点将台中科院博士研究生英语精读教材翻译及原文整理解读

2021年1月13日发(作者：冀禹锡)
第1课 知识的悖论 The Paradox of Knowledge
The greatest achievement of humankind in its long evolution from ancient hominoid
ancestors to its present status is the acquisition and accumulation of a vast body of
knowledge about itself, the world, and the universe. The products of this knowledge
are all those things that, in the aggregate, we call
science, literature, art, all the physical mechanisms, instruments, and structures we use,
and the physical infrastructures on which society relies. Most of us assume that in
modern society knowledge of all kinds is continually increasing and the aggregation
of new information into the corpus of our social or collective knowledge is steadily
reducing the area of ignorance about ourselves, the world, and the universe. But
continuing reminders of the numerous areas of our present ignorance invite a critical
analysis of this assumption.
In the popular view, intellectual evolution is similar to, although much more rapid
than, somatic evolution. Biological evolution is often described by the statement that
recapitulates phylogenythat the individual embryo, in its
development from a fertilized ovum into a human baby, passes through successive
stages in which it resembles ancestral forms of the human species. The popular view
is that humankind has progressed from a state of innocent ignorance, comparable to
that of an infant, and gradually has acquired more and more knowledge, much as a
child learns in passing through the several grades of the educational system. Implicit
in this view is an assumption that phylogeny resembles ontogeny, so that there will
ultimately be a stage in which the accumulation of knowledge is essentially complete,
at least in specific fields, as if society had graduated with all the advanced degrees
that signify mastery of important subjects.
Such views have, in fact, been expressed by some eminent scientists. In 1894 the
great American physicist Albert Michelson said in a talk at the University of Chicago:
While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in
store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the
grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are
to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the
phenomena which come under our notice .... The future truths of Physical Science ate
to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.
In the century since Michelson's talk, scientists have discovered much more than the
refinement of measurements in the sixth decimal place, and none is willing to make a
similar statement today. However, many still cling to the notion that such a state of
knowledge remains a possibility to be attained sooner or later. Stephen Hawking, the

1
great English scientist, in his immensely popular book A Brief History of Time (1988),
concludes with the speculation that we may
be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God.
Paul Davies, an Australian physicist, echoes that view by suggesting that the human
mind may be able to grasp some of the secrets encompassed by the title of his book
The Mind of God (1992). Other contemporary scientists write of of
everything,meaning theories that explain all observable physical phenomena, and
Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, one of the founders of the current standard model of
physical theory, writes of his Dreams of a Final Theory (1992).
Despite the eminence and obvious yearning of these and many other contemporary
scientists, there is nothing in the history of science to suggest that any addition of data
or theories to the body of scientific knowledge will ever provide answers to all
questions in any field. On the contrary, the history of science indicates that increasing
knowledge brings awareness of new areas of ignorance and of new questions to be
answered.
Astronomy is the most ancient of the sciences, and its development is a model of
other fields of knowledge. People have been observing the stars and other celestial
bodies since the dawn of recorded history. As early as 3000 B.C. the Babylonians
recognized a number of the constellations. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras
proposed the notion of a spherical Earth and of a universe with objects in it chat
moved in accordance with natural laws. Later Greek philosophers taught that the sky
was a hollow globe surrounding the Earth, that it was supported on an axis running
through the Earth, and chat stars were inlaid on its inner surface, which rotated
westward daily. In the second century A.D., Ptolemy propounded a theory of a
geocentric (Earth-centered) universe in which the sun, planets, and stars moved in
circular orbits of cycles and epicycles around the Earth, although the Earth was not at
the precise center of these orbits. While somewhat awkward, the Ptolemaic system
could produce reasonably reliable predictions of planetary positions, which were,
however, good for only a few years and which developed substantial discrepancies
from actual observations over a long period of time. Nevertheless, since there was no
evidence then apparent to astronomers that the Earth itself moves, the Ptolemaic
system remained unchallenged for more than 13 centuries.
In the sixteenth century Nocolaus Copernicus, who is said to have mastered all the
knowledge of his day in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and theology, became
dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic system. He found that a heliocentric system was both
mathematically possible and aesthetically more pleasing, and wrote a full exposition
of his hypothesis, which was not published until 1543, shortly after his death. Early in

2
the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler became imperial mathematician of the Holy
Roman Empire upon the death of Tycho Brahe, and he acquired a collection of
meticulous naked-eye observations of the positions of celestial bodies chat had been
made by Brahe. On the basis of these data, Kepler calculated that both Ptolemy and
Copernicus were in error in assuming chat planets traveled in circular orbits, and in
1609 he published a book demonstrating mathematically chat the planets travel
around the sun in elliptical orbits. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are still regarded
as basically valid.
In the first decade of the seventeenth century Galileo Galilei learned of the invention
of the telescope and began to build such instruments, becoming the first person to use
a telescope for astronomical observations, and thus discovering craters on the moon,
phases of Venus, and the satellites of Jupiter. His observations convinced him of the
validity of the Copernican system and resulted in the well- known conflict between
Galileo and church authorities. In January 1642 Galileo died, and in December of chat
year Isaac Newton was born. Modern science derives largely from the work of these
two men.
Newton's contributions to science are numerous. He laid the foundations for modem
physical optics, formulated the basic laws of motion and the law of universal
gravitation, and devised the infinitesimal calculus. Newton's laws of motion and
gravitation are still used for calculations of such matters as trajectories of spacecraft
and satellites and orbits of planets. In 1846, relying on such calculations as a guide to
observation, astronomers discovered the planet Neptune.
While calculations based on Newton's laws are accurate, they are dismayingly
complex when three or more bodies are involved. In 1915, Einstein announced his
theory of general relativity, which led to a set of differential equations for planetary
orbits identical to those based on Newtonian calculations, except for those relating to
the planet Mercury. The elliptical orbit of Mercury rotates through the years, but so
slowly that the change of position is less than one minute of arc each century. The
equations of general relativity precisely accounted for this precession; Newtonian
equations did not.
Einstein's equations also explained the red shift in the light from distant stars and the
deflection of starlight as it passed near the sun. However, Einstein assumed chat the
universe was static, and, in order to permit a meaningful solution to the equations of
relativity, in 1917 he added another term, called a constant,to the
equations. Although the existence and significance of a cosmological constant is still
being debated, Einstein later declared chat this was a major mistake, as Edwin Hubble
established in the 1920s chat the universe is expanding and galaxies are receding from

3
one another at a speed proportionate to their distance.
Another important development in astronomy grew out of Newton's experimentation
in optics, beginning with his demonstration chat sunlight could be broken up by a
prism into a spectrum of different colors, which led to the science of spectroscopy. In
the twentieth century, spectroscopy was applied to astronomy to gun information
about the chemical and physical condition of celestial bodies chat was not disclosed
by visual observation. In the 1920s, precise photographic photometry was introduced
to astronomy and quantitative spectrochemical analysis became common. Also during
the 1920s, scientists like Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac developed
quantum mechanics, a branch of physics dealing with subatomic particles of matter
and quanta of energy. Astronomers began to recognize that the properties of celestial
bodies, including planets, could be well understood only in terms of physics, and the
field began to be referred to as
These developments created an explosive expansion in our knowledge of astronomy.
During the first five thousand years or more of observing the heavens, observation
was confined to the narrow band of visible light. In the last half of this century
astronomical observations have been made across the spectrum of electromagnetic
radiation, including radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays, and
from satellites beyond the atmosphere. It is no exaggeration to say chat since the end
of World War II more astronomical data have been gathered than during all of the
thousands of years of preceding human history.
However, despite all improvements in instrumentation, increasing sophistication of
analysis and calculation augmented by the massive power of computers, and the huge
aggregation of data, or knowledge, we still cannot predict future movements of
planets and other elements of even the solar system with a high degree of certainty.
Ivars Peterson, a highly trained science writer and an editor of Science News, writes
in his book Newton's Clock (1993) that a surprisingly subtle chaos pervades the solar
system. He states:
In one way or another the problem of the solar system's stability has fascinated and
tormented asrtonomers and mathematicians for more than 200 years. Somewhat to the
embarrassment of contemporary experts, it remains one of the most perplexing,
unsolved issues in celestial mechanics. Each step toward resolving this and related
questions has only exposed additional uncertainties and even deeper mysteries.
Similar problems pervade astronomy. The two major theories of cosmology, general
relativity and quantum mechanics, cannot be stated in the same mathematical
language, and thus are inconsistent with one another, as the Ptolemaic and Copernican

4
theories were in the sixteenth century, although both contemporary theories continue
to be used, but for different calculations. Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, in
The Emperors New Mind (1989), contends that this inconsistency requires a change
in quantum theory to provide a new theory he calls
Furthermore, the observations astronomers make with new technologies disclose a
total mass in the universe that is less than about 10 percent of the total mass that
mathematical calculations require the universe to contain on the basis of its observed
rate of expansion. If the universe contains no more mass than we have been able to
observe directly, then according to all current theories it should have expanded in the
past, and be expanding now, much more rapidly than the rate actually observed. It is
therefore believed that 90 percent or more of the mass in the universe is some sort of
matterthat has not yet been observed and the nature of which is unknown.
Current theories favor either WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or
MACHOs (massive compact halo objects). Other similar mysteries abound and
increase in number as our ability to observe improves.
The progress of biological and life sciences has been similar to that of the physical
sciences, except that it has occurred several centuries later. The theory of biological
evolution first came to the attention of scientists with the publication of Darwin's
Origin of Species in 1859. But Darwin lacked any explanation of the causes of
variation and inheritance of characteristics. These were provided by Gregor Mendel,
who laid the mathematical foundation of genetics with the publication of papers in
1865 and 1866.
Medicine, according to Lewis Thomas, is the youngest science, having become truly
scientific only in the 1930s. Recent and ongoing research has created uncertainty
about even such basic concepts as when and how life begins and when death occurs,
and we are spending billions in an attempt to learn how much it may be possible to
know about human genetics. Modern medicine has demonstrably improved both our
life expectancies and our health, and further improvements continue to be made as
research progresses. But new questions arise even more rapidly than our research
resources grow, as the host of problems related to the Human Genome Project
illustrates.
From even such an abbreviated and incomplete survey of science as this, it appears
that increasing knowledge does not result in a commensurate decrease in ignorance,
but, on the contrary, exposes new lacunae in our comprehension and confronts us with
unforeseen questions disclosing areas of ignorance of which we were not previously
aware.

5
Thus the concept of science as an expanding body of knowledge that will eventually
encompass or dispel all significant areas of ignorance is an illusion. Scientists and
philosophers are now observing that it is naive to regard science as a process that
begins with observations that are organized into theories and are then subsequently
tested by experiments. The late Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science, wrote
in The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1960) chat science starts from problems, not
from observations, and chat every worthwhile new theory raises new problems. Thus
there is no danger that science will come to an end because it has completed its task,
clanks to the
At least since Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962),
it has been generally recognized that observations are the result of theories (called
paradigms by Kuhn and other philosophers), for without theories of relevance and
irrelevance there would be no basis for determining what observations to make. Since
no one can know everything, to be fully informed on any subject (a claim sometimes
made by those in authority) is simply to reach a judgment that additional data are not
important enough to be worth the trouble of securing or considering.
To carry the analysis another step, it must be recognized that theories are the result of
questions and questions are the product of perceived ignorance. Thus it is chat
ignorance gives rise to inquiry chat produces knowledge, which, in turn, discloses
new areas of ignorance. This is the paradox of knowledge: As knowledge increases so
does ignorance, and ignorance may increase more than its related knowledge.
My own metaphor to illustrate the relationship of knowledge and ignorance is based
on a line from Matthew Arnold:
chat surrounds us, chat, indeed, envelops our world, is ignorance. Knowledge is the
illumination shed by whatever candles (or more technologically advanced light
sources) we can provide. As we light more and more figurative candles, the area of
illumination enlarges; but the area beyond illumination increases geometrically. We
know chat there is much we don't know; but we cannot know how much there is chat
we don't know. Thus knowledge is finite, but ignorance is infinite, and the finite
cannot ever encompass the infinite.
This is a revised version of an article originally published in COSMOS 1994.
Copyright 1995 by Lee Loevinger.
Lee Loevinger is a Washington lawyer and former assistant attorney general of the
United States who writes frequently for scientific c publications. He has participated
for many years as a member, co-chair, or liaison with the National Conference of
Lawyers and Scientists, and he is a founder and former chair of the Science and

6
Technology Section of the American Bar Association. Office address: Hogan and
Hartson, 555 Thirteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.
人类从古类人猿进化到当前的状态这个长久的进化过程中的最大成就是有
关于人 类自身、世界以及宇宙众多知识的获得和积聚。这些知识的产物就是那些
我们总称为―文化‖的所有的东 西，包括语言、科学、文学、艺术、所有的物质机
器、仪器、我们所用的结构以及社会所依赖的物质基础 设施。我们之中大多数人
认为现代社会中各种知识在不断增长，与此同时社会或群体对新知识的积累也在
稳步减少我们对人类自身、世界及宇宙的未知。然而，现有的无垠的未知领域在
不断提示着我们 需要批判性地分析这个设想。
普遍的观点认为，智力的演变与身体的发育相似，虽然要快上许多。生物 的
进化经常被描述为―个体的进化重演物种的进化‖，意思就是个体的胚胎在其从受
精卵发展到 人类胎儿的过程中经历了几个阶段，在这些阶段中个体胚胎类似人类
物种的祖先形式。普遍的观点认为人 类从天真无邪的状态进步的，这个状态可以
比作婴儿，然后逐渐的获得越来越多的知识，就像一个小孩通 过学习通过了教育
体系的几个年级一样。这种观点中暗含着一种臆断，那就是种系发育类似个体发
育，知识的积累最终能达到一个基本完整的阶段，至少在特定的领域中是如此，
就好像社会已获得了所 有的高等学位，这些学位表明它已经掌握了各个重要学科
的知识。
实际上，一些杰出的科学家已经表达了这样的观点。1894年伟大的物理学
家Albert Michelson在芝加哥大学的一个演讲中讲到：虽然不能断言未来的物理
学不会再取得比过去更惊 人的成就，但很可能大多数的重要的基本原理都已经牢
固的确立了，那么，进一步的发展将可能主要是如 何将这些基本原理精确地应用
到我们注意的现象上去。人们很难在物理学领域再作突破。
在迈 克尔逊讲述上一段话之后的一个世纪，科学家们在物理学上的发现远远
超出了对小数点第六位测量的改进 ，而今天没有人会再进行与Michelson相似的
阐述。但是仍有许多人坚持认为知识有迟早达到穷 尽的可能性。英国伟大的科学
家斯蒂芬·霍金在他的非常流行的<<时间简史>>一书中, 推测得出以下结论, 我
们可以―发现一种终极理论,那将是人类理性的最终胜利, 那时候我们将知道 上帝
在想什么‖。澳大利亚物理学家保罗·戴维斯附和斯蒂芬·霍金的观点，在他的书
名为《上 帝的智慧》一书中提出人类才智能使人类掌握一些上帝的思想的一些秘
密。其他一些同时代的科学家有提 及―万物之理‖，也就是解释所有可以观察到的
物理现象的理论。物理理论的现代标准模型的构建者之一 诺贝尔奖获得者斯蒂
芬·温伯格则提到他的著作《终极理论之梦》。
尽管这些科学家和现代的 其他科学家做出了卓越贡献并且对知识孜孜以求，
但是在科学史上没有任何事情表明任何对于科学知识体 系增加的数据和理论曾
经给任何领域的所有问题提供答案。相反，科学史表明，增加的知识使人们认识< br>到新的无知的领域并带来新的问题。
天文学是最古老的科学，它的发展是其他领域知识发展的模型。自从有史记

7 载以来，人们一直在观察星星和天体。早在公元前3000年，巴比伦人认识了一
定数量的星座。在 第一个五千年或者更早一些的时间，天文学观察仅限于狭窄的
可见光波长范围内。在过去的这半个世纪， 天文学观察已经可以在电磁辐射波长
（包括广播电波、红外、紫外、X射线、伽玛射线）范围内进行，还 可以通过大
气层外的卫星来观察。可以毫不夸张地说，自从第二次世界大战以来收集的天文
学数 据，比在人类持续的几千年历史中收集的数据还要多。
然而，虽然仪器的应用有了长足的改进，由于计 算机以及大量数据和知识的
积累，分析和计算的复杂程度有了大幅度的提高，但是我们仍然难以预测出行 星
未来的运动以及另一些原理甚至是太阳系中被高度确定的原理。一个训练有素的
科普作家以及 科学新闻的编辑Ivars Peterson，在他的书―牛顿的时钟‖里提到一种
奇妙的细微的混乱弥漫着太阳系中。他写到：
两百多年以来，太阳系的稳定性问题以一种或是另一种方式吸引着并且困扰
着天文学家和数学家 。而这仍然是天体力学中最为困扰并且未能解决的问题，当
代的科学家们对此也感到很尴尬。每一步对于 此问题以及与此相关的问题的解决
都会产生而外的不确定的问题甚至是更深的奥秘。
相似的问 题在天文学中中也很流行。关于宇宙的最主要的两个理论，广义相
对论以及量子力学不能够用形同的数学 语言来表达，因此两者是不一致的，就像
16世纪时托勒密和哥白尼的理论一样，虽然当代的理论仍在被 应用，但是所用
的计算公式不同。牛津大学的数学家Roger Penrose在他的书―新思想的帝 国‖中
提到由于量子论中存在不可调和的争论，因此他提出了一种名为―修正的量子重
力―理论 ‖。
生物和生命科学的发展过程与物理学的发展过程相似，只是它的发生晚了几
个世纪。生物 进化论第一次引起科学家的注意是在1859年达尔文的―物种起源
―的出版。但是达尔文没有解释造成 性状遗传和变异的原因。孟德尔在1865年和
1866年发表的论文中运用了基于基因的数学理论解释 了这些原因。
按照Lewis Thomas的观点，医学是最年轻的科学，二十世纪三十年代才成< br>为真正的科学。正在进行的和将要进行的研究产生了很多不确定东西。有些是关
于一些基本的概念 ，比如：生命是何时诞生的，是怎样诞生的，死亡会在什么时
候发生；并且我们现在花费数十亿美元来设 法了解我们对于人类的基因能够知道
多少。现代医学显著的提高了我们的寿命和健康状况，而且随着研究 过程的深入
将来还会继续改善。但是新的问题的出现速度要比我们得到的研究成果的增长速
度快 得多，比如说在有关人类基因工程项目中所出现的大量的问题。
仅仅通过对科学如此粗略而浅显的认识 来看，认识的增加并没有造成无知相
称的减少，相反揭露了我们理解中的新的空缺，还使我们面临着意料 之外的问题，
这些问题揭开我们不可预料的未知领域。
因此，把科学作为能够包围和消除一切 重要无知领域的不断扩充的知识的这
种观念只不过是一种错觉。科学家和哲学家正在认识到，把科学简单 的看成先观
察，然后根据观察的结果总结成理论再被随后的实验验证的过程，这是很幼稚的。

8
已故的科学哲学先驱Karl Popper，在他1960年的著作《科学知识的发展》 中提
到，科学起源于问题而非观察，每个有真实价值的新科学理论都引出新的问题。
因此不用担 心科学会因完成它的使命而走到尽头，这归功于无穷无尽的未知。
至少自从Thomas Kuhn在 1962年出版了《科学革命史》一书以来，人们普
遍认为观测只不过是科学理论的结果，这种观点常常 被Kuhn和其他哲学家拿来
作范例，这是由于如果没有恰当的和不恰当的理论，要做什么样观察就将没 有决
定基础。既然没有任何人能够知道一切，那么在某一领域获得全面的了解（有时
是权威的观 点）只不过达到一种判断（境界），即另外的信息都不重要了，不值
得去费神求证和考虑了。
进一步分析，我们必须认识到理论是问题的产物而问题是已认知的未知的产
物。因此，正是未知引起了探 究，探究产生知识然后反过来揭开了新的未知领域。
这就是知识的矛盾之处：未知随着知识的增长而增长 且有可能比其相关知识增长
的更多。
我对知识和未知两者关系的形容来自Matthew的一 句话：―我们如同置身于
一个黑暗笼罩的平原上……‖，笼罩我们并包裹着我们的世界的这片黑暗，就是
未知。知识是由我们能提供的所有―蜡烛‖散发出来的光芒。光照的面积随着我们
点亮越来越多 的―蜡烛‖而扩大，但是光照之外的面积也在几何增长。因此，知识
是有限的，而未知是无限的，有限囊 括无限永远是不可能的。

9
第二课Modular Man
by Alvin Toffler
Urbanism -- the city dweller's way of life – has preoccupied sociology since the turn
of the century. Max Weber pointed out the obvious fact that people in cities cannot
know all their neighbors as intimately as it was possible for them to do in small
communities. Georg Simmel carried this idea one step further when he declared,
rather quaintly, that if the urban individual reacted emotionally to each and every
person with whom he came into contact, or cluttered his mind with information about
them, he would be completely atomized internally and would fall into an unthinkable
mental condition.
Louis Wirth, in turn, noted the fragmented nature of urban relationships.
―Characteristically, urbanites meet one another in highly segmental roles ...‖ he
wrote,― Their dependence upon others is confined to a highly fractionalized aspect of
the other's round of activity. ‖Rather than becoming deeply involved with the total
personality of every individual we meet, he explained, we necessarily maintain
superficial and partial contact with some. We are interested only in the efficiency of
the shoe salesman in meeting our needs; we couldn't care less that his wife is an
alcoholic.
What this means is that we form limited involvement relationships with most of
the people around us. Consciously or not we define our relationships with most people
in functional terms. So long as we do not become involved with the shoe salesman's
problems at home, or his more general hopes, dreams and frustrations, he is, for us,
fully interchangeable with any other salesman of equal competence. In effect, we have
applied the modular principle to human relationships. We have created the disposable
person: Modular Man.
Rather than entangling ourselves with the whole man, we plug into a module of
his personality. Each personality can be imagined as a unique configuration of
thousands of such modules. Thus no whole person is interchangeable with any other.
But certain modules are. Since we are seeking only to buy a pair of shoes, and not the
friendship, love or hate of the salesman, it is not necessary for us to tap into or engage
with all the other modules that form his personality. Our relationship is safely limited.
There is limited liability on both sides. The relationship entails certain accepted forms
of behavior and communication. Both sides understand, consciously or otherwise, the
limitations and laws. Difficulties arise only when one or another party oversteps the
tacitly understood limits, when he attempts to connect up with some module not
relevant to the function at hand.
Today a vast sociological and psychological literature is devoted to the alienation
presumed to flow from this fragmentation of relationships. Much of the rhetoric of
existentialism and the student revolt decries this fragmentation. It is said that we are

10
not sufficiently ―involved‖ with our fellow man. Millions of young people go about
seeking ―total involvement.‖
Before leaping to the popular conclusion that modularization is all bad, however,
it might be well to look more closely at the matter. Theologian Harvey Cox, echoing
Simmel, has pointed out that in an urban environment the attempt to ―involve‖ oneself
fully with everyone can lead only to self-destruction and emotional emptiness. Urban
man, he writes, ―must have more or less impersonal relationships with most of the
people with whom he comes in contact precisely in order to choose certain friendships
to nourish and cultivate. His life represents a point touched by dozens of systems and
hundreds of people. His capacity to know some of them better necessitates his
minimizing the depth of his relationship to many others. Listening to the postman
gossip becomes for the urban man an act of sheer graciousness, since he probably has
no interest in the people the postman wants to talk about.
Moreover, before lamenting modularization, it is necessary to ask ourselves
whether we really would prefer to return to the traditional condition of man in which
each individual presumably related to the whole personality of a few people rather
than to the personality modules of many. Traditional man has been so sentimentalized,
so cloyingly romanticized, that we frequently overlook the consequences of such a
return. The very same writers who lament fragmentation also demand freedom -- yet
overlook the un-freedom of people bound together in totalistic relationships. For any
relationship implies mutual demands and expectations. The more intimately involved
a relationship, the greater the pressure the parties exert on one another to fulfill these
expectations. The tighter and more totalistic the relationship, the more modules, so to
speak, are brought into play, and the more numerous are the demands we make.
In a modular relationship, the demands are strictly bounded. So long as the shoe
salesman performs his rather limited service for us, thereby fulfilling our rather
limited expectations, we do not insist that he believe in our God, or that he be tidy at
home, or share our political values, or enjoy the same kind of food or music that we
do. We leave him free in all other matters as he leaves us free to be atheist or Jew,
heterosexual or homosexual, John Bircher orCommunist. This is not true of the total
relationship and cannot be. To a certain point, fragmentation and freedom go together.
All of us seem to need some totalistic relationships in our lives. But to decry the
fact that we cannot have only such relationships is nonsense. And to prefer a society
in which the individual has holistic relationships with a few, rather than modular
relationships with many, is to wish for a return to the imprisonment of the past -- a
past when individuals may have been more tightly bound to one another, but when
they were also more tightly regimented by social conventions, sexual mores, political
and religious restrictions.
This is not to say that modular relationships entail no risks or that this is the best

11
of all possible worlds. There are, in fact, profound risks in the situation. Until now,
however, the entire public and professional discussion of these issues has been badly
out of focus.
城市居民的生活方式，已经成 为社会学家在世纪之交研究的重点。马克思.
韦伯指出这样一个明显的事实：因为住在城市里的人交流范 围的缩窄，使得他们
并不能与所有的邻居保持一种亲密的关系。GXX进一步阐述了这样一种观点，他更巧妙的指出：如果单个城市居民与他周围所有人都保持情感交流，或者他满
脑子都被周围这些人 的信息所包围，那么他会陷入―精神分裂‖，以及难以想象的
精神状况中。
LXX，进一步指 出，城市居民关系的不完整特性：―这很典型，现在城市居
民只与其他人中的很少一部分人保持联系‖， 他写道：―他们与其周围人的相互依
赖，被局限在高度分割的一些方面里。‖他解释道，我们并不是将遇 到的每一个
个体都去深度涉及他的完全个性。我们只需要与他们保持一种表面的、部分的关
系就 可以了。我们只关心卖鞋人的工作效率，我们并不需要关心他的老婆是不是
一名酒鬼。
这个论 点的意思是：我们与周围大多数人形成一种限制关系。自不自觉中，
我们以功能来定义我们与周围人的关 系。只要我们不被牵涉进卖鞋人的家庭问
题、或者他自己的希望、梦想和挫折中，那么他对于我们来讲， 在能力上他与其
他卖鞋人就是可以完全互换的了。实际上，我们将模块化原理应用到了人际关系
中。我们创造了一种可以随意处理的人：模块化的人。
我们将他的个性进行模块化，而不是将我们自己 卷入到他的整个人性里。这
样，我们可以想象每一种个性都具有独特的特性，它是由成千上万的模块组合 而
成的。因此，没有一个人是可以与其他人进行互换的。但是，特定的模块可以。
只要我们的目 的只是为了买鞋，而不是为了交朋友，无论对这位卖鞋人或爱或恨，
我们都不必卷入或者与构成他个性的 所有模块建立联系。我们的友谊是安全有限
制的。这种限制依靠双方。人际关系必须只承担行为和交流的 特定方面。双方都
必须有意识的建立这种理解，或者通过其他手段，例如禁令或者法律。当你或者
对方部分的逾越了这种心照不宣的限制，即当他试图与他自己并无关联的功能模
块进行接触时，一种功 能上的困境就会随之发生。
今天，大量的社会学和心理学文献认为异化的发生是来源于这种人际关系的
破碎。很多存在主义者和学生用斥责的言词反对这种破碎。他们声称我们并不是
与我们的同伴保 持―肤浅‖的关系。成千上万的青年人正在寻找一种―全面的参
与‖。
在立即做出模块化都是 不好的这一流行结论前，我们应该更加深入的看待这
一问题。神学家XX，回应XX时指出：在城市环境 中，那些试图将自己完全―融
入‖到其他人当中，只会导致他的自我毁灭和精神空虚。他写到：城市人， ―必需
与大多数人保持一种或多或少的非个人的关系，他与这些人保持这种关系目的是
为了有选 择的培养特定的交友对象…在与众多系统和众多人的接触中，他的生活

12
方式代 表了一种点式接触。他有能力认识到与周围中的一些人保持良好的关系，
会迫使他缩短与其他人关系的深 度。从邮递员那里听到绯闻已经成为城市人寒暄
的一种方式，即使这些邮递员讲的故事我们其实并不关心 。‖
此外，在哀悼模块化的关系之前，我们必须扪心自问，我们是不是真的喜欢
回归传统人际 关系当中，即假定每个个体只与一部分人的全部关系，而不是与大
多数人的个性模块发生关系。当我们审 视这种回归的时候，会发现传统关系中人
们是那么的多愁伤感，那么的厌烦，那么的被浪漫化了。那些哀 悼破碎关系的人
同样也在要求自由，他们忽视了那些没有自由的人，是被束缚在集权主义的关系
中。对于任何一种关系，这里都具有这样一种含义，即关系的双方都具有共同的
渴望和期待。随着双方关 系变的更加亲密，那么施加在双方那种实现他们共同期
望的压力就会增大。也就是说，随着关系变的更加 紧密，以及包含的内容更多，
那么更多模块就会发挥作用，随之而来就是我们会产生更多的期望。 在模块化的关系中，期望是被严格限制的。只要卖鞋人限制自己只是提供我
们卖鞋的服务，从而满足 我们买鞋的有限期望，那么我们也并不需要坚持让他信
仰我们的上帝，或者让他把家里打扫干净，或者与 我们分享政治信仰，或者与我
们一样喜欢相同的食物或音乐。我们让他在卖鞋以外的其他方面享有充分的 自
由，正如他对与我们是不是无神论或者犹太人，同性恋或者异性恋，XX和共产
主义一样，在 这些方面也享有自由。对于那种完全的关系，这不是也不可能是真
实的。在一定程度上，破碎与自由是相 互结合的。
我们所有人似乎在生活中需要一些完全的关系。但是诋毁我们不能拥有单一
的人际 关系这个事实是没有道理的。而且，对于喜欢那种将个体与少数人建立完
全的人际关系，而不是与大多数 人建立模块化关系的社会的人来说，这是希望回
归到过去那种个体与其他人被紧密束缚的牢笼中，但是， 同时他们也是处在被社
会习俗，性观念、政治和宗教禁忌严密限制的过去。
这并不意味着模 块化关系不需要承担任何风险，这种关系就是对于全世界
最好的选择。事实上，这里还是有一些具有深刻 风险的情况的……然而直到现在，
无论是在整个公共社会或者专业领域对于这个问题的讨论，还远没有抓 住问题的
关键。

13
第3课 西方是特例，不是常例 The West Unique, Not Universal

In recent years Westerners have reassured themselves and irritated others by
expounding the notion that the culture of the West is and ought to be the culture of the
world. This conceit takes two forms. One is the Coca-colonization thesis. Its
proponents claim that Western, and more specifically American, popular culture is
enveloping the world: American food, clothing, pop music, movies, and consumer
goods are more and more enthusiastically embraced by people on every continent.
The other has to do with modernization. It claims not only that the West has led the
world to modern society, but that as people in other civilizations modernize they also
westernize, abandoning their traditional values, institutions, and customs and adopting
those that prevail in the West. Both theses project the image of an emerging
homogeneous, universally Western world--and both are to varying degrees misguided,
arrogant, false, and dangerous.
Advocates of the Coca- colonization thesis identify culture with the consumption
of material goods. The heart of a culture, however, involves language, religion, values,
traditions, and customs. Drinking Coca-Cola does not make Russians think like
Americans any more than eating sushi makes Americans think like Japanese.
Throughout human history, fads and material goods have spread from one society to
another without significantly altering the basic culture of the recipient society.
Enthusiasms for various items of Chinese, Hindu, and other cultures have periodically
swept the Western world, with no discernible lasting spillover. The argument that the
spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of
Western civilization depreciates the strength of other cultures while trivializing
Western culture by identifying it with fatty foods, faded pants, and fizzy drinks. The
essence of Western culture is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac.
The modernization argument is intellectually more serious than the
Coca- colonization thesis, but equally flawed. The tremendous expansion of scientific
and engineering knowledge that occurred in the nineteenth century allowed humans to
control and shape their environment in unprecedented ways. Modernization involves
industrialization; urbanization; increasing levels of literacy, education, wealth, and
social mobilization; and more complex and diverse occupational structures. It is a
revolutionary process comparable to the shift from primitive to civilized societies that
began in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile, and the Indus about 5000
B.C. The attitudes, values, knowledge, and culture of people in a modern society
differ greatly from those in a traditional society. As the first civilization to modernize,
the West is the first to have fully acquired the culture of modernity. As other societies
take on similar patterns of education, work, wealth, and class structure, the
modernization argument runs, this Western culture will become the universal culture

14
of the world.
That there are significant differences between modern and traditional cultures is
beyond dispute. A world in which some societies are highly modern and others still
traditional will obviously be less homogeneous than a world in which all societies are
comparably modern. It does not necessarily follow, however, that societies with
modern cultures should be any more similar than are societies with traditional cultures.
Only a few hundred years ago all societies were traditional. Was that world any less
homogeneous than a future world of universal modernity is likely to be? Probably not.

observes, the China of Mao Tse-tung is to the France of the Fifth
Republic.''Modern societies have much in common, but they do not necessarily merge
into homogeneity. The argument that they do rests on the assumption that modern
society must approximate a single type, the Western type; that modern civilization is
Western civilization, and Western civilization is modern civilization. This, however, is
a false identification. Virtually all scholars of civilization agree that Western
civilization emerged in the eighth and ninth centuries and developed its distinctive
characteristics in the centuries that followed. It did not begin to modernize until the
eighteenth century. The West, in short, was Western long before it was modern.

To Modernize, must non-Western societies abandon their own cultures and adopt
the core elements of Western culture? From time to time leaders of such societies
have thought it necessary. Peter the Great and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were
determined to modernize their countries and convinced that doing so meant adopting
Western culture, even to the point of replacing traditional headgear with its Western
equivalent. In the process, they created countries, unsure of their cultural
identity. Nor did Western cultural imports significantly help them in their pursuit of
modernization. More often, leaders of non-Western societies have pursued
modernization and rejected westernization. Their goal is summed up in the phrases
ti-yong (Chinese learning for the fundamental principles, Western learning for
practical use) and woken, yosei (Japanese spirit, Western technique), articulated by
Chinese and Japanese reformers of a century ago, and in Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar
bin Sultan's comment in 1994 that imports' are nice as shiny or high-tech
'things.' But intangible social and political institutions imported from elsewhere can
be deadly -- ask the Shah of Iran . . . Islam is for us not just a religion but a way of life.
We Saudis want to modernize but not necessarily , Singapore,
Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and, to a lesser degree, Iran have become modern societies
without becoming Western societies. China is clearly modernizing, but certainly not
westernizing.
Interaction and borrowing between civilizations have always taken place, and

15
with modern means of transportation and communication they are much more
extensive. Most of the world's great civilizations, however, have existed for at least
one millennium and in some cases for several. These civilizations have a
demonstrated record of borrowing from other civilizations in ways that enhance their
own chances of survival. China's absorption of Buddhism from India, scholars agree,
failed to produce the of China; it instead caused the Sinification of
Buddhism. The Chinese adapted Buddhism to their purposes and needs. The Chinese
have to date consistently defeated intense Western efforts to Christianize them. If at
some point they do import Christianity, it is more than likely that it will be absorbed
and adapted in such a manner as to strengthen the continuing core of Chinese culture.
Similarly, in past centuries Muslim Arabs received, valued, and used their
inheritance for essentially utilitarian reasons. Being mostly interested in
borrowing certain external forms or technical aspects, they knew how to disregard all
elements in the Greek body of thought that would conflict with 'the truth' as
established in their fundamental Koranic norms and followed the
same pattern. In the seventh century Japan imported Chinese culture and made the

high civilization. the centuries that followed, periods of relative isolation
from continental influences during which previous borrowings were sorted out and
the useful ones assimilated would alternate with periods of renewed contact and
cultural borrowing.
are absorbing selected elements of Western culture and using them to strengthen their
own cultural identity. It would, as Braudel argues, almost
the
cultures embodied for centuries in the world's great civilizations.
Modernization and economic development neither require nor produce cultural
westernization. To the contrary, they promote a resurgence of, and renewed
commitment to, indigenous cultures. At the individual level, the movement of people
into unfamiliar cities, social settings, and occupations breaks their traditional local
bonds, generates feelings of alienation and anomie, and creates crises of identity to
which religion frequently provides an answer. At the societal level, modernization
enhances the economic wealth and military power of the country as a whole and
encourages people to have confidence in their heritage and to become culturally
assertive. As a result, many non- Western societies have seen a return to indigenous
cultures. It often takes a religious form, and the global revival of religion is a direct
consequence of modernization. In non-Western societies this revival almost
necessarily assumes an anti-Western cast, in some cases rejecting Western culture
because it is Christian and subversive, in others because it is secular and degenerate.
The return to the indigenous is most marked in Muslim and Asian societies. The

16
Islamic Resurgence has manifested itself in every Muslim country; in almost all it has
become a major social, cultural, and intellectual movement, and in most it has had a
deep impact on politics. In 1996 virtually every Muslim country except Iran was more
Islamic and more Islamist in its outlook, practices, and institutions than it was 15
years earlier. In the countries where Islamist political forces do not shape the
government, they invariably dominate and often monopolize the opposition to the
government. Throughout the Muslim world people are reacting against the

East Asian societies have gone through a parallel rediscovery of indigenous
values and have increasingly drawn unflattering comparisons between their culture
and Western culture. For several centuries they, along with other non- Western peoples,
envied the economic prosperity, technological sophistication, military power, and
political cohesion of Western societies. They sought the secret of this success in
Western practices and customs, and when they identified what they thought might be
the key they attempted to apply it in their own societies. Now, however, a
fundamental change has occurred. Today East Asians attribute their dramatic
economic development not to their import of Western culture but to their adherence to
their own culture. They have succeeded, they argue, not because they became like the
West, but because they have remained different from the West. In somewhat similar
fashion, when non-Western societies felt weak in relation to the West, many of their
leaders invoked Western values of self-determination, liberalism, democracy, and
freedom to justify their opposition to Western global domination. Now that they are
no longer weak but instead increasingly powerful, they denounce as rights
imperialism
Western power recedes, so too does the appeal of Western values and culture, and the
West faces the need to accommodate itself to its declining ability to impose its values
on non-Western societies. In fundamental ways, much of the world is becoming more
modern and less Western.
(Adda B. Bozeman, under Stress,Virginia Quarterly Review,
Winter , p. 7; William E. Naff,
the Point of View of Japan,Comparative Civilizations Review, Fall 1985-Spring
1986, p. 222; Braudel, On History, pp. 212-213.
近年来，西方人通过阐述西方文化是并且理应是世界文化这种观念来使自己
获得自信，但使其他人感到厌烦。这种观念分为两种，一种是可口可乐殖民理论，
这种理论的支 持者宣称西方，特别是美国流行文化正在全世界发展，如美国食品、
衣服、流行音乐、电影和消费品正越 来越被各洲人所热爱。另一种理论与现代化
有关，该理论宣称不仅西方领导了全球现代化，并且由于其他 现代化进程中的人
也被西方化，他们抛弃了自己的传统价值观、制度、风俗，但吸收了那些西方流

17
行的东西。这些都影射出正显现同化和全球西方人不同程度上的误导、傲慢、错
误和危险。 < br>可口可乐殖民主义理论的支持者把文化等同于物质产品的消费。然而文化的
核心包括了语言、宗教 、价值观、传统和风俗。喝可口可乐没有使鄂罗斯人像美
国人那样思考，就像吃寿司也没有使美国人像日 本人那样思考一样。统观整个人
类历史，时尚和物质商品从一个社会扩散到另一个社会但并没有明显改善 那些易
接受改变的社会的基本文化。对中国、印度和其他国家各种文化的热衷已经长期
的席卷整 个西方世界，这种情况没有明显的长时间的影响。全球流行文化和物质
消费的扩展代表了西方文明的胜利 的这种争论低估了其他国家的力量，他们把西
方文化定义为发胖食品、退色的牛仔裤和冒泡的饮料。西方 文化的本质是大宪章
而不是Magna Cac。
尽管有关现代化的讨论从理论上看比古柯殖 民化命题更知性，但它同样有缺
陷。发生在19世纪的科学和工程知识的极度扩展使得人们可以以空前的 方法来
控制和创造他们的环境。现代化涉及了诸如工业化；都市话；人们文化水平，教
育，财富 和社会动员的增加与提高；及更复杂更变化多样的职业结构。与大约
5000年前发生在底格里斯河，幼 发拉底河，尼罗河，印度河村庄的从原始状态
进入到人类文明社会的的转变比较，现代化是一个革命的过 程。现代社会的人们
和一传统社会的人们在看法，价值观念，知识和文化上都有很大差异。作为第一个进入现代化的文明社会，西方第一个完整的获得了现在文化。在现代化争论继
续的同时，其他社会 接受了类似与教育，工作，财富，阶层结构等诸多方面，从
而西方文化将成为世界上最普遍的文化。 < br>现代化和传统文化时间存在显著的差异是不用争论的了。一个有些社会高度
现代话，而有些社会仍 然保持传统的世界明显比一个相对都是现代化社会的世界
更没有共同性。仅仅在几百年前所有社会都是传 统的，这样的一个世界有可能成
为一个比一个普遍现代化的未来世界更没有共同性的世界吗？显然是不可 能的。
―中国明朝与法国的瓦卢瓦王朝肯定比中国毛泽东时代与法国第五共和国亲近‖。
现代社 会具有许多共同点，但他们不必须进入同一种社会。他们依据这样的假设
认为：现代化社会必须近似一单 的西方形态，现代文明就是西方文明，西方文明
就是现代文明。然而这是一个假的论断。事实上所有研究 文明的学者都认为西方
文明出现在八，九世纪而在随后几世纪里发展成其独有特性，直到19世纪才成< br>为现代文明，而不是一开始就是现代的。简单的说，西方在其成为现代化很久以
前都只是西方的。
对于现代化来说，非西方社会必须放弃他们的自有文化并且采用西方文化的
核心元素吗？长久以 来，这些社会的领导人认为这是必要的。Peter the Great（彼
德大帝）和Mustafa Kemal Ataturk（穆斯塔法．凱莫尔．阿塔土 耳克）曾经决定
将他们的国家进行现代化并且相信这样做意味着采用西方文化，甚至到了要将他
们的传统头饰替换为西方的等价物的地步。在这个过程中，他们发明了具有穆斯
林习俗但是西方式现代化 的国家，这处国家的文化单一性模糊。西方文化的输入

18
在追求现化代的道路上 并没有显著地帮到他们。非西方社会的领导人更多地追求
现化代但是抵制西方化。他们的目标集中体现在 ―体用‖（中学为体，西学为用）
和―woken, yosei‖（日本精神，西方技术），这是在一 个世纪以前的中国和日本改
革者明确地提出的，同时Saudi Arabia（沙特阿拉伯）的Prince Bandar（班达王
子）在1994年评论说―?外国 进口‘的炫丽的或高技术的东西很好，但是从别国进
口的无形的社会和政治制度是致命的—告诉伊朗国王 。。。伊斯兰对我们不仅仅是
宗教而且是一种生活方式。我们沙特人希望现代化但是不希望不必要的西方 化。‖
日本，新加坡，台湾，沙特阿拉伯以及程度没那么深地伊朗已经在没有变成西方
社会的情 况下变成了现化代国家。中国显然正在进行现代化，但是当然没有正在
西方化。
文明间的交叉 以及相互借鉴已经是经常发生，进行现代化意思是进行更加广
泛的迁移和交流。但是，世界上大多数伟大 的文明已经至少存在了一千年，很多
已经是好几千年。这些文明已经通过增加自身的生存机会的方式拥有 了从其它文
明借鉴的示范纪录。学者们同意，中国从印度吸收了佛教，但是没有对中国产生
―印 度化‖；它反而产生了佛教的中国化。中国人依自身的目的和需要对佛教进行
了改变。中国人必须持续地 战胜西方将中国基督教化的努力。如果在某些时刻他
们确实输入了基督教，它将会被吸收和改造以强化中 国文化持久的核心。
类似的，在过去的几个世纪里，信奉穆斯林的阿拉伯人出于实用的目的，接收、评价并利用了他们的古希腊文化遗产。他们对于借用一些外界东西或技术方
面的东西是最感兴趣 的，同时他们知道怎样去忽视所有希腊思想中那些与―真理‖
相冲突的元素，这些―真理‖是在他们最根 本的古兰经规范和教规中建立的。
日本也跟着这么做了，在七世纪，日本引入了中国文化，并在没有经 济和军
事压力的情况下自己首创性的对中国文化做出了走上更高文明的改变。接下来的
几个世纪 里，两种时期开始更替，一个时期是与大陆影响隔离，在这期间，先前
引入的东西得以整理，有用的东西 得以同化，另一个时期则是重建接触和文化引
入。同样的方式下，现在的日本和其他非西方社会正在吸收 选择过的西方元素，
并利用它们来加强自身的文化特征。正如布罗代尔所说的，认为单一文化的胜利会导致世界伟大文明中蕴藏了几个世纪的文化多样性的消亡是幼稚的。
现代化和经济发展既不会需 求也不会产生文化上的西方化。相反，它们促进
了本土文化的复兴，并且是对本土文化的再次承诺。个人 层次上，人们迁移到陌
生的城市、社会环境和工作破坏了他们传统的地方关系，产生了疏远和不确定的< br>感觉，并且产生了身份危机，而这些常常可以从宗教得到答案。在社会层面上，
现代化加强了国家 整体的经济财富和军事力量，并鼓励人们在获得对于自己遗产
的信心和文化上更自信。结果，很多非西方 社会已经回归到本土文化。它经常以
宗教的形式出现，并且全球性的宗教复兴正是现代化的直接结果。在 非西方社会，
这种复兴几乎必须是反西化的形式，一些情况下，拒绝西方文化是因为它是基督
的 是具有颠覆性的，另一些情况是因为它是世俗的和堕落的。本土化的回归在穆
斯林和亚洲社会最显著。伊 斯兰教的复兴在每一个穆斯林国家得到了证明；几乎

19
所以都体现在社会、文化 和知识分子运动，并且大部分对政治有深刻的影响。实
际上，1996年，除了伊朗的每个穆斯林国家都 在看法上、实践上和制度上比15
年前更加伊斯兰化。在伊斯兰政治力量没能组建政府的国家，他们一定 支配并经
常垄断政府反对派。所以穆斯林世界的人都正在反对他们社会的西方化。
东亚社会都 经历了一个同样的重新发现本土价值观的过程并日益引起了本土文
化和西方文化平等的比较。几百年来， 他们以及其他非西方国家的人民，羡慕西
方社会的经济繁荣，技术先进，军事强大和政治凝聚。他们寻求 这一在西方实践
和习俗中成功的秘密，当他们认为他们想到的可能是答案时，他们便试图将其运
用到自己的社会中。然而，现在这一情形已经从根本上发生了改变。今天，东亚
没有将其惊人的经济发展 归因于输入西方文化，而是归因于坚持他们自己的文
化。他们成功了，他们认为，这并不是因为他们变得 像西方国家，而是因为他们
一直不同于西方。有点相似地是，当非西方社会认为弱于西方时，他们的许多 领
导人援引西方价值观的自决，自由主义，民主，和自由来证明他们反对西方统治
全球是正当的 。现在，他们不再是弱者，而是越来越强大，他们谴责作为―人权
帝国主义‖所有相同的价值观，他们曾 经援引来以促进他们的利益。由于西方力
量消退，西方价值观和文化的吸引力也同样消退，西方国家面临 着需要调整其自
身能力的下降来适应将其价值观强加在非西方社会上。在根本的习俗上，世界许
多地方正变得越来越现代化和较少西方化。

20

第四课 科学的事实：如何与基督徒的信仰协调？
Scientific Facts: Compatible with Christian Faith?
One would think the battle between science and Christianity had been resolved long
ago. Recent statements by both scientists and theologians belie that thought, however.
For instance, Richard Dawkins, an outspoken anti-Christian biologist, wrote,
made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Institute of Creation Research (ICR), a fundamentalist Christian organization,
continues to publish anti-evolutionary material such as:
gradually evolved into a mammal is scientifically unacceptable.
of the scientific statements of ICR have been, though, they seem to be more informed
in science than the anti-Christian scientists have been in theology.
The causes of the science vs. Christianity battle may be traced to three errors.
First, the proponents on both sides often neglect to define the term
Second, both sides have failed to see science as a product of a Christian worldview.
Third, both sides confuse the realms (limits) of science and theology.
The American Scientific Affiliation has published an excellent book, Teaching
Science in a Climate of Controversy, for high school science teachers. In it, they list a
variety of definitions of Micro evolution (breeding programs that have
produced hybrids and species adapting to changing environments in minor ways) is
the most obvious. No educated person would argue with that. Macro evolution (the
hypothesis that homo sapiens evolved from a single cell or even from inorganic
compounds) is not obvious and is much more debatable. Finally, evolution sometimes
is used as a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith that man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process. Few, if any, would disagree that minor changes are
seen over time in the plant and animal kingdoms. Conversely, few would agree that
homo sapiens, along with the rest of the universe, are a product of chance or random
events.
When some biologists refer to the macro evolutionary hypothesis as a
they distort the evidence and cloud the issue. There is considerable debate among
biologists and paleontologists about the mechanism and possibility of macro evolution.
Consequently, overstating the case for macro evolution raises a large target for some
Christian fundamentalists. This results in attacks on evolutionary biology, which
distracts biologists from a critical study of their own hypotheses and causes them to
band together against a common enemy.
Extending scientific hypotheses into a theological (metaphysical) worldview
under the guise of being scientific is completely unwarranted. Whatever hypotheses
evolutionary biologists espouse (as long as they are limited to biology) say nothing
about who started and sustains the process. Likewise, theologians who read the Bible

21
as a scientific text engage in faulty analyses. It has been argued convincingly that a
correct interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative says nothing about the
scientific mechanism God used to create the universe.
The origin of modern science
It surprises many to discover that modern science basically is a product of a Christian
worldview. The well-known Cambridge University historian, Herbert Butterfield, in
his book, The Origins of Modern Science, convincingly argues that what happened in
the 16th century and following was not so much a result of new data, but of changed
minds. While other cultures have given great discoveries to the human race, such as
the introduction of zero from the Hindus and algebra from the Muslims, the Christian
West had the unique set of assumptions required by science: the universe (world) is
orderly; this orderly universe can be known; and there is a motive to discover the
order.
The Greek and Roman cultures had none of these assumptions. The gods were
fickle and unpredictable; who could know their intentions? Math and philosophy were
ends in themselves and not means to discover a rational universe. The traditional
Hindu culture saw the universe as cyclical, again with the gods being capricious. Who
could know the mind of Kali or Shiva? There was no incentive to show that they ruled
over an orderly system.
Islam would adapt the Judeo-Christian concept of a creator God and, therefore,
conceive of an orderly universe, but Allah is so transcendent that he could not be
known in the Christian sense, nor could his universe. There was, then, little incentive
to argue for the order of his universe.
Classical atheism must hold to strict metaphysical naturalism in which
everything occurs by chance or random events. To many, such a world view takes
more than belief in a Creator. At any rate, such a view in the 16th Century
would hardly bespeak an orderly universe. If the world is illogical, how can one
understand it? If all is a result of chance, what incentive would there be to discover
order? Of course, we know that understanding science and technology greatly
improves our quality of life, but this is insight after the fact and really borrows from
the presuppositions of a Christian culture.
Only a Christian world view seems to fit the three criteria. The created universe
is logical as can be seen from numerous Biblical references such as Jeremiah 31:35,

the stars for light by night...
known as Paul in Romans 1:19-20 declares, can be known about God is
plain ...his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have
been made.
says to

22
to master God‘s creation.
What surprises some is that many of the founders of modern science were not
only Christians, but they were scientists in order to demonstrate that we lived in an
orderly universe. They believed that such a demonstration would be powerful
evidence that such a universe was created by an orderly God who could be known.
For example Copernicus (1463-1543), one of the first to question Aristotlean
cosmology and the geo-centric solar system, was a devout Christian and tolerant
toward the reformation. Bacon (1561-1626), another outspoken Christian, formulated
the
The conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo (1564-1642) has
been used to support the anti- scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but for
one who knows the history (see Hummel‘s book, The Galileo Connection), Galileo
had many high ranking Catholics on his side, among whom was Cardinal Baronius
who wrote
Galileo, no paragon of tact, delighted in alienating his fellow professors, who were
Aristotelians and believed in a geo-centric solar system. It was mainly they who
caused the Pope to condemn Galileo‘s teachings, but Galileo‘s other Catholic
supporters helped broker the final plea bargain. Unfortunately, professors have a
history of irrational actions which continues to the present.
Kepler (1571-1630) upon whose discoveries our space program rests, wanted to
be a minister of the Gospel, but was persuaded to pursue his talents in math and
astronomy. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and explicitly relates the order
of his discoveries to God‘s rational creation.
Pascal (1625-1662) is certainly one of the greatest minds in this line of founders.
He is credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass transit,
modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics. His Pensees (notes
defending the Christian faith) is a classic work.
Newton (1642-1662) considered his theological writings more important than
this scientific. Harvey (1578-1657), Boyle (1627-1691), Faraday (1791-1867), and
Maxwell (1831-1879) to name a few, were all devout Christians. Boyle, the first to
show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher. Faraday,
the discover of electro-magnetic induction, once only read from the Bible for a
sermon saying his words could add nothing to God‘s. Maxwell, who discovered
magnetic flux, wrote: Lord, it belongs not to my care whether I die or live To love and
serve Thee is my share and that Thy guard must give.
It is an interesting historical question as to why, science, conceived in a Christian
culture by many Christians, was turned against Christianity and why Christians
allowed this to happen. I give the Huxleys, starting with Thomas (1825-1895),
considerable credit along with others who saw science, and especially biology, as

23
answers to questions that had previously been attributed directly to God. Christians,
instead of realizing that their own creation was being used against them,
baby out with the bath waterand considered science the problem rather than the
misuse of science.
There has (and continues to be) a confusion between primary causes and
secondary causes. The study of natural science deals with secondary causes while
theology studies primary causes. For example, we may explain rain by saying that
moisture in the air is cooled below the dew point causing water molecules to condense
around dust particles thereby generating precipitation. This is a secondary cause. The
primary cause is simply, In other words, God, who created the
physical system, is the cause behind the observable cause.
Some people attempt to explain unknown causes in nature by God‘s direct
intervention. This has been called,
intervene in the natural process (called a miracle), to make God responsible for
common natural phenomena means that as each scientific discovery finds a natural
explanation of what was previously attributed to God, the direct intervention of God
becomes unnecessary. That is, as the gaps in knowledge become smaller, the God of
these gaps becomes correspondingly smaller. People with this mentality see science as
a threat to their faith. Obviously, were such a view held by the founders of modern
science, there would have been no incentive to find answers to the natural phenomena.
Understanding these natural phenomena as secondary causes, places God above them
where increased ability to explain how they occur not only does not
but adds wonder to His creation.
WHAT ARE THE REALMS OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY?
Having discussed the historical rise of modern science and some of the conflicts, the
present day battles can be solved by understanding the limits of both science and
theology. The following table illustrates the almost complete separation of the realm
of theology from that of science. They do not conflict, they complement each other.
Notice that the only intersection of the two almost disjoint sets (columns) is nature. So
those who see theology and science as completely unconnected miss the point.
Historically, this intersection of nature has lead to what is called the
Argument,that is, the order of the universe points to an orderly creator, the same
point made by many of the founders of modern science. Scientists may study this
mechanistic universe and be impressed by it, but in order to understand anything
about the Creator, they have to go outside of the four dimensional time- space
continuum which limits their studies. Theologians may study the Creator who made
this order, but they are bound by His revelations (the Bible) and cannot extrapolate
these to make scientific pronouncements.
The order of the universe is all the more amazing when we understand that order

24
contains information and, according to the more general Second Law of
Thermodynamics, nature destroys order (information). That is, just as water runs
downhill, the energy in the universe is
the sun and all the stars will burn out and all that will be left is low level radiation.
Robert Gange, in his book, Origins and Destiny, points out that the amount of
information in the simplest bacterium is 7 million bits (not the computer bit, but
information bits). Think of this number as an exponent. The question then becomes, if
the information (order) in the universe is being destroyed, where did the original
information come from? Moreover, the universe seems to have been designed to
support life. The laws of the universe are so finely tuned to this end, that some
scientists have called this order Anthropic example, if the
difference in expansion rate of the universe were different by 10-14 [1.0E-14], the
universe would either collapse or no stars could form. It seems that more theoretical
physicists than biologists are impressed with this order. The book by physicist Paul
Davies‘, The Mind of God give compelling evidence for a Creator.
CONCLUSIONS
Two quotations on the limits of science are nothing
absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even produce evidence.
Vannevar Bush, past Chairman of the Board of MIT has become increasingly
evident our century that science is uncertain in its very nature.... Indeed one thing of
which scientists can be quite certain is that they will not achieve a complete solution
of any worthwhile Gaylord Simpson, Professor of Vertebrate
Paleontology, Harvard.
Two quotations on the limits of theology comes from an unlikely source. It was
St. Augustine, who wrote in the 5th Century:must be on guard against giving
interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing
the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers.
spoke through them [authors of the Bible] did not choose to teach about the heavens
to men, as it was of no use for salvation.
Notice that it was scientists who understood the limitations of their field and it
was a theologian who understood the limits of theology. The final word is for both
scientists and theologians to understand and use the
at least to Cardinal Baronius of Galileo‘s time which says that the Bible reveals God‘s
words while nature reveals God‘s works.
In other words: The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Science and theology are meant to be complements, not combatants. Science gives
theology perspective while theology gives science meaning. It is time for a truce.
有人会认为，科学与基督教之间不必要的争斗已在很久之前完满结束。然而，

25
科学家及神学家近年的言论显示他们并 不认同这看法。例如， Richard Dawkins < br>——一位敢言的无神论者——认为「达尔文使成为知性上完满的无神论者变得可
能」。在神学界方 面，一个基要派的基督徒组织 Institute of Creation Research (ICR)
不断出版反进化论的刊物，其中提及「……爬虫类动物进化成哺乳类动物，是科
学上不能接纳的 主张」。有趣的是，正如 ICR 过去的出版物都有瑕疵一样，这
些言论在科学界比起反基督教的科学家在神学界更广为人知。
科学与基督教争斗的原因可追溯至三个错误。首先，双方的支持者都无法介
定「进化」一词。此外，双 方都不能接受科学是基督徒世界观的一种产物。最后，
双方对科学与神学的限制都产生混淆。
甚么是进化？
The American Scientific Affiliation 出版了一本超卓的著作，名为 Teaching
Science in a Climate of Controversy ， 对象是任教高中科学的老师。书中对「进
化」有五个解释。微观进化 ( 即在繁殖项目中产生杂交品种，或因适应环境而
产生轻微变化的品种 ) 经常发生。宏观进化 ( 即假设人类从单细胞或无机混合
物进化而来 ) 的学说并不明显，争议性亦较高。最后，「进化」有时 被视为自然
主义者的富宗教色彩的信念，认为「人类是无目的及自然过程中的产物」。只有
少数 人 ( 如果有的话 ) 会否认，随着时间的过去，植物界及动物界会有轻微的
变化。相反地，只有少数人会认为人类 ( 以及宇宙中其余的生物 ) 只是随机而
来的产物。
当一些生物学家把宏观进化论的假设指 为「事实」时，他们会歪曲证据或掩
饰事情的真相。生物学家与古生物学家之 间，正掀起有关宏观进化 论的机制及
可能性的辩论。结果是，过份强调宏观进化论反倒成为基要派基督徒群起反对的
目标 。基于这群基督徒对生物进化学的攻击，生 物学家不能专注其理性的研究，
反而联盟起来以应付共同敌人。
正如接着下来会讨论的一样，在科学化的伪装下，把科学的假设延伸至神学
( 形而上学 ) 的世界观是亳无理由的。不论生物进化学家主张甚么假设，只要
是在生物学范围以内的，都不会说是谁开 始或延续生物过程。同样地，视圣经为
科学化文章的神学家 正处于错误的诠释之内。现时已有论据指出 在创世记创造
宇宙的描述中，丝毫没有提及上帝以甚么机制创造宇宙。
现代科学的起源
很多人或会惊讶现代科学其实基本上是基督徒世界观的产物。 Herbert
Betterfield 是剑桥著名的的历史学家，他在其著作 The Origins of Modern Science
中有力地指出， 16 世纪及之后产生的科学，大都不是新发现，而 是思维的转变。
正当其它文化对人类历史作出贡献，如印度教引入「零」，以及伊斯兰教教引入
「代数」的概念，西方的基督教为科学提供了一套独特的假设。
现代科学的三个假设为：
宇宙 ( 世界 ) 是有秩序的；
有秩序的宇宙可以为人所知；

26
[ 科学 ] 有发掘这个秩序的动机。
希腊及罗马文化没有这些假设。它 们的神都是无常的，而且无法预测。谁会
知道他们的意图？数学及哲学本身就是终 结，并不是发掘充满 理性的宇宙的方
法。传统的印度文化视宇宙为周期性的，它们的神也是反复无常的。谁会知道
Kali 及 Shiva 的脑海中想着甚么？因此，人们没有意欲证明这些神正掌管着整
个有秩序的宇宙。
伊斯兰教 采纳犹太基督教有关创造主的概念，因此，它相信世界是井然有序
的。然而，亚拉超越得基督徒无法明白 ，甚至世界上无人能知。在这情况下，人
们亦难有意欲证明宇宙的秩序。
经典的无神论主义 必须坚持严格的形而上的自由主义。在这个主义中，所有
事情的发生都是随机的。对很多人来说， 这世界观要求人对创造主有「信心」
多于信念。不管怎样，这观念在 16 世纪都难以表明一个井然有 序的宇宙。如果
世界不合逻辑，我们怎能明白它？如果所有事情都是随机发生的话，人们还有甚
么动机发掘秩序？当然，我们知道科学及 技术的理解大大改善我们生活的质素，
但这是发现事实之后的 启发，亦实在是从基督徒文化的前设而来的。
只有基督徒的世界观乎合三个要求。被造宇宙的逻辑性 可从无数的经文中引
证，例如「……那使太阳白日发光，使星 月有定例，黑夜发光……」 ( 杰里迈
亚书 31 章 35 节中 ) 。宇宙可被知道，因为创造主亦向我们启示祂自己，正
如保罗在罗马书 1 章 19 至 20 中宣 称：「神的事……原显明在人心里……神的
永能和神性……借着所造之物就可以晓得……」。最后的一个 动机在创世纪中神
的一个命令可见，祂说「……要创造 世界」。因此，人类不单管理，更是掌管神
的创造。
使人感到惊奇的是，很多现代科学的创 始人都不单是基督徒，更是致力证明
我们生存在井然有序的宇宙的科学家。他们相信，这个证明将提供有 力的证据，
表明宇宙是由有秩序，而且可被认识的神创造。
举例说， Copernicus (1463—1543 年 ) 是其中一位最先质疑亚里士多德的
宇宙论以及 地心论的科学家。他是虔诚的基督徒，对改革持宽容的态度。 Bacon
(1561—1626 年 ) ，另一位敢言的基督徒，创立了「科学的方法」，为科学带来
更量化的方法。
罗马天主教教会与 Galileo (1564—1642 年 ) 的冲突，曾被用作支持基督徒
反科学的偏见。然而，任何一个懂历史的人都知道 ( 见 Hummel 的著作： The
Galileo Connection ) ， Galileo 的支持者中也有很多位高权重的天主教徒，其中
包括 Cardinal Baronius ，其名句为「 [ 圣经教导 ] 人如何上天堂，不是天堂如
何运作」。 Galileo 不算得上 是机智的典范，他宁愿与其身旁的教授保持疏远的
距离，因为他们都是亚里士多德派学者，相信太阳系以 地球为中心。就是他们使
教宗谴责 Galileo 的教导，但 Galileo 其它的天主教支持者都有协助抗辩。不幸
地，教授们至今都有不理性行为的记录。
基于 Kepler (1571—1630 年 ) 的发现，我们才有今天的太空计划。他希望

27
成为传道人，却被别人说服发展其数学及天文的才能。在他的写作中，经常引用
诗篇，将其发现的次序与神合理的创造拉上关系。
Pascal (1625—1662 年 ) 无疑是与他同期的 ( 科学 ) 奠基者中最出色的
一位。他有概率论、 hydrostatics 、 mass transit 、现代法国散文、计算机以及
基督教护教学之父的美誉。 Pensees ( 说明如何捍卫基督徒信心的笔记 ) 是其经
典之作。
Newton (1642—1662 年 ) 视其神学著作比科学著作更重要。 Harvey
(1578—1657 年 ) 、 Boyle (1627—1691 年 ) 、 Faraday (1791—1867 年 ) 以
及 Maxwell (1831—1879 年 ) ，虽是冰山一角，但全都是虔诚的教徒。 Boyle ，
首位分辨混合物与元素的科学家，同时是一位布道家。 Faraday 发明电磁感应，
有一次他阅毕圣经的其中一篇讲章，感叹自己的说话不能像神的话一般完满。
Maxwell ，发现 magnetic flux 者，写道：
「主啊！生与死不是我所关心的。
我只知道爱你、事奉你是我的福份，
你的保护亦常与我同在。」
有趣的历史问题是：为何科学融合于基督教文化中，却渐渐成为 基督教的敌
人，而基督徒又容许它发生？我需要对以 Thomas (1825—1895) 为首的 Huxleys
表示欣赏。他们与很多人一样，视科学，特别是生物学，为直接解答与神有关的
问题。基督徒非但不以为科学的发明正与他们对峙，更进一步视科学本身，而不
是科 学的误用为问题所在。
主因及次因之间曾经 ( 及一直 ) 存在混淆。自然科学关乎次因，而神 学则
研究主因。举例说，要解释雨的形成，我们可以说是空气中的水份因冷却，导致
其分子与尘 的粒子一同凝固，于是从天上降 下来。这是次因，主因很简单：「神
创造雨水」。换言之，创造整个物 质系统的神，是可观察的原因背后的原因。
有些人尝试将自然界中未知的原因解释为神的直接干预， 将神称为「鸿沟的
神」。虽然神绝对有能力干预自然的过程 ( 称为神迹 ) ，但将所有自然现象都
与神扯上关系，只代表在科学发明能解释自然现象的情况下，神的干预已不再成
立。当知识之间 的鸿沟愈来愈少，鸿沟的神亦愈来愈少。抱持 这种观念的人视
科学为他们信心的威胁。显然地，若现代 科学的创始人都持这种观念，人们便再
没有动力为自然现象寻找答案。把这些自然现象理解为次因，并将 神 放在它们
之上，以更大的力量解释它们如何发生，非但不会「亏缺」神的荣耀，反使其创
造 更显奇妙。
科学与神学的领域是甚么？
讨论过现代科学及一些冲突的历史起源后，现今 的战场可从对科学及神学范
围的理解而得到解决。下表显示神学领域与科学领域的不同：两者不但没有冲 突，
反而互相补足。
要留意的是， 大自然 是两个 差不多 完 全无关的栏目的唯一交 汇点。因
此，视科学及神学完全没有关系的人会遗忘了这点。历史上，本质的交汇导致「目

28
的论」的产生。换言之，宇宙的秩序指向一位井然 有序的神。这与很多现代科
学的创始人的论点相同。科学家或可研究这个机械性的宇宙，陶醉其中，但要明
白这位创造者，就必须走 出时间与空间的四维，否则只会 阻碍他们的研究。神
学家或会研究创造秩序的创造主，但他们受衪的启示 ( 圣经 ) 所限制，不能由
此推断出科学性的公告。

科学与神学的领域
项目 神学
假设 神是主因，连同耶稣及圣经
然
来源 圣经、圣灵
目的 谁，以及形而上的为何
语言 质量的、主观的
自然宇宙、事件
怎样，以及实时的为何
数量的、客观的
科学
有秩序的宇宙、因果等等
主题 神、人类、灵界、绝对真理、 大自大自然 、力量、物质的宇宙
方法 圣经研究、讲求经验、研究人员有观察、研究人员保持抽离态度
个人投入
结果 应该的、知道神
验证 圣经的原则、个人经验
限制 没有解释「如何」
甚么是
内在的一致、以实际经验为依据的测
试
没有解释「谁」以及形而上的「为何」
当我们知道秩序包含信息，而根据热力学的第二定律，大自然摧毁秩序 ( 信
息 ) ，我们 便不难发现宇宙的奇妙。换言之，当水从山上流下来的时候，宇宙
的能量亦下降。加上某些干预，太阳与 星宿的能量会耗尽，剩下来的只是低水平
的幅射。
Robert Gange 在其书 Origins and Destiny 指出，一个 最简单的细菌细胞的
信息量是七兆位 ( 不是计算机的位，是信息的位 ) 。 试把这数字想象为一个
指数，问题便成为，假若宇宙中的信息都 被破坏，最初的信息来自哪里？而且，
宇宙好像是为支持生命而设计的，其定律与这目的很配合，有 科学家更称这定
律为「人择原理」。例如，若宇宙扩张率的分别大于 10-14 ，它将会崩溃，或再
无星宿。这秩序似乎影响理论物理学家多于生物学家。理论物理学家 Paul Davies
的著作 The Mind of God 便为宇宙的创造者提供有力的证据。
结论
以下两则带启发性的引文关乎科学的限制。 Board of MIT 的前主席
Vannevar Bush 写道：
「科学不能绝对证明甚么。在最重要的问题上，它甚至不能提供任何证据。」
「在我们身处 的年代，科学的本质愈来愈不明朗……其实科学家反而可以肯
定的是，他们不能为任何有价值的问题找到 完满的解决方法。」 ( 哈佛大学脊椎

29
动物化 石学 教授 George Gaylord Simpson )
以下两则关乎神学限制的引文来自不大可能写出如此文字之手。 St.
Augustine 在公元五世纪写道：
「解释圣经时，若过份以科学左证，或与科学对抗，我们都要提高警觉。面对非信徒的嘲讽，我们更应如是。」
他亦写道：
「圣灵透过他们 ( 圣经的作者 ) 说话的时候，并不是向人类解释有关天堂
的事，因为这与拯救毫无关系。」
必须注意的是，科学家明白科学的限制，而神学家则明白神学的局限。最后，
科学家及神学家 应采用「两书」模式，返回 Galileo 时代的 Cardinal Baronius ，
它指 出圣经显明神的话，而大自然显明神的工作。换言之，圣经告诉我们如何到
天堂，而不是天堂是甚么一回 事。科学及神学互相补足，而不是互相对抗。科学
给 神学发展的层面，而神学使科学有涵义。双方是时候停战了。

30
第5课 科学、谎言和终极真理
Science, Lies and the Ultimate Truth

If there is any specimen lower than a fornicating preacher, it must be a shady scientist.
The dissolute evangelist betrays his one revealed Truth, but the scientist who rushes
half-cocked into print or, worse yet, falsifies the data subverts the whole idea of truth.
Cold fusion in a teacup? Or, as biologists (then at M.I.T.) David Baltimore and
Thereza Imanishi-Kari claimed in a controversial 1986 article that the National
Institutes of Health has now judged to be fraudulent, genes from one mouse
mysteriously those from another? Sure, and parallel lines might as well
meet somewhere or apples leap back up onto trees.
Baltimore, the Nobel laureate and since 1990 president of Rockefeller University,
has apologized, after a fashion, for his role in the alleged fraud, and many feel that the
matter should be left to rest. He didn't, after all, falsify the data himself; he merely
signed on as senior scientist to Imanishi- Kari's now discredited findings. But when a
young postdoctoral fellow named Margot O'Toole tried to blow the
whistle, Baltimore pooh- poohed O'Toole's evidence and stood by while she lost her
job. Then, as the feds closed in, he launched a bold, misguided defense of the sanctity
of science.
What does one more lie matter anyway? Politicians
by their followers. Pop singers have been known to dub in better voices. Literary
deconstructionists say there's no truth anyway, just ideologies and points of view. Lies,
you might say, are the great lubricant of our way of life. They sell products, flatter the
powerful, appease the electorate and save vast sums from the IRS. Imanishi-Kari's lie
didn't even hurt anyone: no bridges fell, no patients died.
But science is different, and the difference does define a kind of sanctity.
Although we think of it as the most secular of human enterprises, there is a
little-known spiritual side to science, with its own stern ethical implications. Through
research, we seek to know that ultimate Other, which could be called Nature if the
term didn't sound so tame and beaten, or God if the word weren't loaded with so much
human hope and superstition. Think of it more neutrally as the nameless Subject of so
much that happens, like the It in is rainingsomething thereand vastly
different from ourselves, but not so alien that we cannot hope to know Its ways.
When I was a graduate student in biology -- at Rockefeller, where Baltimore also
earned his Ph.D. -- I would have winced at all this metaphysics. The ethos of the
acolyte was humility and patience. If the experiment didn't succeed, you did it again
and then scratched your head and tried a new approach. There were mistakes, but
mistakes could be corrected, which is why you reported exactly how you did things,

31
step by step, so others could prove you right or wrong. There were even, sometimes,
corners cut: a little rounding off, an anomalous finding overlooked.
But falsifying data lay outside our moral universe. The least you could do as a
scientist was record exactly what you observed (in ink, in notebooks that never left
the lab). The most you could do was arrange the experimental circumstances so as to
entrap the elusive It and squeeze out some small confession: This is how the enzyme
works, or the protein folds, or the gene makes known its message. But always, and no
matter what, you let It do the talking. And when It spoke, which wasn't often, your
reward, as one of my professors used to say, was
-- at the cunning of Its logic and the elegance of Its design.
This was the ideal, anyway. But Big Science costs big bucks and breeds a more
mundane and calculating kind of outlook. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars a
year to run a modern biological laboratory, with its electron microscopes,
ultracentrifuges, amino-acid analyzers, Ph.D.s and technicians. The big bucks tend to
go to big shots, like Baltimore, whose machines and underlings must grind out
in massive volume. In the past two decades, as federal funding for basic
research has ebbed, the pressure to produce has risen to dangerous levels. At the same
time, the worldly rewards of success have expanded to include fat paychecks (from
patents and sidelines in the biotech business) as well as power and celebrity status.
And these are the circumstances that invite deception.
Imanishi-Kari succumbed, apparently, to the desire to make a name for $$ herself
and hence, no doubt, expand her capacity for honest research. But Baltimore is a more
disturbing case. He already had the name, the resources and the power that younger
scientists covet. What he forgot is that although humans may respect these things, the
truth does not. What he lost sight of, in the smugness of success, is that truth is no
respecter of hierarchy or fame. It can come out of the mouths of mere underlings, like
the valiant O'Toole.
And if no one was physically hurt, still there was damage done. Scientists
worldwide briefly believed the bogus
or wasted time trying to follow the false lead in their labs. Then there is the inevitable
damage from the exposure of the lie: millions of people, reading of the scandal, must
have felt their deepest cynicism confirmed. If a Nobel laureate in science could sink
to the moral level of Milli Vanilli or a White House spin doctor, then maybe the
deconstructionists are right and there is no truth anywhere, only self- interest masked
as objective fact.
Baltimore should issue a fuller apology, accounting for his alleged cover-up of
the initial fraud. Then he should reflect for a week or two and consider stepping down
from his position as president of Rockefeller Universityand de facto science statesman.
Give him a modest lab to work in, maybe one in the old Rockefeller buildings where

32
the microbe hunters toiled decades ago. I picture something with a river view, where
it is impossible to forget that Manhattan is an island, that the earth is a planet, and that
there is something out there much larger, and possibly even cleverer, than ourselves.

如果有比一位通奸的传教士品质还低的人，那一定是一位 可疑科学家。放荡
传教士只是背叛了上帝，但是科学家把不成熟的成果发表，伪造数据把整个真理
推翻了。在茶杯里面能进行核聚变？然而作为生物学家的DAVID Baltimore和
Thereza Imanishi-Kari1986年在一个有争议的文章声 称，老鼠的基因能神奇的―模
仿‖其他老鼠的基因。这个发现已经被美国国立卫生研究院认定是造假。如 果那
样的结论成立，那平行线就有可能在某处相交，或者说掉地上的苹果可以跳回树
上。 Baltimore是一位诺贝尔奖获得者，并且从1990开始担任洛克菲勒大学的校
长。他已经 勉强为他涉嫌参与造假道歉，很多人认为此事就到此为止吧。Baltimore
自己毕竟没有伪造数据，只是在Imanishi-Kari不光彩的―发现‖上署一个高级科学
家的名字。但是当年轻的博士后Margot试图进行反驳时，Baltimore对Margot
的 证据嗤之以鼻，直到让她丢掉工作。随后，当官方介入时，他又进行了关于的
大胆，误导科学神圣的辩护 。
一个谎言又有什么呢？政治家会失言，然后被他的支持者原谅。流行歌手为
获得更好的音效 进行假唱已经是公开秘密了。文学解构学家认为世上没有任何真
理，只有一时形态和观念。你可能说谎言 是我们生活的润滑剂。谎言可以让增加
产品销售，可以阿谀权贵，安抚选民和逃避税收。Imanish i-Kari的谎言并没有没
有伤害到任何人。没有一座桥因此倒塌，没有一个病人因此死亡。
然而科学是不一样的，这种不一样就是科学的神圣。尽管科学被认为是人类
最普遍精神。但是科学在精 神方面却很少为人了解，科学是有其严格的道德含义。
我们通过研究去认识对象。为了听起来不是那么乏 味和沮丧称这种对象为自然
吧，或者让人感觉没有承载过多的期望和迷信称之为上帝。更中立的观点把科 学
看作是如此多难以形容的运动着的东西，就如―它（天气）在下雨 ‖中的―它‖一
样。某种 外在的东西，和我们自身存在非常大差别，但差别又不是大到让我们无
法知道到―它‖的行为方式 当我还是洛克菲勒大学的生物学研究生的时候，我曾因为那些形而上学的观
点有过退缩的想法。研究 者的精神非常谦逊和有耐心。假如实验没有成功，你就
必须重复做，摸摸自己的脑袋，想办法尝试新的方 法。错误是存在的，但是错误
可以不断的得到更正。这就是为什么你必须如实报道你一步一步如何做的， 那样
其他人就可以证明你的是对的还是错误的。有时候只是因为取整，一个异常的发
现就会被忽 略。
伪造数据却是超出了人类的基本道德。作为一个科学家至少要做到严格记录
吓所观察到的 东西（用钢笔记录再实验室的固定记录本上）。科学家最多能所做
的就是安排好实验环境诱使那个难以琢 磨的―它‖并让―它‖表现出来:这就是酶，和

33
蛋白质折叠， 基因表现其信 息的作用原理。但是常常是不管对―它―做什么，―它‖
却很少表现，当―它‖表现出的时候就是你的收 获的时候了。正如我的一个教授经
常说的:为―它‖逻辑的巧妙和和设计的完美而―夜晚醒来尖叫‖。
不管怎么样，这是一种理想的情况。但是，重大的科学研究需要大量的金钱，
并产生出更为世俗 的，可计算的前途。运行一个配有电子显微镜、超高速离心机
和氨基酸分析仪等高级设备，拥有许多博士 和技师的现代生物实验室，每年都需
要几十上百万美元的经费。而这样的大的经费只有象Baltimo re这样能够大量产
出科研成果的的大人物才能得到。过去20年来，国家用于基础研究的经费已经减少所造成的压力和拿到世界大奖就可以拿到大量的奖金并拥有巨大的权威和
名声的诱惑都成为欺骗 产生的潜在原因。
Imanishi-Kari为了名利在研究中造假，这一点是不容置疑的。然而更 令人不
思其解的是Baltimore也造假。Baltimore他已经拥有年轻科学家梦寐以求的名 声、
资源和权力。他恰恰忘记了人们尊重名声、资源和权力，而真理却不是这样。在
这个造假的 胜利中，他没看到的是，真理是不会尊重等级和名声的，它只会出自
于勇敢、坚毅的O‘Toole勇士 口中。
就算没人因此（Baltimore学术造假）受到物质上的伤害，但是它还是带来
了 很大的破坏。全球的科学家简单地相信他们这个伪造的―发现‖并为此改变他们
的观点，跟随这个错误的 引导去做研究，从而浪费了大量的时间和金钱。此外，
还有谎言暴露时所造成的不可避免的损失。当人们 读到这样的丑闻时，都会感到
深深的讽刺。如果一个Nobel科学奖得主在道德上堕落到象Milli Vanili和白宫的
游医那样，那么也许结构分解主义者所说的这个世界上本来就没有真理，有的只< br>是被客观事实包围的自我利益这一观点是正确的。
Baltimore必须为此事发表完整的道 歉，并为他的所谓的首次欺骗负责。然后他
必须好好地反思一到两个星期，并考虑辞去Rockefel ler大学校长职位和学术权
威桂冠。给他一个简陋的实验室工作，也许可以安排他到Rocefell er大学旧大楼
那个很多微生物研究者辛勤工作了几十年的实验室。我用河流的观点描绘事物，
在那里人们不会忘记Manhattan是一个岛屿，地球是一颗行星，在此之外还有比
我们更强大，甚 至更聪明的人存在。

34
第六课 如何判断自己能否搞科学研究？
How Can I Tell If I Am Cut out to Be a Research Worker?
People who believe themselves cut out for a scientific life are sometimes dismayed
and depressed by, in Sir Francis Bacon‘s words, ―The subtilty of nature, the secret
recesses of truth, the obscurity of things, the difficulty of experiment, the implication
of causes and the infirmity of man‘s discerning power, being men no longer excited,
either out of desire or hope, to penetrate farther.‖
There is no certain way of telling in advance if the daydreams of a life dedicated
to the pursuit of truth will carry a novice through the corroborate dearly loved
hypotheses that later proved to be groundless; times such as these are hard for
scientists – days of leaden gray skies bring with them a miserable sense of oppression
and inadequacy. It is my recollection of these bad times that accounts for the
earnestness of my advice to young scientists that they should have more than one
string to their bow and should be willing to take no for an answer if the evidence
points that way.
It is especially important that no novice should be fooled by old- fashioned
misrepresentations about what a scientific life is like. Whatever it may have been
alleged to be, it is in reality exciting, rather passionate and – in terms of hours of work
– a very demanding and sometimes exhausting occupation. It is also likely to be tough
on a wife or husband and children who have to live with an obsession without the
compensation of being possessed by it themselves.
A novice must stick it out until he discovers whether the rewards and
compensations of a scientific life are for him commensurate with the disappointments
and the toil; but if once a scientist experiences the exhilaration of discovery and the
satisfaction of carrying through a really tricky experiment – once he has felt that
deeper and more expansive feeling Freud has called the ―oceanic feeling‖ that is the
reward for any real advancement of the understanding – then he is hooked and no
other kind of life will do.
MOTIVES
What about the motives for becoming a scientist in the first place? This is the kind of
subject upon which psychologists might be expected to make some pronouncement.
Love of finicky detail was said by Lou Andreas Salome to be one of the outward
manifestations of – uh – ―anal erotism,‖ but scientists in general are not finicking, nor,
luckily, do they often have to be. Conventional wisdom has always had it that
curiosity is the mainspring of a scientist‘s work. This has always seemed an
inadequate motive to me; curiosity is a nursery word. ―Curiosity killed the cat‖ is an
old nanny‘s saying, through it may have been that same curiosity which found a
remedy for the cat on what might otherwise have been its deathbed.
Most able scientists I know have something for which ―exploratory impulsion‖ is

35