评论
打印
No one suggested that the scientists were dishonest; it was just that they quite naturally hada strong tendency to find data that would support their beliefs. The same tendency is observable in almost every controversial area of science today - the fight over race and intelligence,the argument about nuclear energy, and so on. It is only occasionally that the finagle factor turns into pure dishonesty. One example seems to be the research of Cyril Burt, the British scientist whose studies were used to support the belief that intelligence is mostly inherited. It now appears that Burt invented not only a good part of his results but also made up two co-workers whose names appear on his scientific papers.
没有人暗示说科学家不诚实。只不过他们有种天然的强烈倾向，总想获得能证实自己看法的数据。这一倾向在今天几乎任何一个有争议的研究领域——有关种族与智力的大争论， 关于核能的争论，等等——都能观察到。偶尔情况下，欺诈因素才演变为不折不扣的大骗局。 西里尔·伯特的研究似可作为一例。这位英国科学家的研究成果曾被用来证明智力主要是由遗传获得的这一观点。现在看来，伯特不仅编造了不少研究结果，甚至还虚构了两个合作者，并在其科学论文上署上了他们的名字。
The moral that Gould draws from his study of Morton is not that scientists are wicked but that they are just human beings, like the rest of us, and so should be subject to doubt like the rest of us. "The culprit in this tale is a na?ve belief that pure objectivity can be attained by human beings rooted in cultural traditions of shared belief - and a consequent failure of self-examination," Gould said.
古尔德从他对莫顿的研究中引出的教训，并不是说科学家是邪恶的，而是说他们也是和我们一样的人，因此同样应该受到人们的质疑。“这则故事中的罪魁祸首是一种天真的想法，即认为植根于有着共同信仰的文化传统的人能够做到完全的客观公正，以及由此而引起的一种缺乏自省的精神,”古尔德说。
In other words, listen to what science has to say, but never get far away from a grain of salt.
换言之，人们应该倾听科学所言，但决不要轻信。
