【2018-05-16】 决定某一时代某社会之学术活动整体面貌的首要因素是，最具天赋的万分之一人口，都被吸引到哪些学科去了，更一般而言，决定某一社会之文化面貌的首要因素是，最具天赋的万分之一人口，都被吸引到哪些领域的智力活动中去了。 【2020-06-14】 隐约感觉，各学科之间的发展可能存在某些联动关系，比如：1）一些对智力要求极高的学科，比如理论物理，若遭遇平台期，看不到取得卓著成就的前景，就会提升其他学科产生巨匠的机会，2）某些产业的一时兴旺，会将大批高人吸引到该产业和相关学科，比如金融证券业，所以当这些产业出现一段较长的萧条期时，可能也会产生类似效果。总之，虽然全球人口已70多亿，可是像冯诺伊曼这样的高人，每代也不会有多少，所以这些人的流向就是个很重要的因素。不知道有没有相关研究。

【2018-02-28】 别的不说，引入定量方法至少可以把大批文青从一个学科里清除出去……近年来读的人类学著作中靠谱的比例越来越高，甚至历史学也是，这当然离不开新达尔文主义的持续渗透，但新统计学工具和定量方法的大量运用显然也起了很大作用，让四则运算都头疼的文青弄明白什么叫百分位、标准差、基尼系数、Herfindahl系数、p值、贝叶斯推断……确实勉为其难了。 没有啊，我挺喜欢文青的，只要你们专心于文艺、风月、酒肉，别那么努力的研究哲学或社会科学就好～ //@Hurrygigi: 大伯这么不待见我们文青[傻眼]

【2018-02-24】 @innesfry: 在二战之前，医学跟巫术几乎没有太大区别。医生杀死的人恐怕比救活的还多。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 库克船长的柠檬，Pelletier的奎宁， Lister的消毒剂，伦敦的抗霍乱，洛克菲勒的事业……都远在二战之前 //@whigzhou: Cochran大叔懂得很多，知道的也很多，但也不能全信，他在这件事情上说的太过头了，随便想几个例子就会发现不对劲。 @whigzhou: 这些例子都是以明确的知识积累为基础，不是瞎蒙瞎撞的结果 @whigzhou: 科学方法论的改进->医学理论改进->知识积累->医疗卫生措施的进步->有效措施的普及->医疗效果的统计表现，这是一条漫长的因果链（其实当然不完全是链状的），以某一时期『医生杀死的人比救活的多』（即便这是真的）而断言该时期的医学跟巫术差不多，是不对的，西方医学至少在18世纪已经步入持续积累和改进的轨道，可是将知识变成有效措施，表现效果，建立声誉，从江湖庸医手中夺过市场，每个环节都需要大量时间。 @whigzhou: Johann Bachstrom医生在1734年就明确提出绿色蔬菜缺乏与坏血病的关系，James Lind在1747年通过控制性实验加以证实，1768年库克船长规定其船员必须吃蔬菜和Lind的补充剂，又过了一代人时间，库克船长的做法才被大英海军全面采纳，海军的订单甚至导致了西西里柑橘业的大繁荣，这个过程却是很漫长，但绝对不是巫术。 @whigzhou: 1726年皇家爱丁堡医学院成立，1737年皇家医学会成立，这一时期可视为现代医学步入正轨的开端，下面几张图表摘自Andrew Hinde: England's Population, 2003，可一窥此后两个世纪我大英的医疗成就。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 这里还有两个数字，摘自Andrea A. Rusnock: Vital Accounts, 2002， 1）伦敦每10年死于痢疾的人数从1700-10年的1070线性下降到1790-1800年的20， 2）British Lying-In Hospital的产妇死亡率从1749-1758年的1/42线性下降到1799-1800年的1/938。

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——

RECKONING WITH THE PAST 和过去做个了结 作者:MICHAEL INZLICHT @ 2016-02-29 译者:龟海海(@龟海海) 校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 来源:MICHAEL INZLICHT的博客,http://michaelinzlicht.com/getting-better/2016/2/29/reckoning-with-the-past Sometimes I wonder if I should be fixing myself more to drink. 有时候我辗转反侧，不知是否该借酒消愁。 No, this is not going to be an optimistic post. 没错，这不是一篇鸡汤文。 If you want bubbles and sunshine, please see my friend Simine Vazire’s post on why she is feeling optimistic about things. If you want nuance and balance, see my co-moderator Alison Ledgerwood’s new blog*. Instead, if you will allow me, I want to wallow. 如果你想要泡沫和阳光，我朋友Simine Vazire的文章会告诉你为什么她如此积极乐观。如果你想要情绪间的微妙平衡，看我同僚Alison Ledgerwood的新博客。而我，只想好好吐槽一番。 I have so many feelings about the situation we’re in, and sometimes the weight of it all breaks my heart. I know I’m being intemperate, not thinking clearly, but I feel that it is only when we feel badly, when we acknowledge and, yes, grieve for yesterday, that we can allow for a better tomorrow. I want a better tomorrow, I want social psychology to change. But, the only way we can really change is if we reckon with our past, coming clean that we erred; and erred badly. 我对我们现在的处境有太多的感触，这有时沉重得让我心力交瘁。我知道我失去了自控，头脑不清楚。但我觉得只有当我们直面昨日，为昨日沉痛伤感，才能拥有美好的明天。我渴望美好的明天，我希望社会心理学能改变。但是，唯一能使我们真正改变的是和过去做个了结，坦白过去所犯的严重错误。 To be clear: I am in love with social psychology. I am writing here because I am still in love with social psychology. Yet, I am dismayed that so many of us are dismissing or justifying all those small (and not so small) signs that things are just not right, that things are not what they seem. “Carry-on, folks, nothing to see here,” is what some of us seem to be saying. 首先声明：我热爱社会心理学。我在这儿码字就是因为我依然爱它。然而，让我感到泄气的是，尽管很多微小（其实并非如此微小）的迹象表明情况不妙且另有隐情，我们之中许多人却对所有这些迹象视而不见或想出种种理由开脱。“继续，伙计，这儿没啥好看的，”我们中有些人似乎在这么说着。 Our problems are not small and they will not be remedied by small fixes. Our problems are systemic and they are at the core of how we conduct our science. My eyes were first opened to this possibility when I read Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn’s paper during what seems like a different, more innocent time. 我们的问题不小，想轻易补救谈何容易。我们的问题是系统性的，而且密切关系到我们如何进行科研。我起初发现有可能出了问题是在我读了 Simmons, Nelson, 和Simonsohn合著的论文之后，那时情况看起来和如今还有所不同，还是一个更纯真的年代。【编注：该论文发表于2011年】 This paper details how small, seemingly innocuous, and previously encouraged data-analysis decisions could allow for anything to be presented as statistically significant. That is, flexibility in data collection and analysis could make even impossible effects seem possible and significant. 这篇论文详细阐述了那些之前受鼓励的微小且看似无害的数据分析是如何让事物呈现出统计意义的。那就是，灵活的数据收集和分析可以让那些实际不可能的作用变得可能并且显著。 What is worse, Andrew Gelman made clear that a researcher need not actively p-hack their data to reach erroneous conclusions. It turns out such biases in data analyses might not be conscious, that researchers might not even be aware of how their data-contingent decisions are warping the conclusions they reach. This is flat-out scary: Even honest researchers with the highest of integrity might be reaching erroneous conclusions at an alarming rate. 更糟的是，研究者无需主动挖掘数据就能得到错误的结论，这点被Andrew Gelman解释得很清楚。事实是，研究者在数据分析中的偏见可能不是有意识的，他们甚至没有意识到自己依据数据做出的决定正在歪曲他们最终得到的结论。这可怕至极：即使最诚实，最正直的研究者也有可能以高得吓人的几率得出错误的结论。 Third, is the problem of publication bias. As a field, we tend only to publish significant results. This could be because as authors we choose to focus on these; or, more likely, because reviewers, editors, and journals force us to focus on these and to ignore nulls. 接下来还有发表过程中的偏见。在特定领域中，我们只倾向于发表具有显著意义的结果。这可能是由于作为作者我们选择把注意力放在这些结果上；或者，更可能的是，因为审稿人，编辑和期刊迫使我们把注意力放在具有显著意义的结果上，而忽略那些零结果的研究。 This creates the infamous file drawer that altogether warps the research landscape. Because it is unclear how large the file drawer is for any research literature, it is hard to determine how large or small any effect is, if it exists at all. 这就导致了臭名昭著的＂文件抽屉＂问题（即发表偏见问题），最终歪曲了整个研究领域的形态。由于对任何研究文献我们无法知道其中的“文件抽屉”有多大，我们很难确定该问题所产生的某种影响有多大，假如该影响确实存在的话。 I think these three ideas—that data flexibility can lead to a raft of false positives, that this process might occur without researchers themselves being aware, and the unknown size of the file drawer—explains why so many of our cherished results can’t replicate. These three ideas suggest we might have been fooling ourselves into thinking we were chasing things that are real and robust, when we were pursuing neither. 我认为以上三点——数据的灵活性可能导致大量错误结论，且这一过程可能在研究人员不经意间发生，以及“文件抽屉”尺寸大小的不明——很好地解释了为什么众多我们所珍视的研究成果无法被重复。这三点表明我们可能一直以来自欺欺人以为自己在探求真实且坚实的结果，而事实上我们所追求的既不真实也不坚实。 As someone who has been doing research for nearly twenty years, I now can’t help but wonder if the topics I chose to study are in fact real and robust. Have I been chasing puffs of smoke for all these years? 作为一个做了近20年研究的人，我忍不住怀疑过往研究的课题是否有确凿的依据立论。这些年来我致力探求的是否只是海市蜃楼？ I have spent nearly a decade working on the concept of ego depletion, including work that is critical of the model used to explain the phenomenon. I have been rewarded for this work, and I am convinced that the main reason I get any invitations to speak at colloquia and brown-bags these days is because of this work. 我曾用将近十年的时间来研究“自我耗尽”的概念，包括对解释该现象的模型至关重要的一些工作。我因此项研究获奖，同时我确信现在我之所以能受邀在众多学术讨论会发言并白吃白喝都是因为此项研究。 The problem is that ego depletion might not even be a thing. By now, many people are aware that a massive replication attempt of the basic ego depletion effect involving over 2,000 participants found nothing, nada, zip. Only three of the 24 participating labs found a significant effect, but even then, one of these found a significant result in the wrong direction! 问题在于，“自我耗尽”这个概念可能根本就不存在。时至今日，许多人都知道一项由两千余人参加的试图重复“自我耗尽”效应的大规模研究最终什么都没发现，一片空白。二十四个参与研究的实验室中只有三个发现显著的效应，但即使这样，其中一个发现的显著效应竟然是反向的！ There is a lot more to this registered replication than the main headline, and there is still so much evidence indicating fatigue is a real phenomenon. I promise to get to these thoughts in a later post, once the paper is finally published. But for now, we are left with a sobering question: If a large sample pre-registered study found absolutely nothing, how has the ego depletion effect been replicated and extended hundreds and hundreds of times? More sobering still: What other phenomena, which we now consider obviously real and true, will be revealed to be just as fragile? 此次记录在案的重复性研究留下的不仅仅是一个标题，同时，还有大量的证据表明“疲劳”是真实存在的现象。我承诺一旦我的论文最终发表，我会在之后的博客文章中加以阐述。但现在，令人警醒的问题则是：如果此前大量的研究毫无斩获，那么“自我耗尽”的效应是如何成千上万次地被复制并延伸的呢？更令人警醒的：其它那些我们认为真实无疑的现象，又会不会同样经不起检验呢？ As I said, I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not. 如我所说，我身处黑暗之地。我感觉似乎脚下的土地都在移动，而我已经辨不清真实和虚假了。 I edited an entire book on stereotype threat, I have signed my name to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States citing stereotype threat, yet now I am not as certain as I once was about the robustness of the effect. I feel like a traitor for having just written that; like, I’ve disrespected my parents, a no no according to Commandment number 5. 之前我编辑了《刻板印象的威胁》一书，我还签署了一份美国最高法院的法庭陈述并引用了《刻板印象的威胁》，但如今我对该效应的确凿程度却不如过去那样坚定。写下这些文字，让我觉得自己像个叛徒。这感觉如同我对父母大不敬，触犯了十戒第五条。 But, a meta-analysis published just last year suggests that stereotype threat, at least for some populations and under some conditions, might not be so robust after all. P-curving some of the original papers is also not comforting. 但是，去年一项“元分析”（对以往的研究结果进行系统的定量分析）的研究表明，”刻板印象威胁”在一些特定条件下对于一些特定人群可能并不适用，此外对一些原始论文作p值统计曲线的结果同样不让人放心。 Now, stereotype threat is a politically charged topic and there is a lot of evidence supporting it. That said, I think a lot more pain-staking work needs to be done on basic replications, and until then, I would be lying if I said that doubts have not crept in. Rumor has it that a RRR of stereotype threat is in the works. 如今，“刻板印象威胁”是一个政治上受攻击的话题，也受很多有力证据的支持。在这样的情况下，我认为在基础的重复性研究上还有更多艰苦的工作需要做，在这之前，我若说对该效应没有疑问那肯定是在撒谎。有传言称，在之前的很多关于“刻板印象的威胁”的工作中存在着危险信号。 To be fair, this is not social psychology’s problem alone. Many other allied areas in psychology might be similarly fraught and I look forward to these other areas scrutinizing their own work—areas like developmental, clinical, industrial/organizational, consumer behavior, organizational behavior, and so on, need an RPP project or Many Labs of their own. Other areas of science face similar problems too. 公正地说，不止是社会心理学领域存在此问题。心理学中的许多其它类似领域可能同样受影响，我希望这些领域中的研究工作被仔细检验，如进化的、临床的、产业的/组织的、消费行为的、组织行为的心理学等等，都需要一个研究参与池项目【译注：RPP，Research Participation Pool，是一个协调管理研究参与对象的项目】或者“多重实验室”项目【译注：多重实验室项目，Many Labs Project是一个旨在对心理科学多种效应进行可重复性验证的项目】。其他领域的科学研究同样面临类似问题。 During my dark moments, I feel like social psychology needs a redo, a fresh start. Where to begin, though? What am I mostly certain about and where can my skepticism end? I feel like there are legitimate things we have learned, but how do we separate wheat from chaff? Do we need to go back and meticulously replicate everything in the past? Or do we use those bias tests Joe Hilgard is so sick and tired of to point us in the right direction? What should I stop teaching to my undergraduates? I don’t have answers to any of these questions. 在我消沉的这段时间，我觉着社会心理学需要推倒重建，从头来过。那么，从哪儿开始？对于哪些事我能确信不疑？在哪里我能平息我的疑惑？我认为我们学到了一些合理的东西，但如何区分成果和糟粕呢？我们是否需要回去并且一丝不苟地重复过去所有的事情呢？或者我们是否该使用Joe Hilgard厌恶至极的偏见测试来指明方向？哪些东西是我不该教授给本科生的？对所有这些问题我都没有答案。 This blogpost is not going to end on a sunny note. Our problems are real and they run deep. Okay, I do have some hope: I legitimately think our problems are solvable. I think the calls for more statistical power, greater transparency surrounding null results, and more confirmatory studies can save us. What is not helping is the lack of acknowledgement about the severity of our problems. What is not helping is a reluctance to dig into our past and ask what needs revisiting. 本篇博文注定不会有个阳光的结局。我们的问题是真切的，而且深入。好吧，我确实有几点期望：我有理由相信我们的问题是有解的。我认为更多数据支撑，对零结果研究更透明的运作，更多证实性的研究，这些可以解救我们于目前的困境。而帮倒忙的则是：缺乏对问题严重性的认知，不愿意挖掘探究我们的过去并且不愿拷问哪里出了问题。 Time is nigh to reckon with our past. Our future just might depend on it. 时候不早了，是该和我们的过去做个了结了。或许，我们的未来还指望着它呢。

········

*In case you haven’t heard, Alison started a wonderful Facebook discussion group that I have the privilege of co-moderating. If you’re tired of bickering and incivility, but still want a place to discuss ideas, PsychMAP just might be for for you. 再次安利一下，Alison开了一个非常不错的脸书讨论组，我也有幸在其中参与共同主持。如果你厌倦了互撕，但仍想找个地方抒发讨论，PsychMAP可能恰好就适合你。 （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——

Schizophrenia: No Smoking Gun 精神分裂症：缺乏“冒烟”的确凿证据 作者：Scott Alexander @ 2016-01-11 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：Slate Star Codex，http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/ [Note: despite how some people are spinning this, tobacco is still really really bad and you should not smoke it] 【请注意：尽管许多人言之凿凿，但烟草真的真的还是很不好，不应该抽烟。】 I. Schizophrenics smoke. A lot. Depending on the study, about 60-80% of schizophrenics smoke, compared to only about 20% of the general population. And they spend on average about 27% (!) of their income on cigarettes. Even allowing that schizophrenics don’t make much income, that’s a lot of money. Sure, schizophrenics are often poor and undereducated and have other risk factors for smoking – but even after you control for this, the effect is still pretty strong. 精神分裂症患者抽烟，而且很多。根据某项研究，大约60%至80%的精神分裂症患者会抽烟，与之相比，总人口中只有约20%。而且，他们在烟草上的花费大约占到其收入的27%（！）。即便考虑到精神分裂症患者收入不高，这也是一大笔钱。无疑，精神分裂症患者通常都很穷、受教育程度不高，并且还有其他导致其吸烟的风险因素，但即便把所有这些都加以控制，精神分裂症与抽烟之间的统计关系还是很强。 Various people have come up with various explanations. Cognitively-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke as a maladaptive coping strategy for the anxiety caused by their condition. Pharmacologically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because smoking accelerates the metabolism of antipsychotic drugs and so makes their side effects go away faster. Pragmatically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because they’re stuck in institutions with nothing to do all day. No points for guessing what the Freudians say. 许多人已经为此提出过许多各种解释。关注认知的人说，精神分裂症患者抽烟，是对该疾病所致焦虑的不良应对策略。关注药理的人会说，他们抽烟是因为抽烟会加快抗精神病药物的代谢，从而能够促使其副作用更快消失。更为务实的人会说，他们抽烟是因为他们被困在了整日无所事事的社会福利机构里面。猜测弗洛伊德主义者的说法就没必要了。 But all these theories have problems. Sure, schizophrenics are often institutionalized, but even the ones at home smoke a lot. Sure, some schizophrenics are often on antipsychotics, but even the ones who aren’t on meds smoke a lot. Sure, schizophrenics are anxious, but we don’t see people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder having 80% smoking rates. 但所有这些理论都存在问题。毫无疑问，精神分裂症患者通常都被社会福利机构收容，但即便是那些散居在家的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问，有些精神分裂症患者经常服用抗精神病药，但即便是那些不服药的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问，精神分裂症患者很焦虑，但我们并没有在患有广泛性焦虑障碍的人群中看到80%的吸烟率。 As usual, I’m more biologically-minded, so I find it interesting that some of the genes that most commonly turn up as linked to schizophrenia – especially CHRNA3, CHRNA5, and CHRNA7 – are in nicotine receptors. Indeed, some of them are also the genes identified as risk factors for smoking. 我素来更倾向从生物学方面考虑，所以我发现了一个有趣之处，那就是部分最经常被与精神分裂症联系在一起的基因，特别是CHRNA3、CHRNA5和CHRNA7，都能在尼古丁受体上找到。 Further, there’s a lot of evidence that schizophrenic people actually feel better and have fewer symptoms when they’re smoking. Further, schizophrenics tend to gravitate toward cigarettes with higher nicotine content, and smoke them in ways that maximize nicotine absorption. 实际上，部分此类基因同时也被确认为影响吸烟的风险因素。此外，大量证据表明，精神分裂症患者在吸烟时确实会更加舒坦、更少症状。此外，精神分裂症患者一般会较喜欢尼古丁含量更高的烟草，而且吸烟时会设法尽量吸收更多的尼古丁。 It seems like part of the problem with schizophrenia is that the brain’s nicotine system isn’t working well. Smoking supplements nicotine and makes the system run smoother, so schizophrenics feel better when they smoke and continue to do so. This is the widely accepted self-medication hypothesis. 精神分裂症的问题似乎部分在于患者大脑的尼古丁系统运转不良。吸烟能够补充尼古丁，从而让这一系统运转更加顺畅，所以精神分裂症患者在吸烟时会感觉更加良好，并且乐此不疲。这就是受到广泛认同的“自发用药假说”。 I like this because it’s a really elegant example of…I don’t know what you’d call it…memetic evolution? Nobody knew that nicotine helped schizophrenia, nobody told the schizophrenics that, but they sort of naturally gravitated to an effective treatment for their condition by going in the direction of things that make them feel better, even going so far as to unknowingly gravitate toward cigarette brands with more nicotine. 我喜欢这一假说，因为它真是模因进化（我不知道你们如何称呼它）的一个极好例证。原先并没人知道尼古丁有助于缓解精神分裂症，没人这么告诉患者，但他们通过追随让他们感觉良好的事物，可以说是自然地找到了有效的治疗方法，甚至不自觉地偏爱尼古丁含量更高的烟草品牌。 They did all of this before psychiatry had any idea why they were doing it, and in the face of constant protests that it was stupid and useless. This should be a warning to anyone who’s too quick to tell patients that their coping strategies are maladaptive. 早在精神病学对其做法之缘由有任何了解之前，他们就已经在这么做了，尽管当时人们一直批评这种做法既愚蠢又无用。有些人会过于仓促地认为患者的应对策略调整不佳，上述事实应当能让这些人引以为戒。 But there’s a much more important question here: does smoking cause schizophrenia? How about prevent it? 但此处还有一个更为重要的问题：吸烟会导致精神分裂症吗？又会不会防止精神分裂症呢？ II. First, the causation argument. Gurillo et al do a meta-analysis and conclude that “daily tobacco use is associated with increased risk of psychosis and an earlier age of onset of psychotic illness. The possibility of a causal link between tobacco use and psychosis merits further examination”. That is, schizophrenics are already smoking much more at the moment their schizophrenia starts. This suggests that maybe smoking is helping to cause the schizophrenia? 首先来看因果论证。Gurillo等人做了一个荟萃分析，得出结论认为：“每日使用烟草与精神病风险的增加和精神疾病发病年龄的提早均有关。烟草使用和精神病之间存在因果关系的可能性还需要进一步研究。”也就是说，精神分裂症患者在初次发病时就已经在大量抽烟了。这是否意味着吸烟有可能增加患精神分裂症的风险？ All nice and well, except for a few things. First, this study ignores the possibility that the genes that cause schizophrenia might also cause increased smoking, even though we have some evidence that this is true (actually, it doesn’t ignore this, it mentions it, but uses it as a reason why a schizophrenia-smoking link is more plausible). 听上去很好，就是有一点点问题。首先，该研究忽略了一种可能性，即导致精神分裂症的基因可能也会导致烟瘾增加，而我们在这方面有一些证据。（实际上该研究并没有忽略这种可能性，而是有所提及，但只是把它作为精神分裂症与吸烟有关联这一说法更可信的理由）。 Second, we know that people who will later develop schizophrenia are seen as kind of odd even before they come down with the disease, and it’s possible that they’re already in some unusual brain state that smoking helps relieve. Third, this study is not controlled – meaning that we’re totally helpless before factors like “people destined to later develop schizophrenia are often poor, and poor people smoke more”. 第二，我们知道，有些后来得了精神分裂症的人早在得病之前就看起来似乎有点奇怪，可能那时候他们的大脑就已经处于某种不正常状态，而吸烟能帮助缓解这种状况。第三，该项研究没有进行对照控制，也就是说如果把某些因素考虑进去，比如“后来注定会得精神分裂症的人通常很穷，而穷人通常抽烟更多”等，我们就无力回答。 And fourth, another study shows exactly the opposite. 还有，第四，另一项研究有完全相反的发现。 Zammit et al (thanks to @allfeelsallthetime for the tip) looks at 50,000 teenage Swedish conscripts, then follows them throughout their lives to see which ones do or don’t get schizophrenia. They find that without adjusting for confounders, smokers are more likely to get schizophrenia. Zammit等人（感谢网友@allfeesallthetime提示）选取了50000个应征入伍的瑞典青少年，然后终身追踪他们，观察哪些会得精神分裂症，哪些不会。他们发现，如果不就混杂因子【编注：混杂因子是指同时导致A与B两个因子，从而使得A与B表现出相关性的因子。】作出调整，吸烟者便看起来更可能得精神分裂症。 But when you do adjust for confounders, smokers are less likely to get schizophrenia, (hazard ratio 0.8, p = 0.003) and heavy smokers are much less likely to get schizophrenia (hazard ratio 0.5)! A dose-dependent relationship was found between smoking and protection from schizophrenia. This is really interesting. 但如果你就混杂因子作了调整，吸烟者得精神分裂症的可能性相对就会较低（风险比为0.8，p=0.003），而重度嗜烟者患精神分裂症的可能性相对而言非常低（风险比为0.5）！在吸烟与避免精神分裂症之间居然找出了这种与剂量相关的关系，真是非常有意思。 Why do we find such different results from these two studies? The only explanation I can think of is that the second study controls for various factors including cannabis use, personality variables, IQ, past psychiatric diagnoses, and place of upbringing (thanks @su3su2u1 for the tip) and the first study controls for zilch. 为什么两项研究会得出如此不同的结论？我能想到的唯一解释就是，第二项研究对照控制了许多不同因素，包括吸食大麻、个性差异、智商、既往精神病诊断史、成长地点等（感谢网友@su3su2u1提示），而第一项研究没做任何控制。 In fact, we find that the second study’s uncontrolled numbers are not that different from the first study’s uncontrolled numbers, and that the only difference is that the second study then went on to control for confounders and get the opposite result. Controlling for more things is not always better, but controlling for a few things that previous studies and common sense suggest are very relevant is pretty superior to just leaving the data entirely unprocessed. Advantage very much second study. 实际上，我们发现第二项研究中未进行控制的因子数目跟第一项研究中未进行控制的因子数目没有多大出入，两者唯一的差别就是第二项研究进一步控制了混杂因子，然后就得出了相反的结论。控制的因子并不总是越多越好，但对此前研究和基本常识都认为，对非常相关的一些事项进行控制，比对数据完全不加任何处理的做法要好得多。第二项研究因而拥有压倒优势。 III. Unlike certain people on Facebook, I fucking hate science. Let me explain why. 跟Facebook上的某些人不同，我真他妈讨厌科学。让我来解释解释。 The first study here, Gurillo et al, was published ten years after the second study. Since it is a meta-analysis, it included the second study in it. The authors of the first study definitely read the second study. They just didn’t care. 此处提到的Gurillo等人所做的第一项研究，发表于第二项研究完成后的10年之后。由于它是一个荟萃分析，所以它的对象包括了第二项研究。该研究的作者们必定读过第二项研究。他们只是毫不在乎。 Nowhere in the first study does it say “By the way, we read this other study that got the opposite results from us, let’s try to figure out why, oh, it was because they controlled for things and we didn’t, maybe that should call our findings into question.” 第一项研究从未在任何地方说过：“此外，我们读到了另外一项研究，其结论与我们的正相对立；我们来看看原因是什么，哦，原来是因为他们对一些事项进行了控制而我们没有，这也许会对我们的发现构成质疑。” You know what they did do? They listed the second study as finding that smoking increased schizophrenia risk, because the rules of their meta-analysis said they would only take uncontrolled data, and so they did. You can read this entire study, which cites the second study no fewer than six times, without hearing at all about the fact that the second study got the opposite result using likely better methodology. 你知道他们实际干了什么吗？他们将第二项研究列为吸烟增加精神分裂症患病风险的发现之一，因为他们做荟萃分析的一项原则是只采用未控制的数据，他们也真是这么做的。你们可以读读其全文，它引用第二项研究不下六次，但在任何地方你都看不到它提及第二项研究利用可能更好的方法得出了完全相反的结论这一事实。 Then they go on to conclude that: 然后，他们在结论中说：

Cigarette smoking might be a hitherto neglected modifiable risk factor for psychosis, but confounding and reverse causality are possible. Notwithstanding, in view of the clear benefits of smoking cessation programs in this population, every effort should be made to implement change in smoking habits in this group of patients. 吸烟可能是引发精神病的可改造风险因素之一，这一点迄今为止一直为人所忽略。但是，混杂偏差和反向因果关系也有可能存在。尽管如此，考虑到在这一人群中实施戒烟计划的明显好处，我们应该全面努力，促使这一病患群体改变吸烟习惯。

Clear benefits! Every effort! Aaaaaaah! 明显好处！全面努力！啊哈哈哈哈！ I mean, I know where they (and the Lancet editors, who write a glowing comment backing them up) are coming from. Smoking is bad because lung cancer, COPD, etc. But now we have these things called e-cigarettes! They deliver nicotine without tobacco! As far as anyone knows they carry vastly less risk of cancer, COPD, etc. If nicotine actually prevents schizophrenia rather than causing it, that is the sort of thing we should really want to know. And instead we’re just getting this “We should make schizophrenia patients stop smoking, because smoking is bad”. 我说，我知道他们（以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们，他们写了篇热情洋溢的评论支持前者）的出发点在哪儿。吸烟不好，因为会导致肺癌、慢性阻塞性肺炎等等。但我们现在已经有了所谓的电子烟！它们无需烟草就能提供尼古丁。如果尼古丁确实会预防而不是导致精神分裂症，这种事应该是我们确实想要明白知晓的。但是，我们听到的却是这样一些话：“我们应该让精神分裂症患者停止抽烟，因为抽烟不好。” Look. I am not going to come out and say that there’s great evidence that nicotine decreases schizophrenia risk. There’s one study, which other studies contradict. I happen to think that the one study looks better than its competitors, but that’s my opinion and I have nowhere near the evidence I would need to feel really strongly about this. 注意，我不是跳出来说有很强的证据表明尼古丁有助于减少精神分裂症患病风险。有一项研究这么说，还有许多研究跟它有抵触。我只是凑巧觉得，这项研究似乎比其他研究做得更好，当然这只是我的个人看法，要说我对这一想法的信念有多强烈，那根本还缺乏必要的证据支持。 But I feel like we are very far from the point where we know enough to be pushing people at risk of schizophrenia away from nicotine, and light-years away from the point where we can use phrases like “clear benefits”. 但是，我也认为，要说我们已经具备了足够的知识，以催促有精神分裂症患病风险的人远离尼古丁，那我们现在还差得远；要说使用“明显好处”一类的说法，那我们还差着很多光年。 Possibly I am an idiot and missing something very important. But if this is true, I wish the authors of the new study, and the editors of The Lancet, would have acknowledged the existence of the conflicting study and patiently explained to their readership, many of whom are idiots like myself, “Here’s a study that looks better than ours that seems to contradict our results, but here’s why our study is nevertheless far more believable.” That’s all I ask. 也许我是个笨蛋，忽略了一些非常重要的事情。但如果真是如此，我就希望上述新研究的作者们，以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们，能够承认与他们有相互冲突的研究存在，并能耐心地向读者们解释，因为许多读者跟我一样是笨蛋。“有项研究看起来比我们做得好，结论与我们的相反，但我们的研究仍然更可信，理由如下。”这才是我希望看到的。 No matter how much of an idiot I am, I can’t possibly imagine how that wouldn’t be a straight-out gain. 不管我有多么傻，我也根本无法想象，这么做怎么会不是一件彻头彻尾的好事。 PS: Cigarette smoking definitely decreases your risk of Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s is similar to schizophrenia in that both involve dopamine. But schizophrenia involves too much dopamine and Parkinson’s too little, so the analogy could go either direction. 附：吸烟绝对会减少你患帕金森症的风险。帕金森症跟精神分裂症有些类似，两者都涉及到多巴胺。只是，精神分裂症是多巴胺过多，而帕金森症则是过少，所以该类比可以指向两个方向。【译注：即吸烟可能会减低，也可能会增加精神分裂症的风险。】 PPS: Tobacco smoking is definitely still bad! Nothing in here at all suggests that tobacco smoking has the slightest chance of not being a terrible decision! 又附：吸烟仍然绝对有害！本文没有任何地方说吸烟有可能不是个糟糕的决定，没门。 （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——

【2016-07-25】 @whigzhou: 以统计学方法为主导的研究有个问题是，容易让人忽视一些有着根本重要性但又缺乏统计差异的因素，比如身高，在一个儿童营养条件普遍得到保障的社会，研究者可能会得出『营养不是影响身高的重要因素』的结论，并且这一结论可能在很多年中都经受住了考验，直到有一天，某一人群经历了一次严重营养不良…… @whigzhou: 在可控实验中，此类问题可以通过对营养条件这一参数施加干预而得以避免，但社会科学领域常常不具备对参数进行任意干预的条件，只能用统计学方法来模拟可控实验，可是当某些变量的采样值缺乏多样性时，这一模拟便无法进行，于是便留下了盲点。 @whigzhou: 近年来有很多针对国别的政治学研究，量化了很多指标，统计学工具也用的挺熟练，但我总有种感觉，一些基本背景条件似乎没有得到足够关注，比如拿破仑战争之后各国政治的一个基本背景是英帝或美帝的存在，这一条件如此普遍而牢固乃至观察不到差异，一旦消除，会动摇多少结论呢？ @whigzhou: 让问题变得更棘手的是那些存在足够大差异但『边际影响率从某个阈值开始骤减』的变量，比如钙摄入量与身高的关系，在『从零到适宜值』这个区间，钙摄入对身高影响显著，而从适宜值往上，边际影响率急减，几乎没影响，此时更容易得出错误结论。 @慕容飞宇gg: 是。类似的各种公立学校和私立学校的比较也存在类似问题，现有的结论都只适用于现在90%的学生上公立学校的基本背景。对李伯儒主导的学界来说这个基本背景是理所当然的。 @whigzhou: 嗯 @whigzhou: 我们经常听到诸如『某一特性差异60%归因于基因，40%归于环境』之类的说法，仿佛这一归因比例是某个固有值似的，而实际上，这些比例当然高度依赖于目标人群的生存条件，你把一个群体的铅污染全部消除，智力的环境影响『比重』立马就降低了。 @whigzhou: Taleb的《黑天鹅》想要谈论的就是这个主题，可是他太笨了，写了厚厚一本看起来很哲学的砖头书，结果也没说清楚。  

【2016-05-21】 @深大-子豪:辉总，冒昧问句，能否略微点评一下《无穷的开始：世界进步的本源》这本书？打扰了。 @whigzhou: 没读过，看了看介绍，感觉我不会有兴趣，这个人的念头听起来挺幼稚的 @whigzhou: 【不懂量子力学，我就随便嘀咕几句】1）多重世界，多么偷懒而幼稚的一张膏药啊，2）Deutsch对波普证伪主义的解读，好像还是很朴素的那种，3）同时推崇多重世界膏药和证伪主义，不觉得哪里有问题？4）有关模因已有了各种幼稚理论，Deutsch又添了一个，5）基因和模因居然能和多重世界扯上关系，惊了～ 1）我把一些理论称为膏药，是因为我认为它们背离了可证伪性原则， 2）按我所采用的贝叶斯阐释，所谓可证伪性，就是能够就如何（结构性地）修正我们的贝叶斯信念网络有所建议， 3）科学是我们构建和调整信念网络的一种方法，库恩的范式可理解为信念网络的结构模式，它决定一个信念网络由哪些节点组成， 3.1）当然，范式的内容还包括如何为信念网络获取输入的操作性规范。 4）拉卡托斯的纲领可理解为多层信念网络，所谓硬核就是最底层的那些节点，拉卡托斯为如何在接受新输入后调整信念网络给出了原则性指导：优先尝试调整上层结构，尽量别动下层结构， 5）范式给出之后，特定科学理论/假说为节点间向量赋值， 6）接受证伪的不是单一节点或向量，而是整个多层信念网络，或某一特定网络的某个局部，通常是某个高度内聚的局部， 7）一场科学地震的震级，是指整个信念网络的多大一部分需要拆掉重建， 8）丹内特的波普造物就是一部自学习的贝叶斯推断机， 9）波普说的客观知识就是一个外部（外于人脑）贝叶斯网络， 10）科学supposed to be一部由科学社区共同维护的贝叶斯推断机， 11）丹内特说的格里高列造物就是一部学会利用外部贝叶斯网络的贝叶斯推断机，  

【2016-02-04】 @海德沙龙 《一个动听故事的破碎及永生》 诺奖得主[[Daniel Kahneman]]在《思考，快与慢》里讨论了一个有趣的发现，若考试时问题很难看清，得分会更高。这里的所谓考试，是由Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应测试”（CRT），[[Malcolm Gladwell]]觉得这个结论很爽，便将此事写进了《大卫与歌利亚》一书 @熊也餐厅: 不知道什么原因不太喜欢daniel kahneman~ @whigzhou: 呵呵说我呢，我确实说不清楚为何不喜欢Kahneman，大概就是股气味吧，不好闻 @whigzhou: 这回总算让我抓到了小辫子，以后就方便跟人解释为何我不喜欢Kahneman了，ps.特别讨厌Gladwell，这老兄体味更重 @whigzhou: 心理学实验重复不出来原本不算什么大不了的事情，很多（可能是大部分）心理学实验都重复不出来，但拿着单个实验在通俗文章里添油加醋大说特说，就让我很不爽，这种通俗文章看起来很科学很有耐心（你看人家能把一个实验讲的那么明白细致连我都看得懂），其实还不如不提实验直接说道理。  

A Trick For Higher SAT scores? Unfortunately no. SAT高分有诀窍？很不幸，不是。 作者：Terry Burnham @ 2015-4-20 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：Drunkplane（@Drunkplane-zny） 来源：AEON, http://www.terryburnham.com/2015/04/a-trick-for-higher-sat-scores.html Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a simple trick to score better on college entrance exams like the SAT and other tests? 如果SAT之类的大学入学考试和其他考试都有得高分的简单诀窍，岂不是很爽？ There is a reputable claim that such a trick exists. Unfortunately, the trick does not appear to be real. 根据某个著名说法，确实有诀窍。不幸的是，这一诀窍似乎并不可靠。 This is the story of an academic paper where I am a co-author with possible lessons for life both inside and outside the Academy. 这里要讲的是我参与写作的一篇学术论文的故事，它对学术内外的生活可能都会有些教益。 In the spring of 2012, I was reading Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Professor Kahneman discussed an intriguing finding that people score higher on a test if the questions are hard to read. The particular test used in the study is the CRT or cognitive reflection task invented by Shane Frederick of Yale. The CRT itself is interesting, but what Professor Kahneman wrote was amazing to me, 2012年春，我读了诺贝尔奖获得者Daniel Kahneman的书《思考，快与慢》。Kahneman教授讨论了一个非常有趣的发现，如果考试时的问题很难看清，人们得分就会更高。这一研究中用到的具体考试，是由耶鲁大学的Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应任务”（CRT）【译注：应为“认知反应测试”，原文有误】。CRT本身很有意思，但Kahneman教授的说法更是令我惊愕。

“90% of the students who saw the CRT in normal font made at least one mistake in the test, but the proportion dropped to 35% when the font was barely legible. You read this correctly: performance was better with the bad font.” “通过正常字体阅读CRT试卷的测试学生中，有90%至少会做错一道题，但如果试卷字体勉强才能辨认，这个比例就会下降到35%。把这句话读准了：坏字体伴随着好成绩。”

I thought this was so cool. The idea is simple, powerful, and easy to grasp. An oyster makes a pearl by reacting to the irritation of a grain of sand. Body builders become huge by lifting more weight. Can we kick our brains into a higher gear, by making the problem harder? 我觉得这简直太爽了。这个想法简单、有力且容易掌握。蚌壳受沙粒刺激作出反应，就会生出珍珠。健身者加大举重重量就会增加块头。我们是否能通过把问题搞难，来加大大脑马力？ Malcolm Gladwell also thought the result was cool. Here is his description his book, David and Goliath: Malcolm Gladwell也觉得这个结论很爽。以下是他在《大卫与歌利亚》一书中的描述：

The CRT is really hard. But here’s the strange thing. Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the test? Make it just a little bit harder. The psychologists Adam Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer tried this a few years ago with a group of undergraduates at Princeton University. First they gave the CRT the normal way, and the students averaged 1.9 correct answers out of three. That’s pretty good, though it is well short of the 2.18 that MIT students averaged. Then Alter and Oppenheimer printed out the test questions in a font that was really hard to read … The average score this time around? 2.45. Suddenly, the students were doing much better than their counterparts at MIT. “CRT真是很难。但这里有个怪事。要提高人们的考试得分，你知道什么方法最简单吗？只需把考题整得更难一点。心理学家Adam Alter和Daniel Oppenheimer几年前在普林斯顿大学拿一群本科生做过实验。首先他们用常规方式搞了一次CRT考试，学生平均表现是3道题里做对1.9道。很不错，但比起麻省理工学生平均做对2.18道可差远了。然后Alter和Oppenheimer用一种很难辨读的字体打印了测试问题……这次的平均得分？2.45。学生们突然就比麻省理工的对手要强了。”

As I read Professor Kahneman’s description, I looked at the clock and realized I was teaching a class in about an hour, and the class topic for the day was related to this study. I immediately created two versions of the CRT and had my students take the test - half with an easy to read presentation and half with a hard to read version. 读着Kahneman教授的上述描写时，我看了看表，发现还有约一个小时我就要去上课，课程当天的主题正与这一研究相关。我立即就制作了两种版本的CRT——一半易读、一半难读，让我的学生去考。

(1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _____ cents (1) 球棒和球共需1.1美元。球棒比球要贵1美元。请问球需多少美分？ (1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _____ cents (in my experiment, I used Haettenschweiler - I do not know how to get blogger to display Haettenschweiler). (1) 球棒和球共需1.1美元。球棒比球要贵1美元。请问球需多少美分？（考试中，此处用的是Haettenschweiler字体）

Within 3 hours of reading about the idea in Professor Kahneman’s book, I had my own data in the form of the scores from 20 students. Unlike the study described by Professor Kahneman, however, my students did not perform any better statistically with the hard-to-read version. I emailed Shane Frederick at Yale with my story and data, and he responded that he was doing further research on the topic. 在读过Kahneman教授书中的观点后不到三小时，我就拿到了自己的数据——20个学生的成绩。不过，跟Kahneman教授所述研究不同，统计上而言，我的学生在难读版测试中并没有表现更好。我把我的故事和数据邮寄给了耶鲁的Shane Frederic，他当时说他正在就此问题做进一步研究。 Roughly 3 years later, Andrew Meyer, Shane Frederick, and 8 other authors (including me) have published a paper that argues the hard-to-read presentation does not lead to higher performance. 大概三年以后，Andrew Meyer, Shane Frederick及其他8名作者（包括我）发表了一篇论文，论证说，难读的试题并不会带来更好的成绩。 The original paper reached its conclusions based on the test scores of 40 people. In our paper, we analyze a total of over 7,000 people by looking at the original study and 16 additional studies. Our summary: 最早那篇论文的结论来自40个人的测试得分。我们的论文则通过检视原初研究和其余16项研究，分析对象总数超过7000人。我们的总结是：

Easy-to-read average score: 1.43/3 (17 studies, 3,657 people) Hard-to-read average score: 1.42/3 (17 studies, 3,710 people) 易读版平均得分：1.43/3（17项研究，3657人） 难读版平均得分：1.42/3（17项研究，3710人）

Malcolm Gladwell wrote, “Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the test? Make it just a little bit harder.” The data suggest that Malcolm Gladwell’s statement is false. Here is the key figure from our paper with my annotations in red: Malcolm Gladwell写道，“人们要想提高考试得分，你知道什么方法最简单吗？把考题整得更难一点。”数据显示，Malcolm Gladwell的说法是错的。以下是我们所写论文的关键图表，我的注解标红：   I take three lessons from this story. 从这个故事中我得到三条教训。 1.Beware simple stories. 1.提防简单的故事 “The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.” Richard Lewontin attributes this quote to Arturo Rosenblueth and Norbert Wiener. “比喻的好处须以永恒的警惕换取。”Richard Lewontin将这一名言归于Arturo Rosenblueth 和 Norbert Wiener所说。 The story told by Professor Kahneman and by Malcolm Gladwell is very good. In most cases, however, reality is messier than the summary story. Kahneman教授和Malcolm Gladwell讲的故事非常动听。但在多数情况中，现实都比简洁的故事要凌乱。 2.Ideas have considerable “Meme-mentum” 2.观念具有相当大的“模因惯性” “And yet it moves,” This quote is attributed to Galileo when forced to retract his statement that the earth moves around the sun. “但是它仍在运转”，这一名言被认为是伽利略被迫收回其地球绕日运动学说时所说。 The message is that It takes a long time to change conventional wisdom. The earth stayed at the center of the universe for many people for decades and even centuries after Copernicus. 启示就是，要改变传统观点需要花费很长时间。在哥白尼之后的数十年甚至数世纪中，地球对许多人而言仍是宇宙的中心。 I expect that the false story as presented by Professor Kahneman and Malcolm Gladwell will persist for decades. Millions of people have read these false accounts. The message is simple, powerful, and important. Thus, even though the message is wrong, I expect it will have considerable momentum (or meme-mentum to paraphrase Richard Dawkins). 我预料，由Kahneman教授和Malcolm Gladwell所说的错误故事会继续存在几十年。数百万人读过这些错误说法。这个讯息简单、有力且重要无比。因此，尽管它是错的，我预测它会具有相当大的惯性动量（或借用Richard Dawkins的话说，模因惯性）。 One of my favorite examples of meme-mentum concerns stomach ulcers. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren faced skepticism to their view that many stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). Professor Marshall describes the scientific response to his idea as ridicule; in response he gave himself an ulcer drinking the bacteria. Marshall gives a personal account of his self-infection in his Nobel Prize acceptance video (the self-infection portion starts at around 25:00). 我最喜欢援引的模因惯性例证之一跟胃溃疡有关。Barry Marshall和Robin Warren认为许多胃溃疡源于细菌（幽门螺杆菌），这一观点遭到质疑。Marshall教授称，科学界的反应是认为他的观点十分可笑；作为回应，他服用细菌并让自己患上了溃疡。在其接受诺贝尔奖的视频中，Marshall自己描述了这一自我感染经历。 3.We can measure the rate of learning. 3.我们可以测量学习的速率 We can measure the rate of learning. Google scholar counts the number of times a paper is cited by other papers. I believe that well-informed scholars who cite the original paper ought to cite the subsequent papers. We can watch in real-time to see if that is true. 我们可以测量学习的速率。“谷歌学术”计算某论文被其他论文征引的次数。我认为，渊博的学者，在引用了原初的研究论文之后，也应该引用其后相关的论文。我们能实时观测这一想法是否为真。

Paper 论文	Comment 备注	citations as of April 20, 2015 2015.4.20之前引用数	citations as of today 迄今为止引用数
Alter et al. (2007). "Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(4): 569. Alter等人（2007）。“克服直觉：元认知困难能激活分析推理”，《实验心理学杂志：总论》 136（4）:569	Original paper showing hard-to-read leads to higher scores 最早提出难读导致高分的论文	344	click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字
Thompson et al. (2013). "The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking." Cognition 128(2): 237-251. Thompson等人（2013）。“回答流利性和感知流利性作为推动分析推理的元认知触发物”，《认知》 128（2）：2237-251	Paper contradicts Alter at. al by reporting no hard-to-read effect. 与Alter等人相左，报告不存在“难读高分”效应的论文	38	click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字
Meyer et al. (2015). "Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144(2): e16. Meyer等人（2015）。“繁难字体对于人们解决数学问题并无助益”，《实验心理学杂志：总论》 144（2）: e16	Our paper summarizing the original study and 16 others. 我们概述原初研究和后续16项研究的论文	0 (this “should” increase at least as fast as citations for Alter et. al, 2007) 0（引用数的增长速度“本应”至少与Alter等人2007年论文相同）	click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字

（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——

多年前我曾就中医发表过一些观点，今天不小心又提起这个话题，刚好这几年又有些新体会，再整理补充一下： 1）中医这个词的含义不太清楚，按较狭窄的用法，它是指一套理论体系（诸如阴阳五行、五脏六腑、气血经络、寒热干湿、温凉甘苦……），以及被组织在这套体系之内的各种治疗方法，而按较宽泛的用法，则囊括了所有存在于汉文化中的非现代医疗； 2）对于那套理论体系，我的态度是完全唾弃； 3）对于被归在中医名下的各种治疗方法，我的态度和对待其他前科学的朴素经验一样，持高度怀疑的态度； 4）但我不会像有些反中医者那样，做出一个强判断：它们都是无用的或错误的； 5）我相信，这些疗法中，有不少大概是有点用的； 6）然而，现代医疗的发展，大幅改变了利用这些可能用处的机会成本和得失比，依我看，改变的程度已达到：其中没有什么是值得考虑到，我甚至认为，作为医疗消费者，认真考虑这些可能用处，会显得很愚蠢； 7）考虑到中医界普遍拒绝按现代医学标准去审查旧疗法，对这些疗法持总体负面评价（即所谓一棍子打死），是完全合理的，在我看来，今天一位医生宣称自己是中医，或推崇中医，仅这一点，足以让他变得不值得信任； 8）但是这一评价方式不适用于过去，在现代医疗普及之前，一位相信传统疗法的医生，也完全可能是明智的、理性的、具有批判性头脑的，甚至具有一些朴素科学态度的，据我了解，许多被归为中医的医生，其实对那些理论说辞没什么兴趣，他们只是相信一些特定疗法，而且也愿意随经验而调整自己的信念； 9）我相信（虽然没什么经验依据），在近代以前，或多或少有点用处的中医疗法，很可能比现在多不少，但随着现代医疗的普及，幸存下来的中医疗法中，有用的比例降低了，剩下的基本上都是没用的；理由是， 10）在科学方法出现之前，对传统知识的筛选机制是基于个体经验和口碑传播的，这一选择机制有个特点：因果链容易从随机个体经验中得到识别的那些事情上，知识改进和积累更可能发生，而在因果链不容易识别的那些地方，便是迷信的温床； 11）在现代医疗普及的过程中，大众对待新旧疗法的态度上，上述筛选机制仍会起作用，因而，传统疗法中那些被用于因果链较明显的病症上因而很可能有点用的疗法，反而更容易被现代疗法所淘汰，结果，剩下的都是安慰剂，因果关系越是难以看清，对安慰剂的需求就越大，这大概就是当代中医的情况，在现代医疗的排挤下，它已经转变成了一个比以往远更纯粹的安慰剂产业。  

The Mythical conflict between science and Religion 科学与宗教间莫须有的冲突 作者：James Hannam @ 2009-10-17 译者：22（@ 22）     校对：白猫D（@白猫D） 来源：Medieval Science and Philosophy, http://jameshannam.com/conflict.htm Introduction 简介 Newspaper articles thrive on cliché. These are not so much hackneyed phrases but rather the useful shorthand for nuggets of popular perception that allow the journalist to immediately tune his readers to the right wavelength. Yesterday’s clichés are, of course, today’s stereotypes as any perusal of earlier writing will show. The conflict between science and religion is an acceptable cliché that crops up all over the place. 报纸文章充斥着陈词滥调。这些陈词滥调倒不是简单的陈腐语句，而是一个流行见解百宝箱，让记者可以方便趁手地用来将读者调到正确的认知波段上。当然，阅读任何早期文字都将发现，正是昨日的陈词滥调成就了今日的刻板印象。科学与宗教之间的矛盾冲突，便是一个到处都普遍为人所接受的陈词滥调。 In the episode of The Simpsons in which the late Stephen J. Gould was a guest voice, Lisa found a fossil angel and events led to a court order being placed on religion to keep a safe distance from science. Articles in magazines and on the internet all assume that a state of conflict exists between science and religion, always has existed and that science has been winning. 比如在《辛普森一家》Stephen J. Gould客串配音的那一集中，Lisa发现了一具天使化石，这一事件导致法院判令宗教要与科学保持一定的安全距离。杂志、网络文章也都假定宗教和科学间的冲突是存在的，并将一直存在着，而科学总会是获胜的一方。 Most popular histories of science view all the evidence through this lens without ever stopping to think that there might be another side to the story. But let us turn from popular culture to the academy where we find a rather different picture. 大多数通俗科学史将所有证据置于有色棱镜下观看，却从未停下思考过故事是否有另一面。那么，让我们从坊间传闻走向学院考据，或许在那里，我们可以看到另一幅历史景象。 Let’ s have a look at the comments of a few leading historians of science: 让我们来看几位主流科学史家的评论吧： John Hedley Brooke was the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. He is a leading historian of science in England and the author of Science and Religion - Some Historical Perspectives (1991). In this book, he writes of the conflict hypothesis “In its traditional forms, the thesis has been largely discredited”. John Hedley Brooke是牛津大学科学与宗教学Andreas Idreos讲席教授。他是英国科学史的领军人物，著有《科学与宗教：历史学观点》（1991)。在该书中，他谈及冲突假说“以其一直以来的形式而言，是不足信的”。 David Lindberg is Hilldale Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He is the author of many books on medieval science and also on religion. With Ronald Numbers, the current Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the same university, he writes “Despite a developing consensus among scholars that science and Christianity have not been at war, the notion of conflict has refused to die”. David Lindberg是威斯康辛大学麦迪逊分校科学史Hilldale讲席荣休教授，撰写了多本关于中世纪科学和宗教的著作。他和同校的Ronald Numbers，现任科学和医学史Hilldale & William Coleman讲席教授，都认为，“尽管学者已就科学和基督教间并未水火不容这点达成共识，但有关两者冲突的观念仍未消失”。 Steven Shapin is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego. He writes "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." Steven Shapin是加州大学圣地亚哥分校的社会学教授，他认为，“‘科学与宗教间的战争’是维多利亚时代晚期被反复书写的一个话题，大众也因而假定这两个文化团体一直以来都处于冲突之中”。 Finally, we come to the dean of medieval science, Edward Grant, Professor Emeritus of the History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University who writes of that most slandered of periods, the Middle Ages, when faith was supposed to have snuffed out all forms of reason “If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason [the 18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities”. 最后，让我们听听印第安纳大学中世纪科学系主任、历史与科学哲学荣休教授Edward Grant是如何评价这个一直被严重抹黑的、据认为在此期间信仰抹杀了所有形式理性的中世纪。Grant教授指出，“革命性的理性思想之所以能出现在理性时代（18世纪），正是因为在中世纪建立起来的运用理性作为人类最重要活动的悠久传统”。 So, as a theory believed by working historians, the conflict hypothesis is dead. In this article, I want to examine two questions that follow from this. Firstly, if the conflict hypothesis has been rejected by practically every scholar in the field, why is there such a rift between academic opinion and popular perception? And secondly, what has been the real relationship between science and religion? 因此，“冲突假设已经过时了”——这是一个被当今历史学家普遍接受的观点。在本文中，我将检验由此引出的两个问题。第一，如果冲突假说实际上真的被每一个业内学者抛弃，那么学院派观点和大众认知见的巨大分歧又是从何而来的？第二，科学与宗教间的真实关系到底是怎样的？ The conflict hypothesis 冲突假说 Science is the triumph of Western civilisation which has made all its other achievements possible. The enormity of this triumph has very often been reflected onto the historiography of science to produce a story akin to a triumphal progress. From Copernicus onwards, we are told, each generation built on the discoveries of their forerunners to produce a parade of successes with barely a backwards step. 科学是西方文明的胜利，它使得一切其他成就变为可能。这项胜利如此巨大，以至于反映到科学编史学中，就被谱成了一曲不断进步最终迈向胜利的凯旋之歌。我们被告知，从哥白尼开始，每一代人都在前人发现的基础上不断成功前进而少有退步。 This history has been built on two assumptions: that there is something epistemologically unique about science and that reason and rationality are what causes progress in science. Scientists themselves have generally been keen on these ideas and been happy to promote them. 这样的历史描述基于两点假设。第一，科学在认识论上有独一无二的优势；第二，理性与理性能力促进了科学的进步。科学家普遍热心于这些想法，也乐于传播它们。 Such has been status of science in modern society that this self description, promulgated by writers like Carl Sagan and Jacob Bronowski, has generally been respected by the general public who have been less interested in the more nuanced views historians. 这一对科学在现代社会中所居地位的自我描述，经由像卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）和雅各布·布朗劳斯基（Jacob Bronowski）这样的作家传播，逐渐为一般大众所接受，而这些大众却往往对历史学家们更细致入微的观点缺少兴趣。 The myth of conflict first really got going during the Enlightenment (itself a description intended to derogate earlier eras) with the fiercely anti-clerical French philosophes. In his Discours Preliminaire, Jean d’Alembert paints a picture of men of the Renaissance finally throwing off the shackles of church domination so that rational enquiry can at last begin. This idea was carried through the nineteenth century with historians like John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. 这个冲突虚构的最初流行肇始于启蒙运动（这个词本身就是对先前时代的贬低）时期的一位激进反教权法国哲学家朗达贝尔（Jean d’Alembert）。在他的《百科全书序论》中，他将文艺复兴时期描绘为人们最终挣脱教会统治的枷锁，并开始理性思考的一个时代。这个想法持续到了19世纪被威廉·H·德雷珀（John William Draper）和安德鲁·D·怀特（Andrew Dickson White）等历史学家继承。 White was the most famous and successful exponent of the conflict hypothesis. He is commonly quoted at the start of modern books on science and religion as representing the soon-to-be-debunked traditional view. It is worth briefly examining whether White was being entirely honest in his work as no one doubts that Draper was engaged in nothing more that polemic. 怀特是冲突假说最著名、也是最成功的鼓吹者。他通常在有关科学与宗教的现代书籍中开篇即被援引，作为即将被我们揭穿的传统观点之代表而出现。我们有必要简要检验一下，怀特在捍卫其观点时是否完全诚实，因为没有人会怀疑德雷珀对这场论战的投入只有简单的争吵。 Neither of them were professional historians and both did seem to sincerely believe in the warfare theory they were expounding. Unfortunately, this meant that they set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts. White is quite explicit about this when he writes how he felt before he began his research, “I saw... the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought - the theological and the scientific.” 他们两人都不是专业历史学家，但都坚信着他们提出的冲突理论。不幸的是，这意味着他们要去证明他们已经相信的观点，而不是从事实中提取结论。怀特对他在研究之前是如何想的这一点非常坦诚：“我先看到了人类思想发展中两个时代间的冲突——神学时代的和科学时代的”。 Any such statement should immediately set off alarm bells which grow louder as we look at his work The Warfare of Science with Theology. His usual tactics are to scour the sources for some stick-in-the-mud reactionary and claim this represents the consensus of religious opinion and then find another thinker (who is usually just as faithful a Christian as the reactionary) who turned out to be right, and claim that they represent reason. 任何此类的论述都应立即敲响我们的警钟。当我们读他的《科学与神学的战争》时，更要提高警惕。怀特惯用的手法是搜罗一些极端保守人士的观点，并声称这些人的观点代表了宗教人士的共识；接着又找到另一位思想家（通常是和那位极端保守分子一样也是忠实基督徒）证明他的观点是对的，并声称他们代表了理性。 Hence using anachronism and claiming obscure figures were in fact influential, he is able to manufacture a conflict where none exists. A detailed critique of his work from Lindberg and Numbers can be read here but I would like to point out a few errors in the specific area of religious persecution of scientists. 因此，利用这种时代错位、吹嘘一些名不见经传人士的重要性，怀特成功捏造了一个其实不曾存在的冲突。Lindberg和Numbers对他作品的更多详细批评可以在这里读到，但是我更想先澄清有关宗教迫害科学家这件事情的一些误解。 White's examples of actual prosecution are few and far between which is not very surprising as the only scientist the Christian Church ever prosecuted for scientific ideas per se was Galileo and even here historians doubt that was the major reason he got into trouble. 怀特提及迫害的例子屈指可数且多远离事实。这并不出人意料，因为唯一一个因为科学观点而被教会迫害的科学家便是伽利略，而历史学家甚至怀疑这并不是他惹上麻烦的真正原因。 This is an embarrassment for White as he thought that in the Middle Ages especially, the Church was burning freethinkers left, right and centre. The lack of any examples of this at all is a serious problem so he is forced to draft in non-scientists or else to claim that prosecutions on non-scientific matters were scientific persecutions after all. Here are some examples: 这一情形对怀特来说很尴尬，因为他认为教会，特别是中世纪教会，会烧死左、中、右派的所有自由思想家。缺乏证据对他来说是个大问题，因此他被迫加入一些非科学家的例子来证明针对非科学事物的迫害归根到底也是针对科学的迫害。这里有一些例子： Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. 罗杰·培根 （Roger Bacon）从19世纪以来就是一个被人熟知的科学殉道者。他其实是一个热衷于宣传亚里士多德拥有基督教信仰的经院哲学家。他从任何一方面来说都不是科学家，他的想法也不像宣传的那样具有革命性。 In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” 怀特在他的书的第十二章中这样描写Roger，“圣波纳文图拉迫使他噤声，阿斯克利的杰罗姆监禁了他，继任的教皇们又关了他十四年，所有这些指控都是因为他‘危险的创新’和可疑的巫术。” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.” 这不是真的。正如Lindberg所说，“他的监禁，如果是真的话（我很怀疑），很可能是因为他对于主张苦修的方济各会的同情（完全是神学原因），而不是因为他提倡的一些科学新思想”。 In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” 在第二章里，怀特告诉我们，“在1327年，天文学家切科·达斯克利由于‘对跖点’学说和一些其他思想，被怀疑为行使巫术。他因此被剥夺了在博洛尼亚大学的教职，并在佛罗伦萨被活活烧死。” Cecco D’Ascoli was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming Jesus Christ was subject to the stars. 切科·达斯克利确实在1327年被烧死在佛罗伦萨的木桩上。他是整个中世纪时期里唯一一个死于火刑的自然哲学家：而他被判死刑是因为，在他因为宣称耶稣基督受控于他的星座命宫而被判异端的假释期间，违反了假释条例。 This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials. 这显然不足以让怀特声称（完全是毫无根据），他的死部分是因为他“对跖点适宜居住”的科学观点。更不必说怀特不诚实将达斯克利称为“天文学家”而不是“占星家”来增强他的科学可信度了。 In the same chapter White claims “In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this [the habitation of the antipodes] with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death.” We have no good evidence that d’Abano was under investigation from the inquisition at his death. 在同一章里，怀特声称“在1316年，外科医生达巴诺的彼得因传播对跖点和其他有害的科学学说而受到审判，但在审判结束之前意外死亡”。我们没有明确的证据可以表明达巴诺死于审判期间。 However, he did gain a posthumous reputation as a sorcerer when spurious works were attributed to him. This may have led to the reports of his bones being dug up and burnt after his death. There is again, no evidence whatsoever that the antipodes debate or science had anything to do with the matter. 然后，他确实在死后由于一些归于其名下的伪造作品而得到了巫师的名声。这可能也导致了他死后骨头被挖出焚烧的传闻。但是，我们要再一次声明，没有任何证据可以表明对于科学或“对跖点”的争论和他的死有关系。 It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. Needless to say, White gives no reference. 我们很难确定怀特所说的一些受害者是否存在。他在第十二章里谈到，“化学家John Barrillon被投入狱，任何努力都救不了他”。而掌握史料前无古人后无来者的杰出历史学家乔治·萨顿（George Sarton）对这件事的回应是，“从未听说过”。不用说，怀特没有给出任何出处。 Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, is also held up as a martyr to science. White explains in chapter 13 “Vesalius was charged with dissecting a living man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority of authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists for Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked, and in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world…. His death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously supposed that he was injuring religion.” 现代解剖学的奠基人维萨里（Vesalius）也常常被认为是科学殉道者。怀特在第十三章中解释道，“维萨里被指控解剖活人。无论是因为绝大多数学者确信的直接迫害，还是因为最近西班牙的腓力二世的辩护者承认的间接迫害，他实际上成了一个要被流放到圣地为自己赎罪的流浪汉。最终正值壮年的他在一次船难中去世。如果说他不是被那些认为他危害宗教的人害死的，也至少是因为他们而少活了很多年。” The trouble is that hardly a word of this has any basis in historical fact. Vesalius did go on a pilgrimage and was drowned on the way back. But there is no hint he was ever prosecuted and the idea his death was hastened by those who supposed he was injuring religion is simply wrong. 这段话的问题在于，没有哪一处是基于历史事实的。维萨里确实去朝圣了，并且在归途中溺水身亡，但是没有任何证据证明他是被害死的。那些认为他的英年早逝是由于他危害宗教的观点是错误的。 Discussing the heliocentric system, White goes on “Many minds had received it [the doctrine of Copernicus], but within the hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds.” 当讨论到日心说时，怀特接着说，“虽然当时很多人接受了哥白尼的学说，但在教皇的威严下，只有一个人敢于发出自己的声音。这位新勇士是一个奇怪的凡人——乔尔丹诺·布鲁诺（Giordano Bruno），他在各地都被追捕，直到最后，他向对自己恶言相向的追捕者发出还击。为此，他在威尼斯被诱捕入狱，随后被囚禁在罗马地牢里，在审讯中度过了六年。最后他遭受火刑而死，他的骨灰散落在空中。 ” In fact, we do not know the exact reasons Bruno was prosecuted but modern scholars like Frances Yates suggest it was because he was a magus who was trying to start a new neo-Platonic religion. He did believe the earth revolved around the sun but this was purely for religious reasons as he effectively worshipped it. In any case, it was incidental to his fate as were his other pseudo-scientific ideas. 事实上，我们现在仍然不清楚布鲁诺被迫害的具体原因。现代学者如弗朗西斯·耶茨（Frances Yates）认为，那是因为他是一位尝试建立一个新柏拉图主义宗教的术士。他确实相信地球绕着太阳转，但那纯粹是因为他自身的宗教信仰让他相信的。无论如何，日心说跟他的其他伪科学想法一样，都不对他的命运负主要责任。 One would like to take the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. 我们应该采取一个比较宽厚的看法，相信怀特确实笃信自己的理论，而不是为了维护自己明知错误的立场刻意编造证据。然而，他歪曲了证据，仅接受那些符合他假说的，而质疑那些不符合的。这意味着，如果他以客观的态度对待所有证据，那他就可以避免引入那些他本可发现的错误。 The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history. 以上几点，连同Lindberg和Numbers的批评，已足以证明怀特的作品和普通历史一样是没有价值的。 Draper, with no footnotes or references cannot even claim to give an illusion of scholarship. Colin Russell, in a recent summary of the historiography of the alleged warfare, sums up the views of modern scholarship, saying “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”. 至于Drape，他的作品根本没有脚注或者引用来源，我们很难称他是一个学者。Colin Russell在最近一份关于科学与宗教莫须有战争的历史编纂学综述中，总结了现代学者的观点，他说，“Drape解读历史的随意性很大，常常将传说当作史实。这也是他被当今严肃史学研究忽略的原因。White也同样很难被称作是一个合格的学者，尽管他通过丰富的脚注让我们产生了一种严谨学术的错觉”。 But even today, historians who should know better, like Daniel Boorstin, Charles Freeman and William Manchester, have produced popular books that wheel out all the old misconceptions and prejudices. 但即使在今天，像Daniel Boorstin，Charles Freeman还有William Manchester这些本应对此了解更多的历史学家，却还是将老旧的误解和偏见带进自己的通俗作品中。 Another reason for the myth of conflict continuing is because at the moment there is undoubtedly a conflict between one wing of Christianity and modern science. This is the battle over evolution. Although the Catholic Church and mainline protestants long ago reconciled themselves to Darwin’s theory and modified their theology accordingly, many conservative Christians remain deeply suspicious about evolution and its alleged metaphysical implications. 冲突假说持续流行的另一个原因是，当时确实有一支基督教信仰与现代科学产生了一场激烈冲突——关于演化论的争斗。虽然天主教会与主流新教徒在很久之前就调解了神学与达尔文理论之间的矛盾，但很多保守的基督徒仍对演化论及其背后的形而上学暗示表示深深的怀疑。 Unfortunately, many who are defending evolution try to widen the gap between religion and science and use it to push non-scientific but anti-religious philosophical agendas. This can be seen clearly in the work of Richard Dawkins and many writers on the internet. 不幸的是，很多为演化论辩护的人扩大了宗教与科学之间的分歧，并利用它推进了非科学但却反宗教的议程。这可以很明显地在网上从理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）和其他作家的作品中看到。 Some observers would claim that now science holds the whip hand it is being no less intolerant of dissent as the church supposedly once was. This would not be an accurate view as instead the argument over evolution is carried on vehemently by a small number of extremists on both sides while the rest of the community looks on rather bemused. 一些观察者声称，如今处于支配地位的科学执鞭于手、厉对异己的不宽容做派，和人们设想中教会的表现相比，毫不逊色。这当然不是一个准确的看法，因为关于演化论的激烈争论仅仅在一些科学与宗教的极端群体中进行，而大众对于这些讨论则是相当茫然的。 Occasionally, it spills over in a public arena such as when pressure groups gain control of previously obscure bodies that set school curricula, but in general it does not have the slightest effect. Most of the occasions when there have been conflicts between science and religion were caused by someone seeking publicity and fame when the problem could much more easily be sorted by patient discussion. 偶尔，当某个压力集团控制了以前不起眼的学校机构并开始设置课程时，争论会溢出到公共领域，但在一般情况下，这些争论不会对公众有丝毫影响。很多情况下，那些本可通过耐心讨论解决的冲突是由那些寻求名气与曝光度的人引起的。 This is the case both of Galileo publishing his inflammatory popular tracts that provoked the church and John Scopes volunteering to be charged with teaching evolution. Even so, Galileo himself blamed jealous scientific rivals and professional spite for his predicament. 伽利略散发他煽动性的流行小册子从而激怒教会，约翰·斯科普斯（John Scopes）故意去违反法规教授演化论，都是这种情况。即使如此，伽利略仍将自己的困境归咎于那些嫉妒他的科学对手和来自同行的怨恨。 The reasons for the continuing popular belief in the historical conflict can probably be summed up as follows: 有关历史上宗教与科学间冲突的流行信念长盛不衰的原因，大概可以总结如下：

• The writings of an earlier generation of historians have yet to be eclipsed by modern scholarship;
• 早期历史学家的著作，其光芒仍未被现代学者掩盖；
• Some popular writers of today continue to recycle the old myths rather than using up to date research;
• 当今部分通俗作家不断重复过去的传说而没有采用最新的研究成果；
• A few famous events have given a misleading impression to people unfamiliar with their context;
• 一些著名的历史事件给不熟悉历史背景的大众产生了误导；
• The idea of a conflict makes for a better story than more multi-faceted truth.
• 冲突观念比多面相的事实更适合写成动听故事。

The real historical relationship between science and religion 历史上科学与宗教间的真实关系 Through out history the real situation has been complicated and changeable. It has not proven possible, and nor is it ever likely to, for a single theory to explain the interaction of all forms of science and all forms of religion. It is certainly true that certain science (say, neo-Darwinist theory) is in conflict with certain kinds of religion (say, literalist Christianity) but even in an environment where both are present the effect is pretty negligible. 纵观历史，真正的局面是复杂且多变的，用某种单一理论来解释所有形式的科学与宗教之间的互动，从未被证明是可能的，或貌似可能的。确实，某些科学分支（比如新达尔文主义理论）与某些宗教派别（比如基督教经律主义）是有冲突的。但即使在它们两者都在场的情况下，这种冲突的影响也是微乎其微的。 For all the sound and fury over the teaching of evolution it is difficult to make any sort of case that science in the US has been adversely effected by creationism. If it means that scientists need to explain the theory of evolution better to suspicious laymen (which is something they are usually poor at doing), creationism could even serve an occasionally useful purpose. 面对演化论教学的喧哗与骚动，神创论很难以任何方式对美国的科学产生不利的影响。甚至有时候神创论可以让科学家们更好地向有疑虑的外行人解释演化论（这件事他们常常做得很差）。 Conversely, cosmology has found itself agreeing with religion rather more than some anti-religious thinkers would like. A hundred years ago nearly all non-religious thinkers took it for granted that the universe had always existed and always would. Despite the opposition of theologians claiming a real infinite in time was logically impossible (sometime called the Kalam cosmological argument), atheists seemed quite happy with an uncreated, eternal universe. 相反，不像某些反宗教思想家所认为的那样，宇宙学则与宗教远更相容。一百年前，几乎所有的非宗教思想家都将宇宙一直存在并且会一直存在下去视作理所当然。尽管持相反意见的神学家声称，真正无限的时间在逻辑上是不可能的（有时被称为卡拉姆宇宙论），无神论者似乎更乐于见到一个非创生的、永恒的宇宙。 When the Big Bang model was first suggested by the Jesuit priest Georges Le Maître, it was greeted with a certain amount of scepticism and the atheist Fred Hoyle coined the phrase ‘Big Bang’ intending it to be derogatory. 当大爆炸模型首次被耶稣会教士勒梅特（Georges Le Maître）提出时，受到了很多质疑，无神论者费雷德·霍伊尔（Fred Hoyle）杜撰“大爆炸”（Big Bang）一词来贬低这个发现。 His atheism also blinded him to the inadequacies of his steady state theory which one suspects he only came up with to avoid the uncomfortable metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning. Atheist scientists have now come to terms with the big bang and adjusted their metaphysics accordingly, much like most Christians, after some debate, accepted evolution and twiddled their theology. 霍伊尔的无神论思想也使他看不到自己稳恒状态理论（steady state theory）的不足之处。有人怀疑这仅是因为霍伊尔要避免宇宙存在一个开端所带来的令他不舒服的形而上学暗示。如今，无神论科学家已经接受了“大爆炸”这个词，并且相应地调整了他们的形而上学假设；这非常像很多基督徒在经过一番辩论后，接受了进化论并且调整了自己的神学。 However, it is interesting to hear today’s atheists declaring that God must have a creator when their predecessors were quite happy for the universe not to have one. All this seems to demonstrate that when it comes to science, both sides find things they do not like and both sides argue against them until the evidence becomes impossible to deny. 但有趣的是，现在我们听见无神论者声称上帝本身必须有一个创造者，而他们的前辈们却为宇宙没有创造者而感到庆幸。所有这些似乎都表明了当涉及到科学时，双方都找出并反对自己不喜欢的一面，直到证据确凿到实在难以否认为止。 Today popular histories do try and recognise this variety. The people we want to eulogise as the great heroes of science rarely had such clear cut views as was once thought. This has led to what I call the 'examination' school of historical writing that can sometimes read like a series of end of term report cards where the figures of the past are praised or scolded according to how much the modern writer thinks they got right. 今天，通俗史确实在尝试并认可这些多样性。许多为我们所赞扬的科学英雄，很少像人们曾经以为的那样，提出过清晰明确的观点。这就会导致我称之为“考试”学派的历史著述。这些著述有时读起来就像一叠期末汇报卡片，上面写着当今作者认为应该会做的题目，然后他们根据一位历史人物答对了多少，来决定赞美还是贬斥他。 A good example of this approach is John Gribbin’s recent Science: A History 1543 - 2001 (published as The Scientists in the US) which is really just an entertaining collection of anecdotes covered in a positivist gloss. But at least he largely avoids the conflict myth and admits that neither Giordano Bruno nor the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus can be described as martyrs for science. 约翰·格里宾（John Gribbin）最近出版的《科学史：1543—2001》（美国版书名为《科学家》）就是一个很好的例子。该书披着实证主义的光彩外衣，其实只是本读起来令人愉悦的奇闻轶事集。但至少，格里宾也很大程度上避免了上述冲突神话，并且承认布鲁诺和反三位一体的米迦勒·塞尔维特（Michael Servetus）都很难称得上是科学殉道者。 Full-on confrontations between science and religion are reasonably rare. Even when such encounters occur, they are usually arguments between co-religionists with shared concerns about how new discoveries affect faith. We find this during the debate that followed the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species where Christians such as Asa Gray defended both the theory of evolution and Christianity’s accommodation with it. 科学与宗教间的全面冲突是相当罕见的。即使冲突发生了，往往也只是发生在拥有共同信仰的信徒中，他们对于这些新发现将如何影响信仰而展开争论。在达尔文的《物种起源》出版之后便产生了类似的讨论。基督徒阿萨·格雷（Asa Gray）便同时为基督教教义与演化论辩护，并努力使两者协调起来。 Another cause of confusion is when people seeking to attack religion seek to co-opt science onto their side. For instance, whether one is pro-life or not has nothing to do with science, but is often portrayed as such. Concerns about experiments on stem cells also arise from ethics. 混淆的另外一个原因是，当人们攻击宗教的时候，他们往往团结科学站到他们这一边。一个人支持堕胎与否无关科学，但往往就被描述为与科学相关。同样的例子还包括因为伦理道德而引发的对干细胞实验的忧虑。 This leads us straight to the real conflict which is between religion and naturalism. And here the warfare is real enough. Science is partly characterised by methodological naturalism which was used by natural philosophers of the Middle Ages and fully approved by the Church. 这把我们引向宗教与自然主义之间的真实冲突，这里才是交锋真正发生的地方。科学部分地带有方法论自然主义的色彩，这种方法论自然主义在中世纪时期被自然哲学家使用，并且得到了教会的支持。 They realised, as modern naturalists do not, that it is an error of logic to assume that because science assumes naturalism to simplify and explain, it follows that science shows naturalism is true. 当时他们认为（现代自然主义者没有意识到），仅仅因为科学假定自然主义解释简洁就得到“科学证明了自然主义是正确”的这个结论，逻辑上是不正确的。 It is not the purpose of this article to attack the naturalistic fallacy, merely to observe that many of the alleged battles between science and religion are actually being fought by proxy between naturalism and religion, with science as the weapon of both. And, as the defeats of naturalism over the big bang and spontaneous generation showed, the traffic is by no means all one way. 本文的目的不是要攻击自然主义谬误，而是想让人们看到，所谓的科学与宗教之间的冲突，其实是自然主义与宗教双方都利用科学而在他们之间进行的代理战争。而正如自然主义在大爆炸理论和自然发生学说上的失败所显示的，发展进程并非一条单向道。 Most academic historians, while rejecting outright conflict, would refuse to be drawn on whether or not the contribution of religion to science was broadly positive or negative citing the enormous amount of data that would have to be assimilated to give a sensible answer. Most are happy to say that the relationship has been positive in some ways and negative in others with an overall effect that is probably too subtle to be measured. 现在，大多数学院派历史学家并不认为科学与宗教完全站在对立面，也拒绝投身于这样一件事情：通过引证大量数据，从而给出一个敏感答案，并最终在宗教对科学的影响到底大致上是正面的还是负面的这个问题上站队表态。相反，他们会乐于承认两者的关系在某些方面是积极的，在另外一些方面是消极的；总体来说影响微妙，难以估算。 While I respect that cautious view, I believe it is wrong and that a very strong case can be made for the Christian religion be a specific factor in the rise of modern science in Western Europe. This is one of the ideas that I address in my new book God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. 虽然我尊重这个审慎的观点，但我仍相信它是错误的，并认为，我们可以在很强的意义上说：基督教信仰是西欧现代科学兴起的一个重要因素。这也是我在新书《上帝的哲学家：中世纪世界是如何为现代科学奠定基础的》中要表达的一个观点。 （编辑：@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——

【2015-09-23】 @Ent_evo “用科学去塑造人，而不是让他们自然成长，这种想法让我们震惊……但这种想法当然是非理性的。……孩子所聆听的道德训诫，可能因为不科学而没有成效，但其意图也是塑造性格，就像赫胥黎笔下的耳语机器一样。因此，看起来我们并不反对塑造人，只要它很低效就行；我们反对的只是高效的塑造。”-罗素 @whigzhou: 罗素一谈社会就幼稚的一塌糊涂，也不想想，谁有资格塑造人？怎么算高效？目标不明怎么算效率？“用科学塑造人”又是什么意思？把孩子泡在一堆论文里？万一科学研究发现泡在传统里更“高效”呢？ @陈胡子伯爵:感觉你没明白罗素的意思，科学的培养是指用科学的方法培养而不是让孩子读科学论文。 @whigzhou: 1）你的脑补是你的，我不喜欢替人脑补，2）假设你的脑补成立，那么，将“科学方法”和传统方法对立起来之前，你先得证明“把孩子泡在传统/习俗/宗教里”的培养方法是不科学的 @whigzhou: 我尤其不喜欢替分析哲学家脑补，作为分析哲学家，有义务自己把话说清楚  

All Hail Science! 科学万岁！ 作者：Jonah Goldberg @ 2015-2-14 译者：普罗米修斯（@普箩米修思），校对：Marcel ZHANG（@马赫塞勒张） 来源：National Review，http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398591/all-hail-science-jonah-goldberg Memo to progressives: Unlike God, science doesn’t care if you believe in it. 进步主义者请记住：与上帝不同，科学并不在乎你是否信仰它。 Dear Reader (Unless you’re at the screening of Al-Qaeda Sniper), 亲爱的读者（除非你恰好在看《基地组织的狙击手》（Al-Qaeda Sniper）这部电影）， 【译注：实际上不存在这部电影，那是一个叫“非裔美国人保守派”的博客虚构的，其副标题是“一个变性圣战者为使用‘无性别卫生间’的权利而抗争的故事”，显然是用来嘲讽目前在美国风起云涌的左翼平权运动的。】 All of us are equal in the eyes of God and the law — or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work. (Though the fact that Jon Corzine has neither been hit by lightning nor carted off to jail sometimes causes me moments of doubt on both fronts.) 无论在法律还是上帝面前，我们都是平等的——至少本该是这样。（尽管Jon Corzine既没遭雷劈也没被扔进监狱这一事实，让我时常对此感到疑惑）。 I try pay lip-service to the same principle about readers of this “news”letter, but let’s face it. That’s not true. Nearly all G-File readers are cherished, but not all are cherished equal. 我本想以此搪塞这封“新闻信”的读者：人人平等这项原则也适用于你们。不过我们还是直面现实吧，那并不是真的。我对几乎所有G-File的读者都很重视，但并非同等的重视。 (And, in a year or two when my next book comes out, the great schism in my heart will be between those of you who eagerly purchase my book, and you shameful free riders who, for years, were perfectly happy for me to throw you the gold Aztec idol week after week, but now refuse to throw me the whip as promised, saying “Adios, Señor.” This is the quid people, my next book will be the pro quo. If you assume each Goldberg File I’ve written is worth a quarter, you should probably convert it into zombie-apocalypse currency and assume it’s equal in value to a can of dog food, six dead D batteries, or a fully operational calk gun. But the price is what the market will bear, and even at that valuation, it would more than cover the price of my forthcoming magnum opus for any longtime reader. You have been put on notice.) （并且，等一两年后我的新书出版时，我内心会在两类人之间撕扯：一类是那些迫不及待想要买书的读者，另一类则是那些可耻的搭便车者，多年来，他们满心欢喜地盼着我一周周地把阿兹特克金像（the gold Aztec idol）扔给他们，却不愿如之前说好的那样把鞭子给我扔过来，临走时只留下一句“再见，先生。”(“Adios, Señor.”西班牙语)。我的下一本书需要你用东西来交换的。如果你觉得我写的每一本G-File值得上一毛钱，或许你应该按僵尸界的汇率把它兑换成一罐狗粮、六个D号废旧电池或者一把铆钉枪。当然，书的价格应当是市场可以承受的，并且，对于我的长期读者，我即将出版的煌煌巨著应该是对得起它的标价的。我可是通知你们了哦。）【译注：这里有关阿兹特克金像和鞭子的哏出自电影《夺宝奇兵》。】 I bring this up because Charles Krauthammer is a reader of this “news”letter which, like seeing a spider monkey in your brand new kitchen making crème brûlée with a blowtorch, is both cool and scary. Why it’s cool should be obvious. He’s the Hammer. It’s scary because . . . he’s the Hammer. 我提这茬，是因为得知查尔斯·克劳萨默（Charles Krauthammer）也是这封“新闻信”的读者，这就像看见一只蜘蛛猴在你的崭新厨房里用喷灯做焦糖布丁，让人不知道该觉得有趣还是害怕。说他有趣的原因很明显，他是“锤子”，说他让人害怕是因为......他可是铁锤查理啊。【译注：注意Krauthammer中的hammer，意为锤子，铁锤查理（Charles Martel）则为查理大帝的祖父，法兰克王国实际掌权者，加洛林王朝奠基者，以武功著称的军事天才。】 I try very hard not to put a face to my readers because, frankly, this thing is sometimes so stupid and self-indulgent if I imagined a real person reading it, I’d push the keyboard away. It’s best if I write this thing like a message in a bottle going to no one. 我竭力在读者面前展示真实自我，因为装模作样会让我会显得任性而愚蠢，每当想到有人读到虚伪的自己，我就忍不住想要摔键盘。我最好是把这些话塞进漂流瓶，随浪漂走。最可能让我怯场的，就是想象查尔斯·克劳萨默是打开漂流瓶的那个人。 And the last thing I need for my performance anxiety is to imagine Charles Krauthammer is the guy unspooling my missive from that bottle. The only thing worse would be to imagine George Will standing behind Charles looking over his shoulder and tsk-tsking all of my split infinitives. And yet, to my dismay, Will, too, has told me he on occasion comes by here. I feel like Martin Short in a synchronized-swimming routine. 唯一比这更糟的事，就是想象乔治·威尔（George Will）也站在查尔斯身后，目光越过他肩膀落在信上，看到文中的分裂不定式，不住地摇头。并且，同样令我沮丧的是威尔告诉我，他只是恰巧经过这里而已。我的感觉就像是马丁·肖特（Martin Short）在花样游泳。【译注：指马丁·肖特在周六夜现场节目中拍的一个搞怪视频短片。】 FERNAL LINGUISTICS 良魔语言学 Anyway, Charles is a big fan of “unpaired words.” I don’t mean words with the Bluetooth turned off. I mean . . . hmmm . . . how do I explain? 总之，查尔斯是个“不成对单词（unpaired words）”爱好者，“不成对单词”并不是指你的设备在蓝牙没有配对时发出的提示，它指的是……额……我该怎么解释呢？【译注：在英语中，有些词汇是它的否定形式曾经同时存在，比如“innocent”和“nocent”。随着人们词汇使用习惯的改变，这些单词只有其否定形式被保留下来，肯定形式则很少再被使用，下文中作者大玩文字游戏，将出现很多由这种“不成对单词”拼凑的句子。】 Well, many times, during the commercial break on Special Report, we’ve gone back and forth — brandy snifters in hand — talking about how we need a president with more feck running an ept and gormful foreign policy. 好吧，在“特别报道”（Special Report）的广告时间，我们常常举着白兰地酒杯来回踱着步，谈论着我们需要一位“强势”（feck : feckless）总统来执行“精妙”（ept : inept）、“高明”（gormful : gormless）的外交政策。 These conversations usually take place after the make-up lady comes into the studio to make sure that we look kempt and shevelled. Well, last Wednesday, the topic came up again, and we kept bandying them about. Which made me think, “This is pretty cool.” It also made me think, “This would be a good riff for the G-File.” 此时，化妆助理通常会来到直播间确保我们看起来“干净”（kempt : unkempt）、“整洁”（shevelled : dishevelled）。就在上周三，我们又一次聊到了这个话题，并为此争吵不休。这让我感觉很有趣，同时也想，或许可以成为我写G-File的好题材。 Still, I’m hoping that he isn’t gruntled by this somewhat nocuous and entirely effable effort to rip off one of his favorite parlor games. Indeed, I could have dropped this choate schtick without name-dropping Charles, which might have made it seem less petuous, but why leave my motivation unbeknownst when it can be beknownst? 尽管如此，我希望他不要因为我们尝试对他最喜爱的室内游戏之一进行有点“恶意”（nocuous : innocuous）且“直白”（effable : ineffable）的剽窃而“高兴”（gruntled : disgruntled）。事实上，当我展示这些“低级”（choate : inchoate）把戏时，提起查尔斯的大名不过是为了借此抬高自己。这么说或许不够“谨慎”（petuous : impetuous），但是如果可以“公开”（beknownst : unbeknownst）我的意图时，又何必要“隐瞒”（unbeknownst）呢？ Better to go communicado and cognito, I say. Particularly when I’m still throat clearing as I try to scrounge up a real topic to discuss. Still, I fear I seem quite chalant as I search for sipid things to say. If I don’t work harder, this “news”letter will never be combobulated. (“I don’t want to disrupt your flow here, so I’ll rupt it. But you should know this all comes across as soucient and below even your pareil writing style. I would have thrown this whole thing out the window, but you opted to fenestrate it.” — The Couch) 我想，“开诚布公”（communicado and cognito : incommunicado and incognito）总是好的。特别是在我找到一个真正的话题之前，需要用这个来拖延下时间。并且，在我急于寻找“有趣的”（sipid : insipid）话题时，会担心自己显得“紧张不安”（chalant : nonchalant）。如果我不更加努力工作，读者是不会对这封“新闻信”感到“满意”（combobulated : discombobulated）的。（沙发发话了：我不想在这里“打断”（disrupt）你们，所以我就“继续”（rupt : disrupt）了。但是你应当清楚，所有这一切都是被“精心”（soucient : insouciant）组合起来的而且甚至比不上你们“匹配”（pareil : nonpareil）写作的水平。我本该把所有写的这些都扔到窗外去的，但是这可是你们选择看下去的。） All Hail Science 科学万岁 So my column from yesterday was about the quizzing of Scott Walker and other Republicans about evolution. This is an incessant question every four years. And while it deserves to be cessant, it will never will be. (Okay, I’m done now.) 我昨天的专栏探讨了对Scott Walker和其他共和党人如何看待有关进化论的盘问，这个问题每隔四年就会被提出来，从未中断。这个问题本该“停止”（cessant : incessant）了，却永远停不下来。（好了，文字游戏到此为止。【译按：我的噩梦也终于结束了】） As many have noted, liberals in and out of the media are very selective in their celebration of science. Guy Benson reminded me of this nicely splenetic post I wrote three years ago in the Corner: 很多人也注意到了，在与媒体打交道时，自由派对科学的赞颂是有选择性的。Guy Benson让我想起自己三年前在专栏里写下的这段怒气冲冲的文字：

Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for “science”? Why can’t the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? 凭什么自由派有权来决定哪个问题是“科学”的测试基准？用智力可遗传性问题作为是否支持科学的标准不行吗？或者是否存在胎儿疼痛？或者两性认知能力在正态曲线远右端的分布情况？ Or if that’s too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or YuccaMountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children? 或者，如果这些问题过于让人心烦，那么把是否支持地质工程作为支持科学与否的分界线如何？或者，宇宙射线在云的形成中的作用？是否支持核电可以吗？或者雅卡山（Yucca Mountain）？【译注：雅卡山位于内华达州，用来堆放核废料。】为什么不嘲讽下反对转基因作物的白痴呢，即使转基因作物（黄金大米）可以防止儿童失明？ Some of these examples are controversial, others tendentious, but all are just as fair as the way the Left framed embryonic stem-cell research and all are more relevant than questions about evolution. (Quick: If Obama changed his mind about evolution tomorrow and became a creationist, what policies would change? I’ll wait.) 上述这些例子都是有争议或者倾向性的，左派支持的干细胞研究也是如此，而且跟进化论比起来，这些问题与实际生活关系密切。（打断下：如果明天奥巴马改变对进化论的态度而变成一个神创论者，哪些政策会变化呢？我得等等看才知道。） The point is that the Left considers itself the undisputed champion of “science,” but there are scads of issues where they take un-scientific points of view. 问题在于，左派一直自诩为“科学”斗士，但是在很多问题上，他们的持有的观点并不科学。 Sure they can cite dissident scientists — just as conservatives can — on this or that issue. But everyone knows that when the science directly threatens the Left’s pieties, it’s the science that must bend — or break. During the Larry Summers fiasco at Harvard, comments delivered in the classic spirit of open inquiry and debate cost Summers his job. Actual scientists got the vapors because he violated the principles not of science but of liberalism. 他们当然可以引用非主流科学家的意见为某个议题辩护，保守派也可以这么做。但是大家都懂的，每当科学直接威胁到左派的信条时，让步的却总是科学。劳伦斯·萨默斯（Larry Summers）在哈佛时，曾因敢于大胆地公开质询和辩论而丢了工作。真正的科学家因为违反了自由派的信条而非科学原则而被驱逐。 During the Gulf oil spill, the Obama administration dishonestly claimed that its independent experts supported a drilling moratorium. They emphatically did not. The president who campaigned on basing his policies on “sound science” ignored his own hand-picked experts. 在墨西哥湾漏油事件（the Gulf oil spill）中，奥巴马当局谎称其独立专家支持钻探禁令，但确凿无疑，这些专家并未这么说。虽然总统先生一直宣称自己的政策有坚实的科学基础，但他对身边的专家却置若罔闻。 According to the GAO, he did something very similar when he shut down Yucca Mountain. His support for wind and solar energy, as you suggest, isn’t based on science but on faith. And that faith has failed him dramatically. 根据美国政府问责局(GAO)的消息，类似的情况还有奥巴马关停了雅卡山一事。可以看出，他对风能和太阳能的大力扶植同样基于政治信条而非科学而这一信条让他一败涂地。 The idea that conservatives are anti-science is self-evident and self-pleasing liberal hogwash. I see no reason why conservatives should even argue the issue on their terms when it’s so clearly offered in bad faith in the first place. 认为保守主义者反科学的观点，毫无疑问是自由派们自我陶醉的一派胡言。我不明白保守派为什么非要在任期内就此问题与其争论，很明显这压根就是血口喷人嘛。

Recently, others have made this point better than I have, but as the Marines say of their rifles, this “news”letter is mine. 最近也有其他人提出了类似的观点，而且表达得比我更好，但是——就像海军陆战队对自己的步枪敝帚自珍一样——这封“新闻信”毕竟是我自己的嘛。 Anyway, what I find really intriguing is the way people talk about “science” as if it is so much more — and occasionally less — than it is. Critics on Twitter and in my e-mail box say we need to know if Scott Walker “believes in science,” as if his answer on evolution will tell us if he’s a witch burner or not. 总之，我发现人们对科学的看法很有意思，他们似乎总是给科学赋予比事实上更多（有时候是更少）的含义，推特上和我邮箱中的一些批评意见，认为我们需要搞清楚斯科特·沃克是否真的“信仰科学”，似乎他的答案可以告诉我们他是否支持烧死女巫。 Well, I regularly get e-mail from creationists. E-mail. In other words, thanks to scientists, the words of creationists are transported through the sky into my phone or computer. And, while I haven’t checked, I’m pretty sure they don’t believe that their e-mail was carried to me on the backs of pixies. 我经常收到一些神创论者发来的电邮。是电子邮件哦。换句话说，幸亏有了科学家，这些神创论者的信息才得以穿越天空传到我的手机或者电脑中。尽管并未验证，但我很确定他们应当不会认为电邮是通过小精灵传给我的。 I’m also pretty sure that the vast majority of creationists drive cars, take antibiotics, watch TV, and eat foods with preservatives in them. For liberals, perhaps this is proof of some kind of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. And maybe it is, though I don’t see it. But it’s also a demonstration that having your faith — or your superstitions — bump into one of the farther borders of scientific knowledge doesn’t require one to reject all of science. 我也非常确信绝大多数神创论者开车、吃抗生素、看电视、食用含防腐剂的食品。自由派或许可以从中看出虚伪和认知失调的意味。也许是吧，但我没看出来。但对我来说，这一现象表明，你的信仰或迷信越出了科学知识的边界，并这不意味着你要摒弃科学这个整体。 It’s not a binary thing. Belief in something unconfirmed or even disproved by science is not a rejection of all science. Just as a refusal to believe unicorns are real doesn’t mean I have to reject the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Kate Upton, or other allegedly mythical creatures. 这并不是非此即彼的。对未经科学验证、甚至被科学所证伪的事物的信仰，并非是对科学整体的拒绝。仅仅不承认独角兽存在，并不意味着一个人会否认尼斯湖水怪、大脚怪、凯特·阿普顿(Kate Upton)，或者其他传说中的神秘造物存在。 That’s part of the irony. The way the science-lovers talk about science, you’d think science was a kind of magic that requires total faith and conviction. If you don’t believe with all of your heart in “science,” it will stop working. It’s like the scientific enterprise is akin to Santa’s sleigh in the movie Elf (a great film, and not just because it inspired my daughter to answer the phone “Buddy the Elf, what’s your favorite color?”). 这真是讽刺啊，一些科学狂热分子眼中的科学让人感觉像是某种魔法，需要完全的信仰和信念。如果你不是全身心地信仰“科学”，它就不再起作用。这样的话，科技企业倒是跟电影《圣诞精灵》中圣诞老人的雪橇有些类似。（《圣诞精灵》是一部不错的电影，我这么认为，不仅仅是因为我女儿受到电影的影响，在接电话的时候会说“我是精灵巴迪，你最喜欢什么颜色？”）。 In Elf, Santa’s sleigh no longer relies on flying reindeer. Instead it converts“Christmas cheer” into jet power. That’s how some of these people talk about believing in science. If we don’t project our positive emotions towards it, it won’t take off. 在《圣诞精灵》中，圣诞老人的雪橇不是由会飞的驯鹿来牵引的，而是把“圣诞欢呼”转化成飞行动力。这和某些人口中的科学是一样的，如果我们不把正能量投射到圣诞雪橇上，它就不会起飞。 I am typing this on a plane from Detroit, Michigan — on Friday the 13th, no less. What happens if I suddenly stop saying in a hopeful whisper “I believe in you, science!” or if I take a deist bent and hold out the possibility that there’s something more than the material world out there? Will my plane suddenly plummet? Will gremlins slowly emerge from behind the seat in front of me, like Miley Cyrus climbing over a toilet-stall door? 今天是黑色星期五，我正在一架从密歇根州底特律市起飞的一架飞机上写这篇文章。现在，如果我不再满怀希望的嘀咕着“我信仰你，科学!”，或者开始相信自然神论的观点，认为很有可能在已知物质世界之外，还有其他存在，那么我的飞机会不会突然一头栽下去呢？会不会有一只小魔怪（gremlins，喜欢恶作剧）在我前面的椅背上浮现呢，就跟麦莉·赛勒斯从厕所隔间的门上爬过似的？ Look, science, unlike God, really doesn’t care if you believe in it. And casting doubt on one part of it doesn’t break the spell. That’s the whole point of science; it’s not magic. 所以你看，科学跟上帝不同，根本不在乎你是否信仰它，对它某一个方面有质疑，并不会打破魔咒，这才是科学的真相，它不是魔法。【译注：《打破魔咒》也是哲学家丹尼尔·丹内特2006年的一部作品，副标题是“作为一种自然现象的宗教”，认为宗教信仰是一种曾经有用的虚假信念，可以帮助人们做到一些不然就做不到的事情，但在科学高度发展的今天，已经成为理性进步的障碍，是该打破它们的时候了。丹内特也是长期活跃在论战前线的无神论四骑士之一。】 Democrats are more likely to believe in paranormal activity. They’re also more likely to believe in reincarnation and astrology. I have personally known liberals who think crystals have healing powers who nonetheless believe that the internal combustion engine doesn’t actually rely on magical horse power. 民主党人更有可能相信超自然现象，他们也更有可能相信轮回和占星术。我私下认识一些自由派，他们相信水晶有治愈的功能，尽管如此，他们从不认为内燃机是依靠魔法的马力来运转的。 HELP ME, SCIENCE, YOU’RE MY ONLY HOPE 帮帮我吧，科学，你是我唯一的希望 But you wouldn’t necessarily know that from listening to these people freak out about it. (Sorry, this “news”letter will be light in links because there’s no internet on this plane. Fun fact: If you shout “There’s no Internet on this plane!” in a really loud, terror-filled, voice — as if the plane runs on Internet — your fellow passengers freak out. Try it some time. If it doesn’t work the first time, say it over and over. Eventually you’ll get a lot of attention.) 但是，你从受到惊吓的人口中未必能听到这句话。（实在抱歉，这封“新闻信”链接很少，这是因为飞机上没有因特网。说件趣事：假如你在飞机上用一种惊恐的语气大声喊：“这架飞机上居然没有互联网！”——就好像这架飞机是靠互联网飞行的——这会吓坏你周围的旅客。如果第一次不成功也没关系，再大声点多喊几次，最终大家都会注意到你的。） When I hear people talk about science as if it’s something to “believe in,” particularly people who reject all sorts of science-y things (vaccines, nuclear power, etc. as discussed above), I immediately think of one of my favorite lines from Eric Voegelin: “When God is invisible behind the world, the contents of the world will become new gods; when the symbols of transcendent religiosity are banned, new symbols develop from the inner-worldly language of science to take their place.” This will be true, he added, even when “the new apocalyptics insist that the symbols they create are scientific.” 很多人一谈起“科学”，就好像它应该是某种“信仰”，特别是那些拒绝所有听起来像科学的事物（维生素、核能等等）的人。每当听到这些，我就会想起埃里克·沃格林说过的，也是我最喜欢的一句名言：“当上帝从世界逐渐隐去，新的神灵又将崛起，当超验的宗教符号遭到禁止，科学的世俗语言将会取而代之”。这是事实，他补充道，“届时，新的先知把他们新创造的符号称作“科学”。 In other words, the “Don’t you believe in evolution!?!” people don’t really believe in science qua science, what they’re really after is dethroning God in favor of their own gods of the material world (though I suspect many don’t even realize why they’re so obsessed with this one facet of the disco ball called “science”). “Criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticisms,” quoth Karl Marx, who then proceeded to create his own secular religion. 换句话说，说“你居然不相信进化论？！”的人们，其实并不相信所谓的科学，他们的真实目的，是把原来的上帝赶下神坛，让位于他们在物质世界的新神（然而我怀疑他们并不清楚，为什么迪斯科球上让他们如此着迷的一个小侧面，会被称作“科学”）。“对宗教的批判是一切批判的前提”，卡尔·马克思如是说，但他转身创建了自己的世俗宗教。 This is nothing new of course. This tendency is one of the reasons why every time Moses turned his back on the Hebrews they started worshipping golden calves and whatnot. 当然，这种现象并不新奇。同时也解释了为何每次摩西一离开希伯来人，他们就开始崇拜诸如金牛犊之类的东西。 At least Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who coined the phrase “sociology,” was open about what he was really up to when he created his “Religion of Humanity,” in which scientists, statesmen, and engineers were elevated to Saints. As I say in my column, the fight over evolution is really a fight over the moral status of man. 与他们相比，奥古斯特·孔德至少是个敢想敢做的人，这位法国哲学家，“社会学”的创始人，创立了他的“人道教”，在那里，科学家、政治家和工程师是被当作圣人而崇拜的。正如我曾在我专栏中说过的，围绕进化论的论战其实是对人类当前道德状态的争论。 And, if we are nothing but a few bucks worth of chemicals connected by water and electricity, than there’s really nothing holding us back from elevating “science” to divine status and in turn anointing those who claim to be its champions as our priests. It’s no coincidence that Herbert Croly was literally — not figuratively, the way Joe Biden means literally — baptized into Comte’s Religion of Humanity 如果我们不过是一些通过水和电连接在一起的化学物质，那还有什么可以阻止我们把“科学”供上神坛，并为那些所谓科学斗士行涂油礼令、让他们做我们的神父呢。难怪赫伯特·克劳利会（货真价实地，不是象征性地，此处“货真价实”一词不是按乔·拜登那种用法）皈依孔德的人道教。【译注：乔·拜登曾在演讲中多次错误地使用“literally”一词，一度成为笑柄 】 Personally, I think the effort to overthrow Darwin along with Marx and Freud is misguided. I have friends invested in that project and I agree that all sorts of terrible Malthusian and materialist crap is bound up in Darwinism. But that’s an argument for ranking out the manure, not burning down the stable. 我个人认为，试图将达尔文和马克思与弗洛伊德绑在一起打倒是不对的。我有朋友正在这么做，并且我也同意，马尔萨斯主义者和唯物主义者的废话确实和达尔文主义的颇有渊源。但是，如果只是想清理掉马粪，何必把整个马厩也烧了呢？ IN MEMORIAM 悼念 My brother Josh passed away four years ago this month. If I couldn’t get a G-File done this morning, I was going to recycle the one I wrote not long after his funeral. An excerpt: 我哥哥乔什是在四年前的这个月去世的。如果今早没写完G-File的话，本来打算把我在他葬礼后不久写的悼词重复利用的，以下是摘要： My brother died last week. He had an accident. He fell down some stairs. He surely had too much to drink when it happened. It’s all such an awful waste. You can read how I felt — how I feel — about my brother here. 家兄在上周辞世，那是场意外，他从楼梯上摔了下来，当时肯定喝了不少酒。这实在是有点浪费。点击这里的链接，你可以看到我曾经和现在对他去世的感受。 But, you know, this is uncharted territory for me. And while I have little to no morbid desire to wallow indefinitely in a public display of grieving, the G-File has always been a dispatch from the frontlines of my mind, a quasi-personal letter to the collective You. Some might even call it the mad scribbling in the virtual ink of diluted fecal matter on my imaginary jail-cell wall. 但是，你们也知道，这种情景对我非常陌生。而且我也实在不想在公开场合表现出一副沉浸在悲痛中无法自拔的样子。G-File一直占据着我的思维，它就像写给你们的一封私人信。也有人甚至说，这是我在自己想象的监牢中，把稀释粪便当作墨水进行的疯狂涂鸦。 And, as you can imagine, there are few things more on my mind than this choking fog of awfulness. 但是，如你们所想，现在占据我思维的，除了这难堪呛人的烟雾之外，又多了一些事情。 I’m told by a friend that there’s a new book out, The Truth about Grief by Ruth Davis Konigsberg, that apparently demonstrates how Elisabeth Kubler-Ross made up all that stuff about the “five stages of grief.” 一位朋友曾经对我说，最近出了本新书，是鲁思·戴维斯·柯尼斯堡写的《悲伤的真相》。这本书显然在试图说明伊丽莎白·库伯勒－罗斯是如何编造出“悲伤的五个阶段”这种破玩意儿的。 I have no plans to read it. But I’m fully prepared to believe that any hard-and-fast five-point definition of grief is bogus. Admittedly, my data sample set is pretty small but hugely significant; in the last six years I’ve lost my father and my brother out of a family of four people. And, already, it’s clear to me that the geography of grief cannot be so easily mapped. 我没想去读这本书，但是我认为所有对悲伤的严格的五点定义都是扯淡。说实话，我的统计样本相当小，但是结果非常显著：我们原本的四口之家，在过去的六年里，先后失去了父亲和兄弟。并且，我非常清楚悲伤的地图是很难被轻易描绘出来的。 Obviously there are going to be similarities to the terrain. But just as there are different kinds of happiness — say, winning the lottery versus having a kid, or beating cancer versus seeing Keith Olbermann booted off of MSNBC — there are different kinds of sadness, too. And how they play out depends on the context. 显然，不同人的悲伤“地形”或许有些许相似，但是正如幸福有许多种一样（比如，彩票中奖与喜得贵子、战胜癌症或基思·奥伯曼被MSNBC辞退一事），悲伤也有好多种。他们最终怎样消散取决于当时的具体情境。 In terms of my own internal response, the most glaring continuity between my dad’s death and my brother’s is loneliness. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve got lots of company. I have lots of people who care for me more than I realized. I’m richer in friends and family than I could ever possibly expect or deserve. 至于我个人的感受，父亲和兄弟的相继去世留给我的是无尽的孤独。请不要误会，我有很多人陪伴，我自己都没有意识到会有这么多人关心着自己。我所得到的友情和亲情已经远超自己的预期。 But there’s a kind of loneliness that comes with death that cannot be compensated for. Tolstoy’s famous line in Anna Karenina was half right. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way, but so are all happy ones. At least insofar as all families are ultimately unique. 但是有一种孤独与死亡相伴而来，无法慰藉。托尔斯泰在《安娜·卡列妮娜》中的一句名言说对了一半，不幸的家庭各有各的不幸，幸福的家庭也是如此。至少每个家庭都是独特的。 Unique is a misunderstood word. Pedants like to say there’s no such thing as “very unique.” I don’t think that’s true. For instance, we say that each snowflake is unique. That’s true. No two snowflakes are alike. But that doesn’t mean that pretty much all snowflakes aren’t very similar. But, imagine if you found a snowflake that was ten feet in diameter and hot to the touch, I think it’d be fair to say it was very unique. Meanwhile, each normal snowflake has its own contours, its own one-in-a-billion-trillion characteristics, that will never be found again. 独特这个词被误解了，学究们经常说：没有真正“独一无二”的事物。我并不这么认为。比如，我们常说每一片雪花都是独特的，这是真的，没有两片完全一样的雪花。但是这并不意味着所有的雪花都不相似。假设你找到一片直径十英尺、摸起来烫手的雪花，我想说它很独特应该没问题吧。同时，每一片普通的雪花都有只属于它自己的轮廓，只属于它自己的万中无一的特征，在其它雪花上永远找不到的特征。 Families are similarly unique. Each has its own cultural contours and configurations. The uniqueness might be hard to discern from the outside and it certainly might seem trivial to the casual observer. Just as one platoon of Marines might look like another to a civilian or one business might seem indistinguishable from the one next door. But, we all know the reality is different. Every meaningful institution has a culture all its own. Every family has its inside jokes, its peculiar way of doing things, its habits and mores developed around a specific shared experience. 家庭和雪花一样有类似的独特性，每个家庭有它自己的文化形态和内涵。其独特性从外部难得一窥，况且外人也不会真正在意。正如对平民来说，一队海军陆战队员看起来都差不多，一间商铺和隔壁的也很难区分。但是我们都清楚，事实上是不同的。每一个实体机构都有其独特的文化。每个家庭都有它自己的内部笑话，它做事的原则，它基于自己某种共同经历的习惯和习俗。 One of the things that keeps slugging me in the face is the fact that the cultural memory of our little family has been dealt a terrible blow. Sure, my mom’s around, but sons have a different memory of family life than parents. And Josh’s recall for such things was always not only better than mine, but different than mine as well. I remembered things he’d forgotten and vice versa. In what seems like the blink of an eye, whole volumes of institutional memory have simply vanished. And that is a terribly lonely thought, that no amount of company and condolence can ease or erase. 我们这个小家庭的文化正在经历严重的打击，这让我心如刀割。当然了，母亲还在身边，但是子女跟父母对于家庭的记忆并不完全相同。而乔什对这些事情的回忆比我更清晰，并与我有所不同。我记得一些他已忘记的事情，反之亦然。仿佛眨眼之间，一些独有的记忆就这么消失了。每念及此，心中倍感孤独，即使再多陪伴也难以慰藉。 The pain is duller now, but the feelings are the same. 现在伤痛减轻了些，但感受没变。 （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——

Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy 物理学家们，请别再对哲学说蠢话了 作者：Sean Carroll @ 2014-6-23 译者：Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon) 校对：斑马（@鹿兔马朦）、史祥莆（@史祥莆）、张三（@老子毫无动静的坐着像一段呆木头） 来源：Sean Carroll个人博客，http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/ The last few years have seen a number of prominent scientists step up to microphones and belittle the value of philosophy. Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are well-known examples. 过去几年，数位著名科学家跳出来贬低哲学的价值，其中广为人知的有Stephen Hawking，Lawrence Krauss和Neil de Grasse Tyson。 To redress the balance a bit, philosopher of physics Wayne Myrvold has asked some physicists to explain why talking to philosophers has actually been useful to them. 为了平衡一下这种偏见，一位物理学哲学家Wayne Myrvold请一些物理学家解释一下，为什么与哲学家沟通对他们自己的研究有所助益。 I was one of the respondents, and you can read my entry at the Rotman Institute blog. I was going to cross-post my response here, but instead let me try to say the same thing in different words. 我是其中一个受访者，你可以在Rotman Institute Blog上读到我的回答。我本打算把我的回答直接发布在这里，不过还是让我尝试用不同的话再叙述一遍吧。 Roughly speaking, physicists tend to have three different kinds of lazy critiques of philosophy: one that is totally dopey, one that is frustratingly annoying, and one that is deeply depressing. 大体而言，物理学家倾向于对哲学持有三种简单粗暴的批评：一种纯属愚蠢，另一种非常讨厌，最后一种则让人沮丧。

• “Philosophy tries to understand the universe by pure thought, without collecting experimental data.”
• 哲学对收集实验数据漠不关心，却试图依靠纯粹的思考来理解世界

This is the totally dopey criticism. Yes, most philosophers do not actually go out and collect data (although there are exceptions). But it makes no sense to jump right from there to the accusation that philosophy completely ignores the empirical information we have collected about the world. 这是非常愚蠢的批判。没错，多数哲学家确实不会走出去收集数据（但也有例外）。但是由此出发直接得出这样的指责：哲学完全忽视了我们所获得的有关世界的经验数据——是毫无意义的。 When science (or common-sense observation) reveals something interesting and important about the world, philosophers obviously take it into account. (Aside: of course there are bad philosophers, who do all sorts of stupid things, just as there are bad practitioners of every field. Let’s concentrate on the good ones, of whom there are plenty.) 当科学（或者日常观察）显示了一些有关世界的有趣和重要的事情时，哲学家当然会认真对待。（题外话：当然存在一些糟糕的哲学家，他们尽做蠢事，就像每个领域总会有糟糕的从业者一样。还是让我们专注于那些为数众多的杰出人物吧 ） Philosophers do, indeed, tend to think a lot. This is not a bad thing. All of scientific practice involves some degree of “pure thought.” Philosophers are, by their nature, more interested in foundational questions where the latest wrinkle in the data is of less importance than it would be to a model-building phenomenologist. 相较于实践，哲学家的确倾向于思考得更多，但这并不是件坏事。一切科学实践都或多或少地涉及一些“纯粹性的思考”。哲学家本身的职业属性决定了，他们对那些基本问题要更感兴趣，而对于这些问题的研究，有关经验事实的一点最新小动静，对于哲学家来说，远不如对那些通过建模研究现象的学者来得重要。 But at its best, the practice of philosophy of physics is continuous with the practice of physics itself. Many of the best philosophers of physics were trained as physicists, and eventually realized that the problems they cared most about weren’t valued in physics departments, so they switched to philosophy. 尽管如此，在最佳实践中，物理学哲学的工作始终紧随物理学工作本身。很多杰出的物理学哲学家受过成为物理学家所需要的训练，但最终他们意识到自己最关注的问题在一般的物理系不受到重视，所以他们转向了哲学。 But those problems — the basic nature of the ultimate architecture of reality at its deepest levels — are just physics problems, really. And some amount of rigorous thought is necessary to make any progress on them. Shutting up and calculating isn’t good enough. 但这些问题——物理实在之最深层终极结构的基本性质——这恰恰就是物理问题。对于这样的问题，一些来自哲学家的慎密思考，对于取得进展都是必需的。仅仅闷头计算是不够的。

• “Philosophy is completely useless to the everyday job of a working physicist.”
• 哲学对于一个物理学家的日常工作没有丝毫用处

Now we have the frustratingly annoying critique. Because: duh. If your criterion for “being interesting or important” comes down to “is useful to me in my work,” you’re going to be leading a fairly intellectually impoverished existence. Nobody denies that the vast majority of physics gets by perfectly well without any input from philosophy at all. (“We need to calculate this loop integral! Quick, get me a philosopher!”) 然后是这种特别使人厌烦的批评了。因为：嗯，要是你对于“有趣或重要”的标准低到了“对我的工作有用”，那你的智力水准显然是有往日益贫乏方向发展的趋势。没人否认绝大多数物理学家所取得的成功并没有来自哲学的贡献。（“我们需要计算这个环路积分,快给我找个哲学家来！”） But it also gets by without input from biology, and history, and literature. Philosophy is interesting because of its intrinsic interest, not because it’s a handmaiden to physics. I think that philosophers themselves sometimes get too defensive about this, trying to come up with reasons why philosophy is useful to physics. Who cares? 但是生物学，历史学和文学对其也同样没有贡献。哲学有趣，是因为它本身的内在趣味，而不是作为物理学仆人的用处。我认为哲学家们自己有时对这一点也太过于坚持了，试图找出为什么哲学会对物理学有用。管它呢。 Nevertheless, there are some physics questions where philosophical input actually is useful. Foundational questions, such as the quantum measurement problem, the arrow of time, the nature of probability, and so on. 尽管如此，还是有一些物理学问题是哲学知识可以派得上用场的。一些基础性问题，例如量子测量（测不准原理），时间之箭【译注：意为时间的不可逆性，是由英国天体物理学家亚瑟·爱丁顿提出的一个概念】，概率的本质等等。 Again, a huge majority of working physicists don’t ever worry about these problems. But some of us do! And frankly, if more physicists who wrote in these areas would make the effort to talk to philosophers, they would save themselves from making a lot of simple mistakes. 又一次，很大部分工作中的物理学家并不需要操心这些问题，但是我们中的某些人会啊！而且，坦率地说，如果有更多在这些领域笔耕的物理学家能够花点时间和哲学家交流一下，那么他们将可以避免犯下许多低级错误。

• “Philosophers care too much about deep-sounding meta-questions, instead of sticking to what can be observed and calculated.”
• 哲学家们过于关心深层次的元问题，而不是专注于那些可以明确观察和计算的问题

Finally, the deeply depressing critique. Here we see the unfortunate consequence of a lifetime spent in an academic/educational system that is focused on taking ambitious dreams and crushing them into easily-quantified units of productive work. 最后是这种让人沮丧的批评。我们在此看到的是这样一些不幸的人，他们把一生时间花在了适应学术/教育系统，那个致力于攫取人们的梦想，然后碾碎，把它变成一些针对单纯的重复性生产任务的容易量化的单元的系统。 The idea is apparently that developing a new technique for calculating a certain wave function is an honorable enterprise worthy of support, while trying to understand what wave functions actually are and how they capture reality is a boring waste of time. I suspect that a substantial majority of physicists who use quantum mechanics in their everyday work are uninterested in or downright hostile to attempts to understand the quantum measurement problem. 他们的想法显然是这样的：为计算一个特定波函数而开发一种新技术，是值得支持的荣耀事业，而尝试去理解波函数到底是什么以及它们如何刻画了现实，则是浪费时间。我怀疑绝大多数在日常工作中使用量子力学的物理学家，对试图理解量子测量问题的行为，要么不感兴趣，要么完全反对。 This makes me sad. I don’t know about all those other folks, but personally I did not fall in love with science as a kid because I was swept up in the romance of finding slightly more efficient calculational techniques. Don’t get me wrong — finding more efficient calculational techniques is crucially important, and I cheerfully do it myself when I think I might have something to contribute. But it’s not the point — it’s a step along the way to the point. 这令我寒心。我不太了解其他同行的情况，就我个人而言，并未在少年时代就着迷于科学，是因为我当时被卷入了寻找更高效计算技术的潮流——不要误解，这项技术是非常重要的——，当我认为自己也许会在那方面有所贡献时，我就积极参与到了这项研究中。但是无论对于我个人还是整个科学，这都不是重点——它只是在通往真正重要的研究道路上的一步。 The point, I take it, is to understand how nature works. Part of that is knowing how to do calculations, but another part is asking deep questions about what it all means. That’s what got me interested in science, anyway. And part of that task is understanding the foundational aspects of our physical picture of the world, digging deeply into issues that go well beyond merely being able to calculate things. 依我看，真正重要的东西，是去理解世界是怎样运转的。知道怎样去计算是其中一部分，但更重要的是考虑那些关于为什么是这样，这意味着什么的问题。这些问题才是科学中吸引我的部分。完成这个任务，其中的一部分就是理解我们对于世界的物理学刻画中作为基础的那部分，深入挖掘那些仅凭计算远远无法解决的的问题。 It’s a shame that so many physicists don’t see how good philosophy of science can contribute to this quest. The universe is much bigger than we are and stranger than we tend to imagine, and I for one welcome all the help we can get in trying to figure it out. 令人遗憾的是，太多物理学家忽视了科学哲学在这样的探索中所能作出的贡献。世界的广度远大于我们，其复杂神奇之处也远超我们的想象，我谨代表个人欢迎在探索它的过程中来自所有我们可能得到的所有帮助。 （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——