What is science

科学一般被定义为：甲，精确科学，如化学、物理等等；乙，一种通过逻辑推理从观察到的事实得出可验证的结论的思维方式。

你去问任何一个科学家或是几乎任何一个受教育的人：“什么是科学？”你很可能得到一个与乙相近的答案。而在日常生活中，人们所说的科学指的都是甲：科学是发生在实验室里的事。这个字眼叫人想起图表、试管、天平、本生灯、显微镜。生物学家、天文学家、也许还有心理学家或数学家都可以说是“科学工作者”，但没有人会想到把这个称呼用在政治家、诗人、报人乃至于哲学家身上。有人告诉我们说：年轻人必须得到科学方面的教育，但他们不外乎是说年轻人应该多知道一点辐射、恒星或是人体的生理机能，而并非指应该教年轻人学会更严密地思考。

这种意义上的含混，部分是出于故意，其中包含着极大的危险。加强科学教育的呼吁暗示了一种信念，即如果得到了科学的训练，人们对于所有学科的认识会比没有经过这种训练时要来得明智。但是，在狭义上，一个“科学家”真的会比其他人较有可能客观地考虑科学以外的问题吗？这样的想法并没有充分的理由。作一个简单的测验──抵制民族主义的能力。人们常说“科学无国界”，但在实际上，所有国家的科学工作者在追随本国政府时比起作家和艺术家来更少顾忌。作为一个整体，德国的科学界没有对希特勒作出任何抵抗。希特勒可能破坏了德国科学的长期繁荣，但始终有许多才俊之士在对合成油料、喷气式飞机、火箭和原子弹之类作必要的研究。没有了他们，德国的战争机器可能永远造不起来。

在世界各地情况都是如此，只是形式上稍有变化。在英国，我们大部分的杰出科学家接受了资本主义社会的体制，那些不愿简单接受现状的英国科学家常常是社会主义者，也就是说，尽管在自己的工作中他们保持了理智的谨慎，但在某些事情上他们是可以不加判断甚至于不尽诚实的。

但这是不是说普通大众不应该得到更多的科学教育？恰恰相反！这只是在说，科学教育如果简单地归结为更多的物理、更多的化学、更多的生物，而忽略了文学、历史，就会不但无益反有大害。

很清楚，科学教育应当是指灌输一种理性的、怀疑的、实验的思维习惯。它应当是指学会一种方法──可以用在遇到任何问题上的方法──而不是简单地堆砌大量的事实。科学教育最后往往还是意味着一种观察世界的方式，而不仅仅是一种知识体系。

百年前，查尔斯.金斯利把科学描绘成“在实验室里制造臭气”。一二年前，一个年轻的工业化学师很得意地告诉我说，他“看不出诗歌有什么用”。人们的态度就像钟摆在来回晃动。目前，科学占了上风，于是我们就听到了这种很正常的说法，即大众需要科学教育。我们听不到应该有的反面意见，即科学家自己可以从一些教育中得益。就在写这篇文章之前，我在一份美国杂志上读到，英美的不少物理学家，因为清楚地知道原子弹的用途，从一开始就拒绝进行研究。在这个疯狂的世界上，我终于看到了一群清醒的人。尽管他们的名字没有刊出，我可以有把握地猜测，他们所有人都具有广泛的文化背景知识，熟悉历史、文学或者艺术，简而言之，他们的兴趣并不是纯粹科学的──就这个词的流行意义而言。

Science is generally defined as: A, exact science, such as chemistry, physics, and so on; B, a way of thinking that draws verifiable conclusions from observed facts by means of logical reasoning. Ask any scientist or almost any educated person, "what is science?" And you'll probably get a similar answer. In everyday life, when people say science, they mean a: science is what happens in the laboratory. The word conjures up diagrams, test tubes, scales, Bunsen burners, microscopes. Biologists, astronomers, and perhaps psychologists or mathematicians can all be described as "scientists." But no one thought to apply the term to politicians, poets, newspapermen, or even philosophers. We are told that young people must be educated in science, but all they can say is that young people should know more about radiation, stars, or the physiology of the human body, it does not mean that young people should be taught to think more critically. The ambiguity in this sense is partly intentional and contains great danger. The call for more science education hints at the belief that, with scientific training, people will be wiser about all subjects than they would be without it. But, in a narrow sense, is a "scientist" really more likely than others to think objectively about problems outside science? There's no good reason to think so. A simple test of his ability to resist nationalism. It is often said that "science knows no borders", but in practice, scientists in all countries have less to fear than writers and artists when they follow their own governments. The German scientific community as a whole made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have sabotaged the long boom in German science, but there are still a lot of talented people doing the necessary research on things like synthetic fuel, Jets, rockets and atomic bombs. Without them, the German war machine might never have been built. This is the case all over the world, though in a slightly different form. In Britain, most of our outstanding scientists have accepted the system of capitalist society, and those British scientists who are unwilling to simply accept the status quo are often socialists, that is, although they are reasonably cautious in their work, they can be injudicious and even dishonest in certain matters. But does that mean the general public shouldn't get more science education? On the contrary! This is only to say that science education, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, while ignoring literature, history, will not only do no good, but will do great harm. It is clear that science education should refer to inculcating a habit of rational, skeptical, experimental thought. It should mean learning a method that can be used to solve any problem rather than simply piling up a lot of facts. In the end, science education often means a way of seeing the world, not just a system of knowledge. A hundred years ago, Charles. Kingsley describes science as "making stink in the laboratory.". A year or two ago, a young industrial chemist told me proudly that he "could not see the use of poetry". Attitude is like a pendulum swinging back and forth. Right now, science has the upper hand, so we're hearing the normal argument that the public needs science education. We do not hear the opposite of what should be said, namely that scientists themselves can benefit from some education. Just before I wrote this article, I read in an American magazine, that many physicists in Britain and the United States, who knew exactly what the atomic bomb was for, refused to do it in the first place. In this crazy world, I finally see a group of sober people. Although their names have not been published, I can safely assume that all of them have a broad cultural background and are familiar with history, literature or art, in short, their interest is not purely scientific. In the popular sense of the word.

标题: 什么是科学
作者: 乔治·奥威尔
字数: 1252
简介: 科学一般被定义为：甲，精确科学，如化学、物理等等；乙，一种通过逻辑推理从观察到的事实得出可验证的结论的思维方式。你去问任何一个科学家或是几乎