評論
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.
沒有人暗示說科學家不誠實。只不過他們有種天然的強烈傾向，總想獲得能證實自己看法的數據。這一傾向在今天幾乎任何一個有爭議的研究領域——有關種族與智力的大爭論， 關于核能的爭論，等等——都能觀察到。偶爾情況下，欺詐因素才演變為不折不扣的大騙局。 西里爾·伯特的研究似可作為一例。這位英國科學家的研究成果曾被用來證明智力主要是由遺傳獲得的這一觀點。現在看來，伯特不僅編造了不少研究結果，甚至還虛構了兩個合作者，并在其科學論文上署上了他們的名字。
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.
古爾德從他對莫頓的研究中引出的教訓，并不是說科學家是邪惡的，而是說他們也是和我們一樣的人，因此同樣應該受到人們的質疑。“這則故事中的罪魁禍首是一種天真的想法，即認為植根于有著共同信仰的文化傳統的人能夠做到完全的客觀公正，以及由此而引起的一種缺乏自省的精神,”古爾德說。
In other words, listen to what science has to say, but never get far away from a grain of salt.
換言之，人們應該傾聽科學所言，但決不要輕信。
