Unit 3B - Science and Truth
Science and Truth
Edward Edelson
"Finagle" is not a word that most people associate with science. One reason why science is so respected these days is that the image of the scientist is of one who collects data in an impartial search for truth. In any debate - over intelligence, schooling, bias, energy - the phrase "science says" usually crushes the opposition.
But scientists have long acknowledged the existence of a "finagle factor" - a tendency by many scientists to give a helpful touch to the data to produce desired results. The latest example of the finagle factor comes from Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard biologist, who has examined the important 19th century work of Dr. Samuel George Morton.
Morton was famous in his time not only for gathering a huge collection of skulls but also for analyzing the brain size as a measure of intelligence. He concluded that whites had the largest brains, that the brains of Indians and Blacks were smaller, and therefore, that whites make up a superior race.
Gould went back to Morton's original data and concluded that the results were an example of the finagle factor at work. "I have reanalyzed Morton's data," Gould wrote last week in the journal, Science, "and I find that they are a mixture of assumption and finagling, controlled, probably unconsciously, by his prejudiced way of ranking - his folks on top, slaves on the bottom."
Morton reached his conclusions, Gould found, by leaving out embarrassing data, using incorrect procedures, making simple arithmetical mistakes (always in his favor) and changing his criteria - again, always in favor of his argument.
Left alone, that finding would not be particularly disturbing. Morton has been thoroughly discredited by now. Scientists do not believe that brain size reflects intelligence, and Morton's brand of raw racism is out of style.
But Gould goes on to say that Morton's story is only "a noticeable example of a common problem in scientific work." Some of the leading figures in science are believed to have used the finagle factor.
One of them is Gregor Mendel, the Bohemian monk whose work is the foundation of modern genetics. The success of Mendel's work was based on finding a three-to-one ratio in the dominant and recessive characteristics of hybrid plants he was breeding. He found that ratio. But scientists recently have gone back to his data and have found that the results are literally too good to be true. Like Morton, Mendel gave himself the benefit of the doubt.
So, apparently, did Isaac Newton. Gould says that "Newton put the data together falsely to support at least three central statement that he could not prove."
And so, apparently, did Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer, whose master work, the Almagest, summed up the case for a solar system that had the earth as its center. Recent studies indicate that Ptolemy either faked some key data or resorted heavily to the finagle factor.
All this is important because the finagle factor is still at work. In the saccharin controversy, for example, it was remarked that all the studies sponsored by the sugar industry found that the artificial sweetener was unsafe, while all the studies sponsored by the diet food industry found nothing wrong with saccharin.
No one suggested that the scientists were dishonest; it was just that they quite naturally had a 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.
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 naive 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.
In other words, listen to what science has to say, but never get far away from a grain of salt.
参考译文——科学与真理
科学与真理
爱德华·埃德尔森
大多数人不会将“欺诈”一词与科学联系在一起。如今科学备受尊重，原因之一在于，人们心目中科学家的形象是一个认真收集数据资料、不带偏见地寻求真理的人。在就智力、学校教育、偏见、能源等等问题展开的任何一场争论中，一句“科学认为”往往便能驳倒对方。
但科学家们早就承认“欺诈因素”的存在——许多科学家往往对数据进行于己有利的处理，以获得想要的结果。有关欺诈因素的最新例子来自哈佛生物学家斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德，他对19世纪塞缪尔·乔治·莫顿博士的重要著作进行了研究。
莫顿生前不仅以收集大批头盖骨闻名，同时也以对大脑的大小进行分析，以此作为衡量智力的标准而著称。他得出结论，白人的大脑最大，印第安人和黑人的大脑较小，因此白人人种优越。
古尔德重新研究了莫顿的原始数据，得出结论，莫顿的研究结果正是在科研中搞欺骗的一个例子。“我重新分析了莫顿的数据，”古尔德上星期在《科学》刊物上写道，“发现它们是假设与欺骗的混合体。它们也许在不知不觉中受到他那怀有偏见的等级划分方式的左右——他自己的种族优越，奴隶们最为低劣。”
古尔德发现，莫顿是通过剔除对己不利的数据，采用不正确的程序，造成简单的计算错误（差错的结果总是对其有利），以及更改标准——这种更改同样总是有利于其观点——等等做法，而获得其结论的。
孤立地看，这一发现不会令人特别不安。时至今日，莫顿早已声名狼藉。科学家们不相信大脑的大小能反映智力的高低，莫顿那些赤裸裸的人种优劣论的货色早已无人问津。
但古尔德接着说，莫顿的情况仅仅是“科学研究中一个常见问题的显著例子”。据信，科学界一些重要人物都有过欺诈行为。
其中之一是波西米亚僧人乔治·孟德尔，他的学说为现代遗传学奠定了基础。孟德尔的研究成功的基础在于，他在自己培育的杂交植物中发现了生物显性和隐性之特征的三比一的比率关系。他发现了这个比率。但科学家们近来重新研究了他的数据，发现这些结果实在是太完美了，令人无法相信。像莫顿一样，孟德尔在证据不足的情况下就肯定了自己的假设。
艾萨克·牛顿显然也这么做。古尔德说:“牛顿拼凑数据，以此证明了至少三个自己无法证明的重要论点。”
此外，希腊天文学家克劳迪厄斯·托勒密显然也这么做了。他的杰作《大综合论》概括了各种论点，建立了地心宇宙体系。近期的研究表明，托勒密不是凭空臆造了某些重要数据，就是大量采用了欺诈手法。
这一切都很重要，因为欺诈因素仍在起作用。例如，在有关糖精利弊的争论中，有人指出， 制糖业所赞助的研究都无一例外地发现人造甜味剂不安全，而药疗食品制造业所赞助的研究同样无一例外地发现糖精没有任何危害。
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。
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。
换言之，人们应该倾听科学所言，但决不要轻信。
Key Words:
bias ['baiəs]
n. 偏见，斜纹
vt. 使偏心
associate [ə'səuʃieit]
n. 同伴，伙伴，合伙人
n. 准学士学位获得
opposition [.ɔpə'ziʃən]
n. 反对，敌对，在野党
impartial [im'pɑ:ʃəl]
adj. 公平的，不偏不倚的
superior [su:'piəriə]
n. 上级，高手，上标
adj. 上层的，上好
debate [di'beit]
n. 辩论，讨论
vt. 争论，思考
produce [prə'dju:s]
n. 产品，农作物
vt. 生产，提出，引起，
factor ['fæktə]
n. 因素，因子
vt. 把 ... 因素包括
intelligence [in'telidʒəns]
n. 理解力，智力
n. 情报，情报工作，情报
tendency ['tendənsi]
n. 趋势，倾向
foundation [faun'deiʃən]
n. 基础，根据，建立
n. 粉底霜，基
original [ə'ridʒənl]
adj. 最初的，原始的，有独创性的，原版的
characteristics [,kærəktə'ristiks]
n. 特性，特征；特质；特色（characteristi
prejudiced ['predʒudist]
adj. 有偏见的 动词prejudice的过去时和过去
disturbing [di'stə:biŋ]
adj. 烦扰的；令人不安的 v. 干扰；打断（dist
dominant ['dɔminənt]
adj. 占优势的，主导的，显性的
n. 主宰
controlled [kən'trəuld]
adj. 受约束的；克制的；受控制的 v. 控制；指挥；
brand [brænd]
n. 商标，牌子，烙印，标记
vt. 打烙印，
noticeable ['nəutisəbl]
adj. 显而易见的
hybrid ['haibrid]
n. 混血儿，杂种，混合物
astronomer [ə'strɔnəmə]
n. 天文学家
saccharin ['sækərin]
n. 糖精
statement ['steitmənt]
n. 声明，陈述
indicate ['indikeit]
v. 显示，象征，指示
v. 指明，表明
controversy ['kɔntrəvə:si]
n. (公开的)争论，争议
factor ['fæktə]
n. 因素，因子
vt. 把 ... 因素包括
artificial [.ɑ:ti'fiʃəl]
adj. 人造的，虚伪的，武断的
dishonesty [dis'ɔnisti]
n. 不诚实；不正直；欺诈
occasionally [ə'keiʒənəli]
adv. 偶尔地
controversial [.kɔntrə'və:ʃəl]
adj. 引起争论的，有争议的
objectivity [,ɔbdʒek'tivəti]
n. 客观性；客观
tendency ['tendənsi]
n. 趋势，倾向
wicked ['wikid]
adj. 坏的，邪恶的，缺德的
adv. 极端
observable [əb'zə:vəbl]
adj. 觉察得到的；看得见的；显著的 n. 可观察量；
consequent ['kɔnsi.kwent]
adj. 作为结果的，随之发生的，合乎逻辑的
intelligence [in'telidʒəns]
n. 理解力，智力
参考资料：
2836
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
