为数字以及其它的间接测量，调查者得出的结论是：大约有10%的心理学家曾经直接伪造数据，并且半数以上曾经有过相对不那么无耻的学术不端行为，例如将非统计显著的结果报告为统计显著，或是在比较了两种数据分析结果之后再选择对自己有利的分析方法等。 Many forms of statistical falsification are devilishly difficult to catch, or close enough to a genuine judgment call to provide plausible deniability. Data analysis is very much an art, and one that affords even its most scrupulous practitioners a wide degree of latitude. Which of these two statistical tests, both applicable to this situation, should be used? Should a subpopulation of the research sample with some common criterion be picked out and reanalyzed as if it were the totality? Which of the hundreds of coincident factors measured should be controlled for, and how? The same freedom that empowers a statistician to pick a true signal out of the noise also enables a dishonest scientist to manufacture nearly any result he or she wishes. 许多形式的统计造假极难被抓住，或是太过于接近真实的分析决断，从而可以充分拒绝造假的指控。数据分析更像是一门艺术，即使是最严谨的数据分析者也有相当多的自由度可供发挥。两个同样适用的统计检验方法，该用哪个？是否应该将样本中的符合公共准则的子样本挑出来代表整体重新分析？数百个里面，我应该控制哪个？如何控制？使统计学家可以从噪音中挑出信号的那种自由度，同时让不诚实的科学家可以炮制出他／她想要的任何结果。 Cajoling statistical significance where in reality there is none, a practice commonly known as “p-hacking,” is particularly easy to accomplish and difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis. And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings, there is often nothing to re-analyze and check even if there were volunteers with the time and inclination to do so. 通过不断诱导数据从而得出不存在的显著统计，是一种通常被称作“p值操纵”的作弊法。做起来很容易，但是要检验出其是否被使用，却是极难。【译注：p值操纵指研究者轮番使用不同的统计方法和数据，直到结果显著为止。与正常的数据分析所采用的提出假设之后用数据验证假设的流程相反，p值操纵旨在找到具有显著性的关联，并在此基础上建立假设，因此导致假阳性。】并且大部分研究结果的原始数据还是不公开的，就算有人肯花时间来检查，也没有资源。 One creative attempt to estimate how widespread such dishonesty really is involves comparisons between fields of varying “hardness.” The author, Daniele Fanelli, theorized that the farther from physics one gets, the more freedom creeps into one’s experimental methodology, and the fewer constraints there are on a scientist’s conscious and unconscious biases. If all scientists were constantly attempting to influence the results of their analyses, but had more opportunities to do so the “softer” the science, then we might expect that the social sciences have more papers that confirm a sought-after hypothesis than do the physical sciences, with medicine and biology somewhere in the middle. 在估算这种学术不端的广泛性方面，有一个有创意的尝试，涉及到比较各学科的“硬”度。始作俑者Daniele Fanelli认为，一个学科离（最硬的）物理学越远，在实验方法上就更具有自由度，对于科学家们有意无意的错误的约束也越少。假如所有的科学家都试图影响实验分析的结果，而较“软”的学科里这么做更加容易，结果就是我们可能会发现，相比于物理学，社会科学发表的文章中更多的证实了那些倍受青睐的假说，而医学和生物学处于这两个学科之间的某个位置。 This is exactly what the study discovered: A paper in psychology or psychiatry is about five times as likely to report a positive result as one in astrophysics. This is not necessarily evidence that psychologists are all consciously or unconsciously manipulating their data—it could also be evidence of massive publication bias—but either way, the result is disturbing. 这正是研究发现的结果：心理学或是精神病学研究论文报告阳性结果的可能性是天体力学的五倍左右。这并不必然表明心理学家们在有意无意的篡改数据，也可能是论文发表系统的大规模选择性偏见，但是无论如何，令人担忧。 Speaking of physics, how do things go with this hardest of all hard sciences? Better than elsewhere, it would appear, and it’s unsurprising that those who claim all is well in the world of science reach so reliably and so insistently for examples from physics, preferably of the most theoretical sort. Folk histories of physics combine borrowed mathematical luster and Whiggish triumphalism in a way that journalists seem powerless to resist. The outcomes of physics experiments and astronomical observations seem so matter-of-fact, so concretely and immediately connected to underlying reality, that they might let us gingerly sidestep all of these issues concerning motivated or sloppy analysis and interpretation. 说到物理学，对于这个最硬的学科，结果又如何呢？至少看起来比别的强。因而，不出意料的是，几乎所有认为科学世界安然无恙的那些人会放心的坚持从物理学里寻找例证，最好还是偏理论方向。民间物理学的历史以一种让记者们无法抵御的方式将数学的光泽和辉格式凯旋主义相结合。物理实验和天文观测的结果看上去如此注重事实，如此具体而又直接关联到其表象之下的现实世界，以至于可以让我们小心翼翼的绕开那些别有用心的或是不合格的分析和解读。 “E pur si muove,” Galileo is said to have remarked, and one can almost hear in his sigh the hopes of a hundred science journalists for whom it would be all too convenient if Nature were always willing to tell us whose theory is more correct. “不管你怎么想，它（地球）就是在动的”，这据说是伽利略的名言，而从他的这句感叹中我们几乎能听到一百个科学报道者的祈祷，因为对他们来说，大自然若是肯轻易透露谁的理论更正确，那简直就是太方便了。 And yet the flight to physics rather gives the game away, since measured any way you like—volume of papers, number of working researchers, total amount of funding—deductive, theory-building physics in the mold of Newton and Lagrange, Maxwell and Einstein, is a tiny fraction of modern science as a whole. In fact, it also makes up a tiny fraction of modern physics. Far more common is the delicate and subtle art of scouring inconceivably vast volumes of noise with advanced software and mathematical tools in search of the faintest signal of some hypothesized but never before observed phenomenon, whether an astrophysical event or the decay of a subatomic particle. 即使如此，向物理学寻求庇护也多少泄露一些信息。因为无论怎么看，不论是从发表文章数、研究员数量、还是研究经费方面来看，被牛顿、拉格朗日、麦克斯韦和爱因斯坦所铸造的基于演绎和理论构建的物理学，在整个现代科学界里面也仅仅只是一小撮。实际上，就算是在现代物理学里也是少数。更为普遍的情况则是那些精细微妙的艺术，能够使用先进的软件和数学工具，从难以想象的大规模数据中分离噪音，去找某种极其微弱的从未被观测到的理论信号。 This sort of work is difficult and beautiful in its own way, but it is not at all self-evident in the manner of a falling apple or an elliptical planetary orbit, and it is very sensitive to the same sorts of accidental contamination, deliberate fraud, and unconscious bias as the medical and social-scientific studies we have discussed. Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years—the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border—have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published. 这类工作自有其难点和引人之处，但是绝不像落下的苹果或是椭圆的行星轨道那样不证自明，且和我们所讨论过的医学以及社会科学一样，非常容易受到意外污染、刻意造假和下意识的偏见所影响。过去几年里最饱受赞誉的两项物理学科研成果——北极BICEP2实验发现的宇宙暴涨和引力波，以及在瑞士-意大利边境发现的超光速中微子——现在已经被撤回，相应关注也比它们刚发表时少了许多。 Many defenders of the scientific establishment will admit to this problem, then offer hymns to the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. Yes, the path is rocky, they say, but peer review, competition between researchers, and the comforting fact that there is an objective reality out there whose test every theory must withstand or fail, all conspire to mean that sloppiness, bad luck, and even fraud are exposed and swept away by the advances of the field. 许多现有科研领域的辩护者承认这些问题，又称赞科学方法自有纠错能力。是的，道路是曲折的，他们说，但是同行评议、研究者之间的竞争、以及存在客观现实以检验理论这些令人舒心的事实，都会随着科学的进展潜移默化的将懒惰、倒霉、甚至欺诈等因素暴露并且驱逐出科研领域。 So the dogma goes. But these claims are rarely treated like hypotheses to be tested. Partisans of the new scientism are fond of recounting the “Sokal hoax”—physicist Alan Sokal submitted a paper heavy on jargon but full of false and meaningless statements to the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text, which accepted and published it without quibble—but are unlikely to mention a similar experiment conducted on reviewers of the prestigious British Medical Journal. 教条就是这样口口相传。但是这些声明几乎从未被像科学假设那样检验过。新科学至上主义的支持者们乐于重复“Sokal恶作剧”（指物理学家Alan Sokal向后现代文化研究期刊《社会文本》递交了一篇充满着行话但却全是错误和无稽表述的论文，却被接受并且毫无异议的发表了），却不太可能提到一个类似的实验，对象是具有很高声望的英国医学期刊的评审者们。 The experimenters deliberately modified a paper to include eight different major errors in study design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results, and not a single one of the 221 reviewers who participated caught all of the errors. On average, they caught fewer than two—and, unbelievably, these results held up even in the subset of reviewers who had been specifically warned that they were participating in a study and that there might be something a little odd in the paper that they were reviewing. In all, only 30 percent of reviewers recommended that the intentionally flawed paper be rejected. 实验者有意更改了一篇论文，使之包含八个不同的重大错误，分散于实验设计、方法论、数据分析、和结果解读方面。在221个评审者中，没有一个人挑出全部错误。他们平均抓到少于两个错误。并且，令人难以置信的是，当告诉一个分组的评审者们他们面对的论文有问题时，该结论也成立。总而言之，只有30%的评审者认为这篇有意制造的问题论文应该被拒绝发表。 If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published. Consider the finding of another (yes, another) of these replicability studies, this time from a group of cancer researchers. In addition to reaching the now unsurprising conclusion that only a dismal 11 percent of the preclinical cancer research they examined could be validated after the fact, the authors identified another horrifying pattern: The “bad” papers that failed to replicate were, on average, cited far more often than the papers that did! As the authors put it, “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.” 如果有一件事情是同行评议机制所擅长的，那就是让不受欢迎的想法不被发表。来看看另一个可重复性研究吧（对，另一个），这次是来自于一些癌症研究人员的。在得出只有11%的癌症临床前研究可被事后验证的令人毫不惊讶的结论之外，研究者们发现了另一个恐怖的现象：那些结果难以被重复的“坏”的论文，平均引用次数大于结果能被重复的那些！正如研究者们所提到的那样：“一些不可重复的临床前实验论文创造了一整个研究领域，和基于原初观察结论所衍生出的数百篇论文，但却没有认真确证或是证伪其研究基础。” What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you’ve built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons. 可他们没有提到的是，当整个研究领域被创造出来，当事业、经费、职务和声望都和一个实验结论所绑定，这个结果是假造的，无论是出于有意欺骗还是仅仅只是运气不好，将事实捅出去看来不是很受欢迎的做法。由此，同行评审从纯粹无用变成了积极为害，它在为论文排除分析上的或方法论上的缺陷方面很没用，但是在压制对主流研究范式的批评方面却非常有效。就算批评者最终可以将他的作品发表，指出整个研究领域是空中楼阁这种行为也不会受到同事、甚至导师和赞助方的青睐。 Older scientists contribute to the propagation of scientific fields in ways that go beyond educating and mentoring a new generation. In many fields, it’s common for an established and respected researcher to serve as “senior author” on a bright young star’s first few publications, lending his prestige and credibility to the result, and signaling to reviewers that he stands behind it. In the natural sciences and medicine, senior scientists are frequently the controllers of laboratory resources—which these days include not just scientific instruments, but dedicated staffs of grant proposal writers and regulatory compliance experts—without which a young scientist has no hope of accomplishing significant research. Older scientists control access to scientific prestige by serving on the editorial boards of major journals and on university tenure-review committees. Finally, the government bodies that award the vast majority of scientific funding are either staffed or advised by distinguished practitioners in the field. 在科学领地的开拓上，有资历的科学家除了对新一代传道授业之外，还可以在其它方面施加很大影响。在很多学科领域，卓有建树且受人尊敬的老学者以论文通讯作者的方式为年轻有为的新学者站台，用自己的名声和信誉向论文评审者对实验结果做出担保，这是很常见的。在自然科学和医学领域，有资历的科学家往往也掌握重要的研究资源，这些资源如今已不仅仅是科学仪器，还包括专门的研究基金申请书写作小组和合规问题专家等。没有这些资源，资历浅的研究员很难做出有影响力的研究。前辈们还掌控着重要的学术声誉，他们往往在重要期刊和终身教职的评审委员会列席。最后，许多主要的科研经费来自于政府机构，而政府的研究理事会要么由行内卓越人士担任，要么向他们寻求建议。 All of which makes it rather more bothersome that older scientists are the most likely to be invested in the regnant research paradigm, whatever it is, even if it’s based on an old experiment that has never successfully been replicated. The quantum physicist Max Planck famously quipped: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” 而这一切都会使情况变的更麻烦，因为有资历的科学家更有可能站在主流的研究范式一边，无论该范式是什么，就算是建立在一个从未被成功重复的年代久远的实验结果之上。量子物理学家马克思·普朗克有句至理名言：“新的科学理论战胜旧理论，并非是论敌被说服了，而是论敌们最终都死掉了，新的一代成长起来并逐渐适应了新理论。” Planck may have been too optimistic. A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied what happens to scientific subfields when star researchers die suddenly and at the peak of their abilities, and finds that while there is considerable evidence that young researchers are reluctant to challenge scientific superstars, a sudden and unexpected death does not significantly improve the situation, particularly when “key collaborators of the star are in a position to channel resources (such as editorial goodwill or funding) to insiders.” 普朗克可能有些过于乐观了。最近一篇来自于国家经济研究办公室的报告，研究了当明星学者在他们最为高产的时候突然死亡所带来的影响，发现虽然有大量的证据表明年轻学者不愿意去挑战明星学者，但是明星学者的突然意外死亡并不能显著改变这个情境，特别是当“明星学者的重要合作者依然掌控着学科内资源（如论文评审时的青睐或是研究经费）的分配渠道”时。 In the idealized Popperian view of scientific progress, new theories are proposed to explain new evidence that contradicts the predictions of old theories. The heretical philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, on the other hand, claimed that new theories frequently contradict the best available evidence—at least at first. Often, the old observations were inaccurate or irrelevant, and it was the invention of a new theory that stimulated experimentalists to go hunting for new observational techniques to test it. 在理想化的波普尔式科学进步图景中，新理论应该能够解释新的证据，而这些证据是和旧理论所做出的预测是相悖的。与之相反，离经叛道的科学哲学家Paul Feyerabend认为，新理论常常和能够获得的最好证据相悖，至少在一开始是这样的。旧的观察方式往往不够精确或不是非常有关联，而正是新理论的发明促使实验者们去寻找新的观察技术来验证它们。 But the success of this “unofficial” process depends on a blithe disregard for evidence while the vulnerable young theory weathers an initial storm of skepticism. Yet if Feyerabend is correct, and an unpopular new theory can ignore or reject experimental data long enough to get its footing, how much longer can an old and creaky theory, buttressed by the reputations and influence and political power of hundreds of established practitioners, continue to hang in the air even when the results upon which it is premised are exposed as false? 但是这种“非正式”的过程能够成功的关键，取决于当脆弱的新理论一开始被怀疑的风暴包围时能否以一种天真乐观的方式来无视既有证据。尽管如此，就算Feyerabend是对的，且不受欢迎的新理论能够无视或拒绝实验数据以至于站稳脚跟，那些陈腐古板的旧理论，即便其所基于的实验结论已被证明是错的，背后有着数百名业内人士的名誉、影响力、和政治权力的支持，会继续滞留多久呢？ The hagiographies of science are full of paeans to the self-correcting, self-healing nature of the enterprise. But if raw results are so often false, the filtering mechanisms so ineffective, and the self-correcting mechanisms so compromised and slow, then science’s approach to truth may not even be monotonic. That is, past theories, now “refuted” by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the truth than what we think now. 科学的圣传中充斥着凸显其自我纠正和自我治愈能力的光辉事迹。但如果原始结果是如此容易出错，筛选过程如此无效，且自我纠正机制如此迟缓且经常不被遵守的话，那么科学发掘事实真相的过程甚至不一定是单调的。即，过去的理论，现在已经被新证据“证伪”且被新方法取代的那些，可能比我们所想的更接近事实。 Such regress has happened before: In the nineteenth century, the (correct) vitamin C deficiency theory of scurvy was replaced by the false belief that scurvy was caused by proximity to spoiled foods. Many ancient astronomers believed the heliocentric model of the solar system before it was supplanted by the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. The Whiggish view of scientific history is so dominant today that this possibility is spoken of only in hushed whispers, but ours is a world in which things once known can be lost and buried. 这种倒退在以前也曾经发生过：在19世纪，对于坏血病的（正确的）维他命C缺乏理论被错误的理论取代，该理论认为是坏掉的食物导致了坏血病。许多古代天文学者相信日心说的太阳系模型，直到它被托勒密的地心说取代。以辉格史观看待科学发展的历程支配着当前主流看法，以至于倒退的可能性仅仅存在于窃窃私语中。但是在我们身处的世界里，知识是可以被掩埋和失传的。 And even if self-correction does occur and theories move strictly along a lifecycle from less to more accurate, what if the unremitting flood of new, mostly false, results pours in faster? Too fast for the sclerotic, compromised truth-discerning mechanisms of science to operate? The result could be a growing body of true theories completely overwhelmed by an ever-larger thicket of baseless theories, such that the proportion of true scientific beliefs shrinks even while the absolute number of them continues to rise. Borges’s Library of Babel contained every true book that could ever be written, but it was useless because it also contained every false book, and both true and false were lost within an ocean of nonsense. 而且就算自我纠正确实发生了，且理论的发展严格遵循从模糊到精确的周期，可是如果那些新的、大部分是错误的结果以更快的速度涌现呢？这速度如果快过让迟钝且不完善的科学真理判定机制来做出反应，情况又会怎样呢？结果可能是增长的正确理论被完全淹没在更快速增长的无稽理论中，以至于正确理论的绝对数量在增加，而同时它们所占的比例却逐渐减小。博尔赫斯的“巴别图书馆”里有每一本可能的包含真正知识书籍，但这毫无用处，因为它也收藏了每一本由错误知识构成的书【译注：“巴别图书馆”的藏书包含了25个书写符号任意排列组合组成的所有可能书籍】，结果就是正确和错误的知识都消散于无意义的海洋里。 Which brings us to the odd moment in which we live. At the same time as an ever more bloated scientific bureaucracy churns out masses of research results, the majority of which are likely outright false, scientists themselves are lauded as heroes and science is upheld as the only legitimate basis for policy-making. There’s reason to believe that these phenomena are linked. When a formerly ascetic discipline suddenly attains a measure of influence, it is bound to be flooded by opportunists and charlatans, whether it’s the National Academy of Science or the monastery of Cluny. 我想起生活中的怪事。一方面科学官僚们产生日渐臃肿的研究结果，其中大部分很可能是错误的，另一方面，科学家受到英雄般的尊崇，而科学被视为制定政策的唯一合理依据。我们有理由认为这些现象之间是有联系的。当一个曾经冷门的领域突然获得了一定的影响力的时候，必然遭到一批投机者和骗子的入侵，无论是国家科学院还是克吕尼修道院，都是一样的情况。【译注：克吕尼修道院，是公元910年在法国克吕尼建立的天主教修道院，以禁欲著称，是天主教改革运动克吕尼改革的发源地。】 This comparison is not as outrageous as it seems: Like monasticism, science is an enterprise with a superhuman aim whose achievement is forever beyond the capacities of the flawed humans who aspire toward it. The best scientists know that they must practice a sort of mortification of the ego and cultivate a dispassion that allows them to report their findings, even when those findings might mean the dashing of hopes, the drying up of financial resources, and the loss of professional prestige. 这个比较并不是那么的荒谬：就像修道主义，科学也拥有一个超人的目标，其成就远非有缺陷的人类能力所及。最好的科学家懂得要忍辱负重并培养出冷静的心境，以便他们能够忠实地公布科学发现，尽管有时候这些发现意味着希望的破灭，财政的干涸，以及职业声誉上的损失。 It should be no surprise that even after outgrowing the monasteries, the practice of science has attracted souls driven to seek the truth regardless of personal cost and despite, for most of its history, a distinct lack of financial or status reward. Now, however, science and especially science bureaucracy is a career, and one amenable to social climbing. Careers attract careerists, in Feyerabend’s words: “devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes ‘scientific progress’ in many areas.” 不必惊奇，尽管科学的实践超出了修道的范畴，它仍然能吸引到不顾自身利益而追求真理的人们，尽管在历史上的大部分时期，投身科学无财无名。而现在，科学，特别是科技官僚，是一项职业，顺应社会攀爬。它会吸引一心求名求利的人，用Feyerabend的话说，这些人“毫无创见，充满恐惧，只想制造出某些琐碎的结论以便加入构成很多领域里所谓的‘科学进步’的论文大军”。 If science was unprepared for the influx of careerists, it was even less prepared for the blossoming of the Cult of Science. The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. 如果说科学界对突然涌入的利益分子缺乏准备，那么面对爆发的科学教派就更是措手不及了。这个教派和被称为“科学至上主义”的现象有很大联系。二者都倾向于将科学知识视为圣经或是某种非宗教意义上的启示，认为它对于深刻的问题可以带来简单且具有决定意义的解答。 But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag “#sciencedancing” speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a day without seeing a t-shirt reading “Science: It works, b—es!” The hero of the recent popular movie The Martian boasts that he will “science the sh— out of” a situation. 但是科学教在此之上又多了一点夸夸其谈和一点不知脸红的无知。在修辞上体现为一种强迫症式的狂热（在推特上搜一下“sciencedancing”的主题标签就知道了）和对脏话的嗜好。在我们硅谷，走在大街上经常看到有人的T恤上印着诸如“科学：贼好用，婊子们！”最近的热门电影《火星救援》里的主人公面对危机时的豪言壮语则是“用科学把它捅出屎”。 One of the largest groups on Facebook is titled “I f—ing love Science!” (a name which, combined with the group’s penchant for posting scarcely any actual scientific material but a lot of pictures of natural phenomena, has prompted more than one actual scientist of my acquaintance to mutter under her breath, “What you truly love is pictures”). Some of the Cult’s leaders like to play dress-up as scientists—Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples— but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists. 脸书上最大的团体之一的名字是“我真他妈的爱科学！”（这个名字，加上该团体对于发表大量自然现象的图片而不是科学内容的爱好，已经让不止一个我认识的真正的科学家嘀咕“你们爱的其实是图片吧”）。某些科学教的领袖们喜欢装扮成科学家的样子——Bill Nye和Neil deGrasse Tyson是其中的两个典型——但他们几乎没有任何值得一提的研究贡献。与之相对的是，这些领袖们在教育者、科普者、和媒体从业者中非常受欢迎。 At its best, science is a human enterprise with a superhuman aim: the discovery of regularities in the order of nature, and the discerning of the consequences of those regularities. We’ve seen example after example of how the human element of this enterprise harms and damages its progress, through incompetence, fraud, selfishness, prejudice, or the simple combination of an honest oversight or slip with plain bad luck. These failings need not hobble the scientific enterprise broadly conceived, but only if scientists are hyper-aware of and endlessly vigilant about the errors of their colleagues . . . and of themselves. When cultural trends attempt to render science a sort of religion-less clericalism, scientists are apt to forget that they are made of the same crooked timber as the rest of humanity and will necessarily imperil the work that they do. The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice. 总之，科学在最好的时候，是具有非凡目标的人类事业：在自然的秩序中发现常理，并且用这些常理来推断事情的后果。我们看到了这项事业里的人类因素一个又一个危害进步的例子，有些出于无能、欺瞒、自私、偏见，有些只是出于某种诚实的忽视和一点坏运气。这些失败不能成为科学事业的羁绊，但这需要科学家对于同事们和自己的错误非常了解，并且保持高度警惕。当文化潮流试图将科学表述成某种区别于宗教的圣职专权时，科学家们非容易忘记他们是和其他人一样易于腐蚀的朽木，随时有可能危害从事的行业。最狂热的科学教徒是科学实践最大的敌人。 William A. Wilson is a software engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area. 本文作者William A. Wilson 是旧金山湾区的一名软件工程师。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada 捅刀起义的种族优越论根源，一种妄想症 作者:Jeffrey Goldbery @ 2015-10-16 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 一校:Eartha(@王小贰_Eartha) 来源:The Atlantic,www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/the-roots-of-the-palestinian-uprising-against-israel/410944/ Knife attacks on Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere are not based on Palestinian frustration over settlements, but on something deeper. 耶路撒冷及其他地区发生的针对犹太人的持刀攻击，并非出于巴勒斯坦人因以色列定居活动而产生的挫败感，而是存在某些更深层次的原因。 In September of 1928, a group of Jewish residents of Jerusalem placed a bench in front of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, for the comfort of elderly worshipers. They also brought with them a wooden partition, to separate the sexes during prayer. Jerusalem’s Muslim leaders treated the introduction of furniture into the alleyway in front of the Wall as a provocation, part of a Jewish conspiracy to slowly take control of the entire Temple Mount. 1928年9月，耶路撒冷的一群犹太居民为了老年礼拜者的舒适着想，在圣殿山的哭墙前安放了一条长凳，还带去了一张木质隔板用来区隔异性祈祷者。耶路撒冷的穆斯林领袖认为，这种在过道安放家具的行为是挑衅，是犹太人缓图全面掌控圣殿山的阴谋的一部分。 Many of the leaders of Palestine’s Muslims believed—or claimed to believe—that Jews had manufactured a set of historical and theological connections to the Western Wall and to the Mount, the site of the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, in order to advance the Zionist project. 巴勒斯坦的许多穆斯林领袖曾相信——或曾宣称其相信——犹太人捏造了一整套其与哭墙及圣殿山这一阿克萨清真寺和圆顶清真寺所在地之间的历史和神学联系，目的是为了推进犹太复国主义计划。 This belief defied Muslim history—the Dome of the Rock was built by Jerusalem’s Arab conquerors on the site of the Second Jewish Temple in order to venerate its memory (the site had previously been defiled by Jerusalem’s Christian rulers as a kind of rebuke to Judaism, the despised mother religion of Christianity). Jews themselves consider the Mount itself to be the holiest site in their faith. The Western Wall, a large retaining wall from the Second Temple period, is sacred only by proxy. 这一观念完全不顾穆斯林历史——圆顶清真寺是征服耶路撒冷的阿拉伯人为追思先人而在犹太人第二圣殿的旧址上建造的（原址被耶路撒冷的基督教统治者破坏，以谴责犹太教这一遭到鄙视的基督教母宗教）。犹太人自己则视圣殿山为其信仰的至圣之地。哭墙作为第二圣殿时期留存下来的巨大护墙，只是因其象征性才变得神圣。 The spiritual leader of Palestine’s Muslims, the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, incited Arabs in Palestine against their Jewish neighbors by arguing that Islam itself was under threat. (Husseini would later become one of Hitler’s most important Muslim allies.) Jews in British-occupied Palestine responded to Muslim invective by demanding more access to the Wall, sometimes holding demonstrations at the holy site. 巴勒斯坦穆斯林的精神领袖、耶路撒冷的“穆夫提”【译注：教法说明官】Amin al-Husseini认为是伊斯兰本身受到了威胁，以此来煽动巴勒斯坦的阿拉伯人反对他们的犹太邻居（Husseini后来成为希特勒最重要的穆斯林盟友之一）。英国治下的巴勒斯坦犹太人对穆斯林的谩骂进行了回应，要求提高哭墙对他们的开放程度，有时还会在这一圣地举行示威。 By the next year, violence directed against Jews by their neighbors had become more common: Arab rioters took the lives of 133 Jews that summer; British forces killed 116 Arabs in their attempt to subdue the riots. In Hebron, a devastating pogrom was launched against the city’s ancient Jewish community after Muslim officials distributed fabricated photographs of a damaged Dome of the Rock, and spread the rumor that Jews had attacked the shrine. 次年，由其近邻发动的、针对犹太人的暴力变得愈发常见：当年夏天阿拉伯暴徒就夺走了133条犹太人性命，而英国军队则在镇压暴乱的行动中杀死了116名阿拉伯人。在希布伦市，穆斯林官员四处传播圆顶清真寺遭到破坏的虚假照片，并散布谣言说犹太人攻击了这一神殿，随后该市最为古老的犹太人社区遭到了令人震惊的大屠杀。 The current “stabbing Intifada” now taking place in Israel—a quasi-uprising in which young Palestinians have been trying, and occasionally succeeding, to kill Jews with knives—is prompted in good part by the same set of manipulated emotions that sparked the anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s: a deeply felt desire on the part of Palestinians to “protect” the Temple Mount from Jews. 以色列当下正出现一种“刺杀起义”，巴勒斯坦年轻人试图用刀砍杀犹太人，并且偶尔能够成功。这一具有半暴动性质的行动，很大程度上被同一套人为操纵的情绪所推动，正是这种情绪在1920年代点燃了反犹暴乱——即巴勒斯坦人内心深处的想要“保护”圣殿山不被犹太人染指的强烈情感。 When Israel captured the Old City of Jerusalem in June of 1967 in response to a Jordanian attack, the first impulse of some Israelis was to assert Jewish rights atop the Mount. Between 1948, the year Israel achieved independence, and 1967, Jordan, then the occupying power in Jerusalem, banned Jews not only from the 35-acre Mount—which is known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, the noble sanctuary—but also from the Western Wall below. 1967年6月，以色列占领了耶路撒冷古城区域以报复约旦的攻击，部分以色列人的第一反应就是主张犹太人在圣殿山上的权利。在1948年（此年以色列实现独立）至1967年间，耶路撒冷的占领国约旦不但禁止犹太人进入圣殿山周围35英亩范围内——这块区域在穆斯林中以Haram al-Sharif，即“高贵的避难所”著称，而且也禁止他们靠近山下的哭墙。 When paratroopers took the Old City, they raised the Israeli flag atop the Dome of the Rock, but the Israeli defense minister, Moshe Dayan, ordered it taken down, and soon after promised leaders of the Muslim Waqf, the trust that controlled the mosque and the shrine, that Israel would not interfere in its activities. Since then, successive Israeli governments have maintained the status quo established by Dayan. 伞兵控制旧城以后，在圆顶清真寺顶上升起以色列国旗，但以色列国防部长Moshe Dayan命令降旗，随后很快就向穆斯林“瓦克夫”（受托控制清真寺和圣堂的组织）的领袖承诺，以色列不会干涉他们的活动。自此以后，历届以色列政府均对Dayan所立态势萧规曹随。 There is another status quo associated with the Temple Mount, however, that has been showing signs of weakening. This is a religious status quo. The mainstream rabbinical view for many years has been that Jews should not walk atop the Mount for fear of treading on the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Temple that, according to tradition, housed the Ark of the Covenant. The Holy of Holies is the room in which the Jewish high priest spoke the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable name of God, on Yom Kippur. 但是，与圣殿山相关的另一态势则显现出弱化的迹象。这是种宗教态势。多年来，主流的拉比教义观认为犹太人不应该在圣殿山顶行走，以免踩踏了“至圣所”。这是圣殿中一直用于存放有约柜的内部圣所，是犹太大祭司在赎罪日讲述神圣而需避讳的上帝之名“Tetragrammaton”的地方。 The exact location of the Holy of Holies is not known, and Muslim authorities have prevented archeologists from conducting any excavations on the Mount, in part out of fear that such explorations will uncover further evidence of a pre-Islamic Jewish presence. This mainstream rabbinical view concerning the Mount—that it should be the direction of Jewish prayer, rather than a place of Jewish prayer—has made the lives of Jerusalem’s temporal authorities easier, by keeping Muslim and Jewish worshippers separated. “至圣所”的确切所在并不为人所知，而穆斯林当局一直阻止考古学家对圣殿山实施发掘，一部分也是担心此类勘探有可能会发现更多的证据，证明犹太人先于伊斯兰教存在于此。这种主流的拉比教义观认为圣殿山应是犹太信徒祷告时的朝向而非他们应该出现的地方。这让耶路撒冷的世俗政府由此轻松一些，因为穆斯林礼拜者和犹太礼拜者被泾渭分明的隔开了。 In recent years, however, small groups of radical religious innovators who oppose the mainstream rabbinical view have sought to make the Mount, once again, a site of Jewish prayer. (Here is a New York Times Magazine story I wrote about these radical groups.) These activists have gained sympathizers among some far-right political figures in Israel, though the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not altered the separation-of-religions status quo. 然而，近年来，一些反对主流拉比教义观的激进宗教改革者小团体已在寻求将圣殿山重新确定为犹太祷告之地。（我为《纽约时报》所写的一篇文章所论的正是这些激进团体。）这些积极分子已获得以色列某些极右政治人物的同情，尽管总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡领导下的政府仍未改变两种宗教分离的现状。 One of the tragedies of the settlement movement is that it obscures what might be the actual root cause of the Middle East conflict. 定居行动的悲剧之一是它可能模糊了中东冲突的真正起因。 Convincing Palestinians that the Israeli government is not trying to alter the status quo on the Mount has been difficult because many of today’s Palestinian leaders, in the manner of the Palestinian leadership of the 1920s, actively market rumors that the Israeli government is seeking to establish atop the Mount a permanent Jewish presence. 要让巴勒斯坦人相信以色列政府无意改变圣殿山的现状，这一直很困难。因为巴勒斯坦当今的许多领袖采用了1920年代巴勒斯坦领导层的做法，积极地散布谣言，声称以色列政府想要在圣殿山顶建立永久性的犹太人驻地。 The comments of the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas—by general consensus the most moderate leader in the brief history of the Palestinian national movement—have been particularly harsh. Though Abbas has authorized Palestinian security services to work with their Israeli counterparts to combat extremist violence, his rhetoric has inflamed tensions. 巴勒斯坦民族权力机构（自治政府）总统马哈茂德·阿巴斯的评论尤其尖锐。在巴勒斯坦民族主义运动的简短历史中，他已是公认的最温和的领袖。尽管阿巴斯已下令巴勒斯坦安全部门配合以色列的相关部门打击极端主义暴行，他的说辞却是在火上浇油。 “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every martyr will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God,” he said last month, as rumors about the Temple Mount swirled. He went on to say that Jews “have no right to desecrate the mosque with their dirty feet.” 上个月，关于圣殿山的谣言甚嚣尘上之时，他说：“洒在耶路撒冷的每一滴血都是纯洁的，每一个殉难者都将上天堂，每个受伤的人都将得到上帝的奖赏。”他接着说，犹太人“无权用他们的脏脚玷污清真寺。” Taleb Abu Arrar, an Israeli Arab member of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, argued publicly that Jews “desecrate” the Temple Mount by their presence. (Fourteen years ago, Yasser Arafat, then the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, told me that “Jewish authorities are forging history by saying the Temple stood on the Haram al-Sharif. Their temple was somewhere else.”) 以色列议会中的一位阿拉伯议员，Taleb Abu Arrar，公开发表言论说，犹太人的出现就是对圣殿山的“玷污”。（14年前，巴勒斯坦解放组织时任领导人亚瑟·阿拉法特曾告诉我，“犹太当局说圣殿位于‘高贵的避难所’，这是伪造历史。他们的庙在别的地方。”） These sorts of comments, combined with the violence of the past two weeks—including the sacking and burning of a Jewish shrine outside Nablus—suggest a tragic continuity between the 1920s and today. For those who believe not only in the necessity, but in the practical possibility, of an equitable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and in particular, for those who believe that the post-1967 settlement project is the root cause of the conflict—recent events have been sobering. 诸如此类的言论，再结合过去两周发生的暴力活动——包括洗劫和焚烧纳布卢斯市外的一处犹太圣地——表明在1920年代与今日之间存在一种可悲的持续性。对于那些相信巴以冲突不仅必须、而且实践上也能够通过双方平等建国方案来解决的人来说，尤其是认为1967年后的定居点计划才是冲突根源的人，近期的事态发人深省。 One of the tragedies of the settlement movement is that it obscures what might be the actual root cause of the Middle East conflict: the unwillingness of many Muslim Palestinians to accept the notion that Jews are a people who are indigenous to the land Palestinians believe to be exclusively their own, and that the third-holiest site in Islam is also the holiest site of another religion, one whose adherents reject the notion of Muslim supersessionism. 定居行动的悲剧之一是它可能模糊了中东冲突根本原因：许多巴勒斯坦穆斯林不愿意接受一个观念：犹太人是巴勒斯坦人自信为其所独有的土地上的原住民族，且伊斯兰教的第三大圣地同样也是另外一个宗教的至圣之地，而该宗教的信徒拒斥伊斯兰教的取代论。【译注：又称替换神学，是探讨基督教与犹太教和犹太人民关系的一种基督教神学观点，认为基督教徒已取代以色列人成为上帝的子民、新约已取代旧约。（译自wiki词条）】 The status quo on the Temple Mount is prudent and must remain in place. It saves lives, lives fundamentalist Jewish radicals would risk in order to advance their millennial dreams. But it is the byproduct of the intolerance of Jerusalem’s Muslim leadership. 圣殿山的现状是明智的，且必须继续保持。它确实挽救了人命，那些原教旨主义犹太教激进分子为了推进其千禧年之梦而愿意牺牲的人命。但它也是耶路撒冷的穆斯林领导层不宽容政策的副产品。 When violence against Jews occurs inside Israel, or on the West Bank, a consensus tends to be reached quickly by outside analysts and political leaders, one that holds that such violence represents the inevitable consequence of Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory. John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, said in an appearance earlier this week at Harvard that, “What’s happening is that unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody. And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years.” He went on to say, “Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.” 当针对犹太人的暴力发生在以色列内部或约旦河西岸时，外部的分析人士和政治领袖倾向于迅速达成一种共识，认为这些暴力行为是以色列占领并定居于巴勒斯坦领土的必然后果。美国国务卿约翰·克里在本周早些时候出席哈佛的一个公开活动时说：“现状是，除非我们开始采取行动，否则可以预见两国方案将再无可能。而在过去的几年中，定居点已经有了极大的增加。”他接着说：“这些暴力之所以出现是因为挫败感在弥漫，而看不到任何进展的以色列人也很失望。” (On Friday morning, speaking with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Kerry revised and extended his comments, criticizing Abbas—in a passive way — for the violence: “There's no excuse for the violence. ... And the Palestinians need to understand, and President Abbas has been committed to nonviolence. He needs to be condemning this, loudly and clearly. And he needs to not engage in some of the incitement that his voice has sometimes been heard to encourage.”) （周五早上，参加美国国家公共电台Steve Inskeep的节目时，克里对他的前述评论进行了修正和扩展，就发生的暴力活动（以一种消极方式）批评阿巴斯：“暴力没有任何借口……巴勒斯坦人需要明白，阿巴斯总统也承诺了非暴力，他需要就此高调且清楚地谴责这些暴力行为，并且应当避开使用有时被人当作鼓励的煽动言辞”。） Many Palestinians believe that “this is not a conflict between two national movements, but a conflict between one national movement and a colonial and imperialistic entity.” 许多巴勒斯坦人认为，“这并非两个民族运动之间的冲突，而是一个民族运动和另一个殖民和帝国主义实体之间的冲突。” It is sometimes difficult for policymakers such as Kerry, who has devoted so much time and energy to the search for a solution to the Israeli-Arab impasse, to acknowledge the power of a particular Palestinian narrative, one that obviates the possibility of a solution that allows Jews national and religious equality. 如克里这样的政策制定者，由于他们已经为解决以巴冲突僵局付出了太多时间和精力，有时候难以认识到一种特定的巴勒斯坦叙事的力量，这种叙事排除了允许犹太人获得民族和宗教平等的方案可能性。 Writing in Haaretz, the left-center political scientist Shlomo Avineri describes an important disconnect that often goes unnoticed, even in times like these: Many Palestinians believe that “this is not a conflict between two national movements but a conflict between one national movement (the Palestinian) and a colonial and imperialistic entity (Israel).” 在《国土报》上，中左翼的政治学家Shlomo Avineri描述了一个通常不被注意（即便是当下也是如此）的重要断裂。许多巴勒斯坦人相信，“这并非是两个民族运动之间的冲突，而是一个民族运动（巴勒斯坦）和一个殖民和帝国主义实体（以色列）之间的冲突。” He goes on to write, “According to this view, Israel will end like all colonial phenomena—it will perish and disappear. Moreover, according to the Palestinian view, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community, and as such not entitled to national self-determination which is, after all, a universal imperative.” 他接着写道，“根据这种观点，以色列会跟其他所有殖民现象一样，终将走向灭亡。而且，根据巴勒斯坦人的观点，犹太人不是一个民族，而是一个宗教共同体，因此没有民族自决的权利，毕竟这是一条普遍诫规。” Avineri, like most sensible analysts, understands the many and variegated reasons for the continued failure of the peace process: 跟绝大多数明智的分析家一样，Avineri认识到了和平进程不断失败的原因众多而繁杂：

[M]utual distrust between the two populations, internal pressures from the rejectionists on both sides, Yasser Arafat’s repeated deceptions, the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the electoral victories of Likud in Israeli elections, Palestinian terrorism, continuing Israeli settlement activities in the territories, the bloody rift between Fatah and Hamas, American presidents who did too little (George W. Bush) or too much and in a wrong way (Barack Obama), the political weakness of Mahmoud Abbas, governments headed by Netanyahu that did everything possible to undermine effective negotiations. All this is true, and everyone picks and chooses what fits their views and interests—but beyond all these lies a fundamental difference in the terms in which each side views the conflict, a difference many tend or choose to overlook. “两个群体之间的互不信任，双方抵制派所造成的内部压力，亚瑟·阿拉法特反复无常的欺诈，对伊扎克·拉宾总理的谋杀，利库德集团在以色利选举中的胜利，巴勒斯坦恐怖主义，以色列在该地区持续不断的定居活动，法塔赫和哈马斯之间的血腥纷争，美国总统的无所作为（乔治·W·布什）抑或在错误的方向上做得太多（巴拉克·奥巴马），马哈茂德·阿巴斯的政治软弱，内塔尼亚胡为首的政府干尽了一切有可能破坏有效和谈的事。这些都是对的，每个人都能从中挑选出与合于自身观点和利益的原因——但在此之外，还存在一个易被人忽略的因素，即双方看待这一冲突的角度存在根本性的差别。”

The violence of the past two weeks, encouraged by purveyors of rumors who now have both Israeli and Palestinian blood on their hands, is rooted not in Israeli settlement policy, but in a worldview that dismisses the national and religious rights of Jews. There will not be peace between Israelis and Palestinians so long as parties on both sides of the conflict continue to deny the national and religious rights of the other. 过去两周发生的暴力活动受到了谣言散布者的鼓动，他们的手上现已沾满了以色列人还有巴勒斯坦人的鲜血。这种暴力并非根源于以色列的定居政策，而是源于一种拒绝承认犹太人享有民族和宗教权利的世界观。只要冲突双方继续否定彼此的民族和宗教权利，以色列人和巴勒斯坦人之间就不会出现和平。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——