評論
打印
At the time, what they thought
在那個時候，啟蒙學者們認為
distinguished science was a radical idea about things unseen, known as empiricism.
科學的獨特標志是一個關于不可見事物的激進看法，叫做經(jīng)驗主義
All knowledge derives from the senses.
認為所有的知識來自我們的感官
Well, we've seen that that can't be true.
呵呵，我們知道這樣說有些偏頗
It did help by promoting observation and experiment.
但經(jīng)驗主義成就了科學觀察與實驗
But, from the outset, it was obvious that there was something horribly wrong with it.
然而乍一看之下，似乎很明顯地經(jīng)驗主義存在著可怕的漏洞
Knowledge comes from the senses.
“知識源自感官”
In what language? Certainly not the language of mathematics,
那么感官得來的知識由什么語言承載呢？肯定不會是數(shù)學語言吧
in which, Galileo rightly said, the book of nature is written.
可伽利略卻有此精辟一語，“自然之書乃數(shù)學著成”
Look at the world. You don't see equations carved on to the mountainsides.
看看這世界，你看不到山崖上刻著方程式
If you did, it would be because people had carved them.
就算碰巧看到了，那也是因為人們刻上去的
By the way, why don't we do that?
順便問一句，我們干嘛不這樣做呢？
What's wrong with us?
這不是有毛病嘛？
Empiricism is inadequate because, well,
經(jīng)驗主義本身是不足的，這大概是因為
scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen.
科學理論用不可見的來解釋可見的
And the unseen, you have to admit, doesn't come to us through the senses.
而那些不可見的--你得承認--可不是從感官得來的
We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars.
我們可看不見恒星中的核反應
We don't see the origin of species.
看不見物種起源
We don't see the curvature of space-time, and other universes.
還有時空彎曲其他的平行宇宙
But we know about those things. How?
但我們知道這些。我們是怎么做到的呢？
Well, the classic empiricist answer is induction.
經(jīng)驗主義的經(jīng)典的答案是“歸納法”
The unseen resembles the seen. But it doesn't.
認為不可見的與可見的相似。其實不然
You know what the clinching evidence was that space-time is curved?
你能找到一個決定性的反例。比如：時空是彎曲的這一事實
It was a photograph, not of space-time,
我們知道它的證據(jù)是一張照片，不是關于時空本身
but of an eclipse, with a dot there rather than there.
而是拍攝的一次日食，上面有個小點在這兒而不在那兒
And the evidence for evolution?
至于物種起源的證據(jù)呢？
Some rocks and some finches.
一些巖石和雀類化石
And parallel universes? Again: dots there, rather than there, on a screen.
平行宇宙的證據(jù)何在?。坑质瞧聊簧线@兒有些點，而不是那兒
What we see, in all these cases,
這些事例中我們眼睛觀察到的
bears no resemblance to the reality that we conclude is responsible
和事實沒有什么相似之處，所以前面的“相似說”不成立
only a long chain of theoretical reasoning and interpretation connects them.
只有一條長長的理論推導與解讀的鏈條，把它們連在一起
"Ah!" say creationists.
于是那些神創(chuàng)論者就說:“啊哈！”
"So you admit it's all interpretation.
“所以你承認這些科學理論都只是某種解讀
No one has ever seen evolution. We see rocks.
沒人知道答案是什么。我們都看得見石頭
You have your interpretation. We have ours.
你有你的理解，我們有我們的
Yours comes from guesswork, ours from the Bible."
你的理解來自理論猜測，我們的來自圣經(jīng)?！?/div>
But what creationist and empiricists both ignore is that, in that sense,
可是有一點神創(chuàng)論者和經(jīng)驗主義者同時忽略了，那就是，從先前的那種意義上看
no one has ever seen a bible either,
沒有人真正切實“觀察”到一本圣經(jīng)
that the eye only detects light, which we don't perceive.
眼睛只是探測到陽光，而我們無法有意識地感知它
Brains only detect nerve impulses.
大腦只偵測神經(jīng)脈沖
And they don't perceive even those as what they really are, namely electrical crackles.
但卻無法感知它們究竟本身是什么，而它們其實是帶電粒子“小爆破”
So we perceive nothing as what it really is.
如此說來我們無法感知任何事物的現(xiàn)實究竟是什么
