評論
打印
In the idealized version of how science is done,
在科學(xué)研究的理想狀態(tài)下，
facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.
關(guān)于世界的事實正在等待著那些客觀的研究者來觀察和搜集，研究者們會用科學(xué)的方法來進行他們的工作。
But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.
但是在每天的科學(xué)實踐中，發(fā)現(xiàn)通常遵循一條模糊和復(fù)雜的路徑。
We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.
我們的目標(biāo)是做到客觀，但是我們卻不能逃離我們所處的獨特的生活經(jīng)驗的環(huán)境。
Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take.
之前的知識和興趣會影響我們所經(jīng)歷的，會影響我們對于經(jīng)驗意義的思考，以及我們會采取的隨后的行動。
Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
這里充滿著誤讀，錯誤和自我欺騙的機會。
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.
所以，對于發(fā)現(xiàn)的申明應(yīng)該被當(dāng)做是科學(xué)的原型。
Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential.
這與新近開發(fā)的采礦資源比較類似，他們都充滿著可能性。
But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.
但是將發(fā)現(xiàn)的申明變?yōu)橐粋€成熟的發(fā)現(xiàn)是需要集體的審查和集體的接受。
This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher's me, here,
這個過程就配稱之為"信用的過程"，通過這個過程一個單個研究者的"我"
now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime.
在這里就變成了這個社區(qū)中的任何人，任何地方和任何時間。
Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
客觀的知識不應(yīng)該是起點而是目標(biāo)。
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.
一旦一個科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)變成公開的，那么發(fā)現(xiàn)者就獲得了知識的認(rèn)可。
But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next.
但是和采礦權(quán)不一樣的是，科學(xué)協(xié)會將控制接下來會發(fā)生的事情。
Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries;
在復(fù)雜的科研機構(gòu)的社會結(jié)構(gòu)中，研究者去做出發(fā)現(xiàn)；
editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;
編輯和審稿者通過控制出版過程扮演著看門人的角色；
other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;
其他的科學(xué)家使用新的發(fā)現(xiàn)來滿足他們自己的目標(biāo)；
and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.
最后，公眾（也包括其他科學(xué)家）接受到新的發(fā)現(xiàn)和可能相伴隨的技術(shù)。
As a discovery claim works it through the community,
當(dāng)一個發(fā)現(xiàn)的聲明最終通過了機構(gòu)的審查，
the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved
在有關(guān)所涉及到的共享的和抵觸的信念之間的互動和沖突
transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery.
將把一個人的發(fā)現(xiàn)變?yōu)橐粋€機構(gòu)的可信的發(fā)現(xiàn)
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.
在整個信任的過程中存在著兩個悖論，
First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.
第一：科學(xué)工作傾向于關(guān)注一些流行科學(xué)的某些方面，而這些方面又是被認(rèn)為是不完全和不正確的。
Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.
去復(fù)制和確認(rèn)已經(jīng)被人所知和所信的東西不會有多少回報。
The goal is new-search, not re-search.
科學(xué)要做的是去探究新的東西而不是再次探究。
Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing
不足為奇的是，新發(fā)表的重要的，有說服力發(fā)現(xiàn)和可信的發(fā)現(xiàn)
will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.
將會被后來的研究者質(zhì)疑，并帶來潛在的修改甚至駁斥。
Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.
第二個悖論是：新穎的東西本身就經(jīng)常會招致懷疑。
Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as
諾貝爾獎獲得者，生理學(xué)家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾經(jīng)將發(fā)現(xiàn)描述為：
"seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought."
"觀察每個人觀察的，思考沒有人想到的。"
But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.
但是思考其他人沒有想到的并且告訴其他人他們所遺漏的可能并不會改變這些人的觀點。
Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
有時候，真正新穎的科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)被人們所接受和認(rèn)可將會花好多年的時間。
In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim
最后，一個科學(xué)的發(fā)現(xiàn)獲得了信任，
a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.
這個過程是與哲學(xué)家Annette Baier所描述的心靈的共性的觀點是一致的。
"We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason."
"我們共同去推理，去質(zhì)疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。
