STRAIGHT AND CROOKED THINKING①
If we observe the acions②of men, whether as individuals or as groups, and whether scientists or nonscientists, we find that they frequently fall into avoidable error because of a failure to reason③correctly. There are many reasons for this, though only a few can be dealt with here.
译文正确的思维和不正确的思维
假如我们观察人们的所作所为，无论他们是团体还是个人，也无论他们是科学家还是普通人，我们会发现，人们常由于不能正确思维而产生一些本是可以避免的错误。原因是多方面的，这里只谈几点。
The first difficulty is bound up with (related to) the use of words. It frequently happens that④what one person means when he uses a certain word is different from what others mean. Consider, for example, the words intelligence, oxygen, accurate and overage. In intelligent we face the problem that a word may not mean only one thing, but many-in this instance a very complicated set⑤of aptitudes and abilities whose number and characteristics are not agreed upon by the specialists who study the phenomenon, and are even, less understood by the layman (non-specialist). In oxygen we have a different problem, for although both a research chemist and a chemical manufacturer identify the word theoretically with the element O, in practice they have different concepts about it. Thus if the researcher performed a delicate experiment, using the manufacturer's oxygen， it might easily be a failure since the so-called O, whether used as a solid, liquid or gas, would almost certainly contain other substances.⑥Hence another difficulty about words is that they often do not differentiate clearly enough between several varieties of the ‘same’thing.⑦
首先是用词方面的困难。常有这样的情况：甲用某词所表达的意思，与乙用同一词所表示的意思不一样。且举intelligence，oxygen，accurate和average这几个词为例来看。我们在用intelligence这个词时所遇到的问题是：一个词往往不只一个词义，而是有许多词义，如intelligence就有表示“才能”、“才智”等一组颇难分清的涵义，而其释义究竟有多少，相互间的区别又如何，就连对这方面研究有素的专家，也众说纷纭，外行人就更弄不明白了。在oxygen这个词上，我们所遇到的问题又不同了，因为虽然研究化学的人和制造化学药品的人在理论上都确知oxygen这个词就是指元素O，但他们在各自的工作实践中，对氧的概念却各不相同。因此，如果化学研究人员使用化学药品制造商生产的氧来做精密实验，那么实验十之八九要失败，因为他所用的虽也叫做氧气（不论是固态、液态或是气态），但它几乎肯定含有杂质。由此可见，在用词方面的第二个困难就是：有些词往往不能一目了然地表示出“同一”词义所含的差异（即同中有异）。
Another common error connected with words consists in confusing a word or a name with a fact. The course of scientific progress has been frequently slowed down by (1) assuming the existence of something to account for a certain phenomenon, (2) giving the assumed substance a name, e. g. phlogiston, acther, etc., and (3) implying that the phenomenon has been satisfactorily accounted for (explained).⑧
与用词有关的另一种常见错误，就是以一个词或者某一名称同研究本身混为一谈。如为了研究一种现象，并假设它是由某种物质的存在所引起，于是给这种物质命名（如从前曾提出的燃素、以太之类），而一旦命名之后，就认为该现象已经得到完满的解释、这样，遂使科学研究的进展滞缓不前。
Apart from the misuse of words, mistakes in logic can occur. Thus an example is recorded of⑨a young sociologist, investigating literacy in a certain community, who discovered from the official records that over (more than) 50 per cent of the population were females. He subsequently found that approximately 70 per cent of the population were literate. When he bad obtained this data he summed it up and. drew conclusions as follows:
除了用词出错以外，还可能发生逻辑上的错误。例如，据记载有一位年轻的社会学家，他在调查某地居民的文化程度时，从官方材料中获悉，当地人口中有百分之五十多是女性。继而又了解到，百分之七十左右的人是识字的。在取得这两个数据之后，他概括起来得出结论如下：
Most of the population are females;
Most of the population are literate;
∴most females are literate.
大多数人是女性。
大多数人都识字。
因此，大多数女性是识字的。
This was, of course, an unreasonable inference, as⑩the investigator himself realized as soon as he had reexamined his chain?of reasoning more carefully.
这当然是一个武断。在这位调查者再仔细推敲了他以上的推理之后，连自己也立即认识到这结论是错误的。
Another mistake is to confuse?cause and effect. This may easily occur at the beginning of an investigation, but if it remains uncorrected it can be considered as primarily a by-product?of insufficient experimentation. To illustrate this, the following case can be quoted. The inhabitants of a certain community had noted over the ages that whenever an individual became ill with a fever, the body parasites left him. They therefore made the correlation that the parasites kept them healthy. Later, however, properly-control-led?scientific investigation showed that the reverse was true: in fact the parasites transmitted, several kinds of fever, and then left the sick persons when the latter’s bodies became too hot to live on.
再一种错误就是颠倒因果关系。这种错误很容易发生在一项研究之初，如不及时纠正，则以后可能被误认为主要是实验不充分所造成。下列例子可用来说明这种情况：某地居民长期来已注意到，当有人发烧得病时，寄生虫便从患者体内排出，于是他们认定这两者之间的关系是：有寄生虫才能保持身体健康，但后来经过严格的对照科学试验，正确的结论适得其反：事实上正是寄生虫在传播发烧的病，而当患者体温高到寄生虫无法生存时，它才离开病人。
Some other factors which may influence reasoning are (a) faulty analogizing, (b) the inhibiting effect on further research of concepts which?have been widely accepted-as satisfactory (c) the role?of authority as a bar to the re-consideration of a problem As regards the first of these, it should be emphasized that the process of tackling one problem by analogizing from another has frequently yielded valuable results, as in the case of air-pressure (see Unit 3). On the other hand, it may lead to the adoption of a totally false hypothesis, as when the idea of the atom as an infinitely snail piece of solid matter was obtained by analogizing from the world?of visible appearances. This erroneous view-point blocked progress in this field for many decades. Simmilarly, the comparison of the movement of light to a wavean analogy which had actually provided a satisfactory explanation, of the observed phenomena during most of the nineteenth century-tended subsequently to interfere with the development?of the equally valid concept of light as a stream of particles. This example also illustrates the second factor enumerated above. As far as the third factor is concerned, the history of science shows many instances in which the force?of au thority has operated in such a manner?as to build up an exceedingly powerful insistence to further investigation; in some cases centuries elapsed before this resistance was eventually broken down, as happened in cosmology, for example.
另外，还有若干影响正确思维的因素：一、类比不当；二、人们先入为主的观点对以后进一步研究的阻碍作用；三、权威的阻力，阻碍对事物提出新看法。就上述第一个因素而言，应当强调指出，用类比法解决问题常能取得可贵的成果，如大气压的发现就是一例（见第三讲），但与此相反，也可能导致得出完全错误的认识。例如，过去认为原子是固体物质无限小的粒子的观点，就是拿原子去同肉眼可见之物进行类比而得出的结论。这一错误观点，阻碍了原子科学的发展达数十年之久。同样，过去也曾把光的运动比作是一种波（这种类比在十九世纪大部分时间里确实被用于满意地解释过许多观察到的现象），但后来它却阻碍了另一个同样立论有据的观点即光是一种粒子流的学说的确立，这个例子也可以用来说明上述第二个因素。至于说到第三个因素，这在科学史上亦不乏先例，即权威所起的阻力作用，对科学研究的进展造成极大障碍，及至最终破除这种阻力，往往已是数百年光阴流逝，如宇宙科学咹发展便是如此。
Thus in addition to the chances of going astray?outlined in the previous Unit, the scientific investigator shares with the ordinary，citizen the possibilities of falling into errors of reasoning in the ways we have just indicated. and many others as well (in addition). The more he knows of tins important subject, therefore, the better equipped?he will be to attain success in his work; and the straighter he thinks, the more successfully he will be able to perform his functions as a citizen?.
可见，科研人员除了有可能犯前一讲中所述的错误以外，他们又同普通人一样，在思维方面有可能犯上述的以及其它方面的错误。因此，科研人员对这个重要问题认识得越充分；就越有把握在研究中获得成功；而作为一个普通人来说：他的思维越正确，也就越能有成效地完成自己的工作。
注释
1.直译为“直的思维和扭曲的思维”，不如按平常说法译成“正确的思维和不正确的思维”。
2. the actions这里指process of doing things，译成“做事，办事”较好。
3. reason（v）这里不作“推理”讲，译成“思考；思维”比较贴切。
4. that…（至句末）引出主语从句，说明形式主语it，该从句中又有两个what引出的名词性从句，前一个充当主语，后一个作from的介案从句。
5. a set of…一组或若干…（同类事物）；complicated（a）难懂的，此处；不易分清的；aptitudes and abilities之所以用复数，表示若干类似的语义；whose number指这些涵义的数目；characteristics（事物的）特性，特征，这里指各个涵义的特点即相互间的区别；the phenomenon不译作“现象”，引申为“这个问题，这种学问”。
6.按字面意思是“其它物质”，但这里应理解为“杂质”，译成“其它杂质”也不对，因为other仅指除氧以外的（物质）。
7. thing并不总译成“事物，东西”，具体译法视上下文而定，这里指“词义”而言。
8.本句为被动语态结构，by短语由（1）+（2）+（3）组成，翻译时可顺次译出并按原因处理，置于句首，主谓语部分置于其后，视为结果。by短语译成原因状语的例子并不出见，如：At midday，the temperature on the moon is raised by the sun's rays to over 100℃. 日中，月球上的温度因太阳光的照射可高达一百多度。
9，of…为an example的定语，而它被谓语所割裂，这是因为socialist后跟着一个who引出的很长的定语从句（investigating、分词短语是该从句谓语discovered的状语），而这定语从句本身又带一个宾语从句，因此，主句的谓语is recorded绝不可能再置于这两个从句之后，而只有提前，便产生所谓割裂现象，这是某些英语句子结构本身所造成的，颇为常见。如：The time is coming when…when引出定语从句本应紧接time，但如when：从句较长，则is coming可提前插到time和when之间。
10. as此处不是介词或连词，不能译成“当时”或“正如…”它是连接非限制性定语从句的关系代词，在从句中作realized的宾语，代表整个主句的意思。
11. a chain of…一系列（有联系）的事物。这里也可以从简译成“以上的”。
12. confuse混淆。混淆了因果关系无非是把结果当原因，或视因为果，汉译时可明确译成“颠倒了因果关系”。
13.把一种错误说是“副产品”，不妥，此处byproduct指出现意外的、想不到的结果或现象，即非所希望的主要东西，译成“结果”便可，或不直接译出，其意思由上下文托出。
14. controlled对照的。
15. which修饰concepts（观念认识）而不是research. 这句直译为：被人们视作正确而广为接受的观点。
16. role在这里应着作贬义词故不宜译为“（权威的）作用”，应是“阻力”。
17. a world of...=a large number of...句中可略而不译，visible appearances（肉眼）可见的物体。
18. development译法颇多，此处作“确立、创立”讲；valid不是“正确的”或“有效的”，而是“有根据的”意思。
19.应译作“阻力”。
20. in such a manner：达到这样的程度（或地步），as to build up是结果状语。
21. go astray（ad）走错路，入歧途，句中意为犯错误；不宜直译。
22. to equip（v）意为：to make sb able to do sth，可译为“使…能够做到…”或“有把握做…”
23. as a citizen作为一个公民，但实际，上这里a citizen是与a scientist相对而言的，应是指a non-specialist，译成“普通人”或“非科学家”较为合适，因此，to perform his functions实际上也是指（普通人）做工作，译成“履行职责”似欠贴切。
（王自杭 校注）