f**r
发帖数: 865 | 1 转贴这篇文章的原因是上个星期在这个版上连续看到给小朋友吃
中药的帖子，其中的一篇是一个自闭孩子妈妈的经历，在有发现
副作用的情况下坚持给四岁的孩子吃中药，后来还有关于中药治
疗自闭的讨论。我不是医生啊，但是看到孕妇，或者哺乳期的妈
妈，或者年龄很小的孩子吃中药总是觉得很不安，所以无论如何
想对其中（我认为的）风险多说几句。我的想法是这样的：
1.从饮食上来说，孕妇，哺乳期的妈妈，和很小的小孩子会比普
通人多一些限制。比如抽烟，喝酒，咖啡，生鱼，甚至可能含有
过量水银的海产，我们都知道对尚未成熟的孩子的伤害比对普通
人的伤害严重很多。在西药方面，有少部分药对孕妇和孩子是安
全的；也有一些对某些孕妇和孩子有一定副作用，但是总体来说
问题不大；也有一部分是知道吃了会出事的。还有很大一部分，
对孕妇和孩子的影响是“未知”－－就是说，不知道吃了会有什
么影响，而且我猜将来恐怕也不可能知道，因为没有可能找来一
大批孕妇孩子做这种药效实验。
中药里使用的很多草药，平时都不是食物，所以我估计它们对孕
妇和孩子的影响恐怕多半是落入“未知”的范围。你可能说，这
种东西大人吃了没事，所以孩子减量吃就应该没问题了；但是实
际情况不是这样，这里的很多很普通的药（比如给大人喝的咳嗽
水）都是完全不给孩子吃的。即使每种草药的效果都清楚了，中
医配方也往往把几种草药混在一起，煎在一起以后成分和药量实
在不是很清楚，给孕妇和孩子吃这种后果不明的药，我觉得真的
是非常冒险。
2. 目前米国市面上的中药不是经过FDA（或者其他独立机构）检
验的药。我记得保健药也不属于FDA检验的范围，结果后来有人
搞了个抽样调查，近一半的药和瓶子上标的成分不符合（记得有
这么个新闻来着，具体细节可能有出入，但是应该大致不错）。
当然我们中国人礼义之邦，道德优越，制造中药的行业里面一定
不会有这么多这么可耻的骗子。:-) 但是林子大了，总是要当心，
要小心避免让孩子吃到和医生开的药不同的东西。
3. 有了1, 2的风险的顾虑，我觉得要使用中医的话，必须要有非常
大的好处才行（即远远超过西医治疗的效果，才能抵偿使用中药的
风险）。但是我没有听说有这样的效果，而且个人我对中医很不信
任，觉得有很多cargo cult science的特征。我知道现在的中医已
经不是当年做人血馒头，或者用蟋蟀做药引那种时候的中医了，但
还是不觉得它是严谨的科学。因为这可能是源于我自己对中医的误
解，所以我把费曼教授的这篇文章转贴过来，希望大家花点时间读
一下，然后用文中的标准自己做一个判断。如果看了以后还是信任
中医，那我也愿赌服输。（这篇文章网上有中文的翻译，但是我看
过以后觉得质量不好，脱字漏句的情况比较严重，所以中文的部分
是我自己加上的，水平很差，只是为了方便习惯平时看中文的同学，
如果可能的话强烈建议直接看原文。）
4. 有关“病急乱投医”的说法。我觉得这个说法合情但是不一定合
理，生病的孩子的生理系统应该是比健康的更加脆弱，更需要谨慎
处理。如果父母情急之下盲目就医，什么都试，会不会给少数只想
蒙事儿赚钱的therapists和江湖医生以可乘之机，令雪上加霜的可能
性更大？孩子那么小的时候，用了药之后的感受自己也说不出来，
这时候就全靠爸爸妈妈了。如果爸爸妈妈慌了手脚，什么都做，那
种危险用中国的古话来说我觉得就是盲人骑瞎马，夜半临深池。
好了，废话说完了，上费曼。:-) | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 2 (1)
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as
that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a
method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try
one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This
method became organized, of course, into science. And it
developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is
such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in
understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when
nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did.
在中世纪的时候流传着各种各样希奇古怪的想法，例如犀牛角可以壮阳。
后来人们发现了一种办法, 把各种理论区分开来 － 就是每个都试验一下，
看看对不对，如果不对就淘汰掉。当然，这个办法后来给归到科学一类，
并且蓬勃发展，让我们今天得以处在科学的时代。这个时代的科学已经
如此昌明，以至于我们很难理解巫医当年的存在，因为他们提出的建议
没有一个是有用的 －－ 或者基本没什么有用的。
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into
a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of
mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP,
and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.
然而即使在今天，我认识的许多人也迟早会和我谈论不明飞行物，占星术，
或者某种神秘主义，第六感，超能力，等等。我因此下结论说，这仍然不
是一个科学的世界。
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to
investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my
curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found
so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by
investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic
experiences. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of
hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen,
which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place;
you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't
realize how much there was.
大多数人都相信这么多奇妙的东西，让我决定调查一下他们为什么相信
这些。这个由好奇心引发的调查给我带来了麻烦，我发现了如此之多的
垃圾，不由得感到无力。我先是调查了各种神秘主义的理论和经验。我
呆在在封闭的蓄水池里，体验了很多个小时的幻觉，因此对那个有了一
点了解。然后我去了Esalen, 那里是这类理论的温床（很奇妙的地方；你
也应该去看看）。然后我被打败了，我从没想到会有那么多乱七八糟的
东西。
At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated
on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most
pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and
watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze
into
the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she quietly
appears and settles into the bath with me.
在Esalen有一些大型的温泉浴池，坐落在一个距离大海三十英尺高的岩石
平台上。我的最大享受之一便是坐在浴池里，向下可以看到海浪拍打着岸
边的岩石，向上可以凝望明净的蓝天，或者观察美丽的裸女静静地出现，
步入我所在的浴池。
One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl sitting
with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began thinking,
"Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this beautiful nude babe?"
有一次我坐在浴池里的时候，遇到一个美丽的女孩，身边坐着一个她似乎
不认识的男子。我马上想道，“天啊！我该怎么和这个美丽的没穿衣服的
女孩搭讪呢？”
I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her, I'm,
uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?"
我正苦思冥想的时候，那个男人对她说：“嗯，我正在学习按摩。可以允许
我练习为您按摩吗？”
"Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a
massage table nearby.
“当然可以，”她说。他们离开浴池，她躺到了附近的一个按摩台上。
I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of anything like
that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel it, "he says. "I feel a
kind of dent--is that the pituitary?"
我正对自己说，“多巧妙的一句话啊！我就绝对想不到！” 他开始按摩她
的大脚趾。“我想我感觉到了，”他说。“我觉得这里有点凹陷 － 这是脑
垂体吗？”
I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!"
我脱口而出，“你离脑垂体还远着呢，伙计！”
They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said,
"It's reflexology!"
他们惊愕地看着我 － 这下我原形毕露了 － 然后说道，“是反射疗法！”
I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.
我赶紧闭上眼睛，假装在冥想。
That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I
also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and
the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be
able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his
hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mind
reading and bending keys. He didn't do any mind reading that
succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held
a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told
us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing
in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and
him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was
unable to investigate that phenomenon.
在令我感到无力的事件中，这只是一个例子。我也调查过超感知和超能
力，这一行里目前最受追捧的是Uri Geller, 据传他用手摸摸钥匙就能把
钥匙弄弯。于是我应他的邀请去了他的旅馆房间，看他表演读心术和弄
弯钥匙。他的读心术表演没成功；我猜没人能读出我的想法。我的孩子
举着一把钥匙，让Geller摸；结果什么也没发生。然后他对我们说，这
个能力在水里比较容易发挥出来，于是我们就一起挤在卫生间，打开水
龙头，把钥匙放在下面，他用手指摸着钥匙。还是什么也没发生。所以
我对这个现象的调查失败了。 | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 3 (2)
But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe?
(And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy
it would have been to cheek on them by noticing that
nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more
people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of
how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods
and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice,
you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly
going up in spite of the fact that we continually use these
same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor
remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do
they know that their method should work? Another example
is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress
--lots of theory, but no progress-- in decreasing the amount of
crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.
然后我开始想，我们还相信什么呢？（在那个时候，我想到了巫医，
要取笑一下他们该有多容易啊，你只要注意到他们的法子都不灵就
行了）。就这样我发现了一些更多人相信的东西，比如我们自以为
知道如何教育孩子。关于阅读方法和学习数学的方法有很多流派，
不过如果你注意的话就会发现阅读的成绩一直在下滑 － 或者几乎没
有上升，而我们还一直请同样的一批人为我们完善这些方法。这就
是一个没用的巫医处方。另外一个例子是我们对待罪犯的方式。在
改造罪犯，以降低犯罪率这方面，我们显然没有取得任何进展 －－
有一大堆理论，可是完全没有进展。
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And
I think ordinary people with common sense ideas are
intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some
good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by
the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled
by the school system into thinking that her method is not
necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after
disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the
rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing,"
according to the experts.
可是这些东西号称是科学的。我们学习它们。而且我认为普通有常
识的人被这些伪科学唬住了。一个对如何提高阅读水平有心得的老
师会被学校逼着使用别的教学方法 －－ 甚至于她本人都可能被学
校骗住，以为自己的方法不行。又比如坏孩子的父母，在按这种或
那种方法管教孩子后，被专家鉴定说，他们的方法没弄对，从而终
身感到自责悔恨。
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.
所以我们真的需要调查这些不靠谱的理论，以及并非科学的科学。
I think the educational and psychological studies I
mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo
cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.
During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good
materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So
they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires
along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a
man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like
headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas
--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land.
They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks
exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No
airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science,
because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of
scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential,
because the planes don't land.
这些教育学和心理学的研究，都是被我命名为“邪教科学”
（cargo cult science”）的例子。在南海有一群居民，在战争时
期看到飞机降落，带来许多好东西，就希望这样的好事继续发生。
于是他们作出安排，模拟了跑道，在跑道边点上火把，造了个小木
屋，让一个人坐在里面，这人头上带这两块木头，如同耳机，还有
一截一截的竹子，模仿天线 －－ 他是调度员 －－ 然后等着飞机降
落。看起来所有的事情都做得很对。形式非常完美，和以前一模一
样。可是不管用。没有飞机降落。我把这个命名为邪教科学，因为
它具有科学研究一切表面上的概念和形式，却缺少某种关键的东西，
因为飞机没有来。 | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 4 (3)
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're
missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the
South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that
they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple
like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in
cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have
learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say
what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples
of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it
out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example,
if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything
that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is
right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your
results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by
some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure
the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
现在，显然我有责任告诉你们，他们缺少的到底是什么东西。可是
这个很难解释，几乎和向那些南海小岛上的居民解释怎么改变他们
的系统就能弄到他们想要的财富差不多困难。这不是那种改善一下
耳机的形状就能解决的简单问题。不过我注意到，邪教科学总是缺
少一个特征。关于这个特征，我们希望你们在学校里学习科学的时
候已经学到了 －－ 我们从没有明确地说过它是什么，而只是希望
你们从科学研究的各种范例中已经感受到。因此把它提出来，明确
地加以说明，是一件有意思的事。这是一种真诚的科学作风，是对
应于完完全全的诚实的科学思维的原则 －－ 是一种竭尽全力的态
度。比如说，如果你做一个实验，就应该报告所有你觉得有可能推
翻你的结论的因素 －－ 而不仅仅是支持你的结论的因素：比如还
有什么其他的原因可能导致你同样的实验结果；列出你认为通过其
他实验已经排除的因素，以及你是如何排除的 － 这样别人也能知
道排除的过程。
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must
be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--
if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to
explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it,
or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that
disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is
also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas
together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make
sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not
just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that
the finished theory makes something else come out right, in
addition.
在你所知的范围内，提供所有可能对你的结论不利的细节。如果
你发现任何不对的地方，或者可能不对的地方，都必须尽你所能
解释。举个例子来说，如果你提出一个理论，宣传它，或者论述
它的时候，必须罗列所有和你的理论不符合的事实，而不仅仅是
和你的理论符合的事实。还有一个更隐晦的问题。如果你把很多
想法放在一起，形成一个更复杂的理论的话，你必须保证，在解
释它符合的现象的时候，这些符合的现象不能仅仅是那些令你想
到这个理论的现象；最后的理论必须能够解释更多的东西。
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information
to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not
just the information that leads to judgment in one particular
direction or another.
总而言之，就是要给出所有的信息，帮助别人对你的成果作出判
断；而不是只给出一部分信息，以期把别人的判断推向你希望的
方向。
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest;
but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising
statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at
a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature,
they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which
has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the
difference is what we have to deal with.
解释这个概念的最简单的方法就是通过对比，比如和广告对比。
昨天晚上我听到一个广告，说Wesson食油不会浸透食物。这个
没错。这不是撒谎；可是我在这里说的不仅仅是不撒谎，而是真
诚的科学作风，这就属于不同的层次了。这个广告应该加上的事
实是，在一定的温度下，所有的食油都不会浸透食物。而如果换
个温度的话，所有的食油都会浸透食物 －－ 也包括Wesson食
油。因此这个广告传达的是一种弦外之音，而不是正确的事实本
身，这就是我们需要注意的区别。
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out.
Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out
whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will
agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you
may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not
gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be
very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity,
this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large
extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
从经验中我们知道，真相最终会浮出水面。会有人重复你的实验，
验证你是否正确。自然现象会证实或否定你的理论。而且，如果
你在这方面不是特别当心的话，虽然可能会获得暂时的名声和轰
动，但却会毁掉你作为一个科学家的名声。就是这种真诚，这种
小心避免自欺欺人的态度，是邪教科学的研究中普遍缺乏的东西。
A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method
to the subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this
is not the only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--
but they don't land.
当然，在这些领域中，很多困难来自于研究对象本身，上面提到
的科学方法在某些学科并不适用。但是我想指出的是那并不是唯
一的困难。（缺少真诚的科学态度，）这就是为什么飞机没有来
－－ 它们不会来。 | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 5 (4)
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle
some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan
measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with
falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not
to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect
value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history
of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan.
If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally
they settle down to a number which is higher.
对于一些自欺欺人的方法我们已经有了很多经验。举例说明：
Millikan用掉下来的油滴测量电子的电量，得到了一个今天我们知道
不十分准确的数值。结果有点偏差，因为他计算的时候使用了错误的
空气粘滞系数。如果你去看看Millikan之后电子电量测量的历史，会
发现一件很有意思的事。以时间为横轴，你会发现紧接Millikan之后
的实验得到的数值比Millikan稍大一点，再下面一次的实验又比前面
略大，依次递增，最终稳定在一个比最初的实验结果要大的值。
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher
right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this
history--because it's apparent that people did things like this:
When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's,
they thought something must be wrong--and they would look
for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When
they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so
hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far
off, and did other things like that. We've learned those trick
nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.
为什么他们没有立刻发现测量的新结果比原实验要大呢？这是令科
学家们感到羞惭的一件事－－ 因为显然大家是这么做的：当他们得
到的结果比Millikan的结果大很多时，他们就想，一定是哪里搞错了
－－然后仔细寻找，直到找到了什么可能出错的地方。当他们的结
果和Millikan的结果接近的时候他们就不仔细看了。如今我们已经了
解了这种把戏，所以我们现在不再有这样的毛病了。
But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of
having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something
that we haven't specifically included in any particular course
that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
可是关于学习如何不自欺欺人，学习完全真诚的科学态度的漫长历
史 －－ 我很遗憾地说，我们从来没有在课堂上特别教过。我们只
是希望你们已经通过潜移默化懂得了。
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you
are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful
about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to
fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a
conventional way after that.
第一个原则是你决不可以欺骗你自己 －－ 你自己是最容易受骗的。
所以你要特别当心。等你做到不自己骗自己以后，不骗其他的科学
家就容易了。你只要做到普通意义上的诚实就可以了。
I would like to add something that's not essential to the
science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you
should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I
am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your
wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when
you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an
ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you
and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of
integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to
show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have
when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
我想要加上一条，这一条对于科学并不是必不可少的，但是是我比
较相信的，就是当你在作为一个科学家说话时，也不可以欺骗外行
的人。我不是想对你们说，在是否欺骗老婆或者女朋友这类问题上
应该怎么做；那时你不是一个科学家，而是一个普通人。这些方面
的问题我们随便你自己和你的牧师。我说的是你作为一个科学家时
应当具有的这种特别的，极端的真诚态度，不仅仅是不撒谎，而是
竭尽全力地说明你可能错了的地方。这是我们作为科学家，对待其
他科学家时的责任，我认为也要这样对待外行的人。
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on
cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he
would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well,"
I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get
support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of
dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then
you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if
they don't want to support you under those circumstances,
then that's their decision.
比如有一次我和一个朋友聊天的时候吃了一惊，因为谈到他马上要
参加的一个电台节目。他工作的领域是宇宙学和天文学，他正烦恼
如何向听众解释他的工作有什么具体的应用。我说，”没有什么具
体的应用啊。“他说，”是啊，但是那样说的话就没人支持我们的
研究了。“ 我觉得这就不太诚实。如果你以科学家的身份出现，就
应该向外行的人解释你做的是什么 －－ 如果他们在那样的情况下
不想支持你的研究了，那也是他们的决定。
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your
mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you
should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes
out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make
the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
这个原则的一个例子是这样的：如果你决定测试一个理论，或者想要
解释一个想法的话，无论最后的结果为何，你都应该发表出来。如果
只发表某种类型的结果，我们可以让自己的结论显得很漂亮。但是我
们必须把正反两面的结果都发表出来。
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about
whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you
decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish
such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice.
You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the
direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it
as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they
don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
我要说，这一点在为政府提供某些建议的时候也同样重要。比如有个
参议员咨询你，该不该在他的州里钻一口井。而你的结论是最好在另
外一个州钻这口井。如果你不发表这个结论，你就不是在提供科学的
建议，而是被利用了。如果你的答案碰巧是政府或者政客们想要的答
案，他们就把这个作为对他们有利的一项论据；如果你的答案他们不
喜欢，他们就不发表。这个不叫提供科学的建议。 | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 6 (5)
Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science.
When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the
psychology department. One of the students told me she
wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--
it had been found by others that under certain circumstances,
X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she
changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So
her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances
Y and see if they still did A.
另外的一些错误则体现出劣质的科学的特征。我在康奈尔大学的时候
常常和心理系的人聊天。有一个学生告诉我，她想做一个这样的实验
－－ 有人发现在条件X下，老鼠会做某件事，A. 她想知道，如果把条
件变成Y，是否它们还是会做A。 所以她提出的方案是在条件Y下进行
这项实验，观察老鼠是否还是做A这件事。
I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her
laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under
condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then
change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that
the real difference was the thing she thought she had under
control.
我向她解释说，她首先需要在自己的实验室里重复另外那个人的实验
－－在条件X下看是否能得到结果A，然后再改成条件Y，观察A是否
改变。这样她就能够确定真正的区别就是在她认为的两种条件的区别。
She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her
professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because
the experiment has already been done and you would be
wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have
been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological
experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what
happens.
她很喜欢这个建议，于是就去找她的导师。他的回答是，不行，不能
那样做，因为那个实验已经做过了，再做就是浪费时间。那是大概
1947年，似乎从那时起，一直以来的普遍原则就是不要试图重复心理
学的实验，而仅仅是改变一下条件，看看会发生什么。
Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing
happening, even in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked
to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the
National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used
deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to
what might happen with light hydrogen" he had to use data from
someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done
on different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because
he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time
and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with
light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any
new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so
anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the
thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying-－
possibly--the value of the experiments themselves, which is the
whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters
there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.
如今连在著名的（？）物理学领域中，也有一定的发生这种事的危险。
我很震惊地听说在国家加速器实验室出现了这么一个实验，实验的对
象是氘。为了把得到的重氢的结果和轻氢的结果进行比较，做这个实
验的人使用了别人在别的设备上得到的轻氢的数据。被问到这么做的
理由的时候，他说他的方案里面没有安排在这个设备上做轻氢的实验，
因为时间太紧，设备又很贵，而且反正也不会有什么新的结果。所以
呢，在国家加速器实验室里负责这个方案的这些人急着拿到实验结果，
以便进行公关，拿到资金，继续他们的实验，但是这样做的结果却毁
掉了实验本身的价值，而那才是整件事的全部意义所在。很多时候，
实验者们很不容易以严谨的科学作风完成他们的工作。
All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For
example, there have been many experiments running rats
through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But
in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He
had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats
came in, and doors along the other side where the food was.
He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third
door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats
went immediately to the door where the food had been the
time before.
不过，心理学的实验并不是这种类型。举例来说，曾有很多让老鼠走
各种迷宫的实验 －－ 但是几乎没有任何明确的结果。不过在1937年，
一个名叫Young的人做了个很有趣的实验。他设计了一个长长的走
廊，两边都有很多门。老鼠从走廊一边的门进入，走廊另外一边的门
里放着食物。他想知道能不能训练老鼠，使他们无论从那个门进入，
都往前走三个门以得到食物。不行。老鼠会马上跑到上次食物出现的
地方。
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor
was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same
door as before? Obviously there was something about the door
that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors
very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors
exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe
the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change
the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized
the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the
arrangement in the laboratory like any common sense person.
So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
问题在于，老鼠是怎么认识原来的那扇门的呢？走廊造得很好，到处
看起来都一样。可是显然这个装食物的门和其他的门不一样。于是他
把门重新小心漆了一遍，把每个门的外观弄得完全一样。可是老鼠还
是认识。然后他想，也许老鼠是闻到了食物的气味，于是他每次实验
前都用化学药品改变走廊的味道。老鼠还是认识。然后他想，也许老
鼠和有常识的人一样，可以从实验室的灯光和布置确定自己的位置。
于是他把走廊盖起来，可是老鼠还是认识。
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor
sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by
putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another
of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that
they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his
conditions, the rats could tell.
最后他发现，老鼠在跑过走廊的时候能够注意到地板发出的声音稍有
不同。这个他只能通过在走廊上撒沙子来解决。这样，他把可能的线
索逐个消灭掉，最后终于把老鼠搞糊涂了，只能学习走向第三个门。
如果他放松任何一个条件，老鼠都能辨认出来。
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one
experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running
experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat
is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the
experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
rat-running.
从科学的出发点来看，这是一个首要的实验。有了这个实验才能把这些
老鼠迷宫的实验合理化，因为它找到了老鼠们实际上使用的线索 －－
而不是你以为它们使用的线索。这个实验告诉大家，如果想要小心地控
制一个老鼠迷宫实验的话，需要达到哪些条件。
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next
experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young.
They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on
sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats
in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great
discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to,
because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he
discovered all the things you have to do to discover something
about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a
characteristic of cargo cult science.
我调查了这项研究之后的历史。这个实验之后的实验，以及再下一个实
验，都没有提到Young先生。他们从来没有按他的规则在走廊上铺上沙
子，也没有特别小心地控制他们的实验。他们用和从前一样的方法让老
鼠走迷宫，完全没有注意到Young先生的伟大发现，Young先生的论文
从来没人引用，因为他没有发现老鼠的什么特性。但实际上，他发现的
是你如果想要对老鼠任何发现，就必须去做的事情。对这类实验不加注
意，是邪教科学的一个特征。
Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other
people. As various people have made criticisms--and they
themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--
they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and
smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the
parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be
repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--
statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time
they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next
time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a
man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a
repeatable experiment. This is science?
另外一个例子是Rhine先生做的那些超能力实验。大家提出了各种批评
－－他们对自己的实验也有自我批评－－在他们完善实验技巧的过程
中，得到的效果越来越小，越来越小，最终渐渐消失了。所有的超能
力心理学家都在寻找可重复的实验－－那种可以重复进行得到相同效
果的实验，哪怕只是在统计学上有效也行。他们用了成百万只老鼠
－－不是，这次是用了成百万的人做了很多实验，获得了统计学上显
著的效果。下次再试的时候，这效果却没有了。然后你发现有人说，
对可重复实验的期待是不合理的要求。这也算科学吗？
This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which
he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology.
And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the
things they have to do is be sure they only train students who
have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable
extent-- not to waste their time on those ambitious and
interested students who get only chance results. It is very
dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students
only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an
experiment with scientific integrity.
同一个人在辞去超能力学院院长的讲话中，提到一个新的原则。在告
诉大家接下来应该怎么做的时候，他说他们必须集中精力训练那些有
办法在超能力实验中得到显著结果的学生－－而不要浪费时间在那些
有兴趣，却只能偶然得到结果的学生身上。这种政策在在教学中是非
常危险的－－去教学生如何想办法得到某些结果，而不是教他们以科
学的真诚态度进行实验。
So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere
where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have
described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to
maintain your position in the organization, or financial support,
or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.
因此，我对你们只有一个祝愿－－祝你们好运，去一个可以自由自在
地维护我刚才描述的科学作风的地方，不必因为维护自己在机构里的
地位，或者经济上的支持，而被迫放弃你们的真诚。祝你们有这样的
自由。 | z***t
发帖数: 110 | | f**r
发帖数: 865 | 8 谢谢耐心读完 :-)
【在 z***t 的大作中提到】
: Nice.
: Thank you.
| m*****8
发帖数: 4059 | 9 很有意思
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
【在 f**r 的大作中提到】
: 转贴这篇文章的原因是上个星期在这个版上连续看到给小朋友吃
: 中药的帖子，其中的一篇是一个自闭孩子妈妈的经历，在有发现
: 副作用的情况下坚持给四岁的孩子吃中药，后来还有关于中药治
: 疗自闭的讨论。我不是医生啊，但是看到孕妇，或者哺乳期的妈
: 妈，或者年龄很小的孩子吃中药总是觉得很不安，所以无论如何
: 想对其中（我认为的）风险多说几句。我的想法是这样的：
: 1.从饮食上来说，孕妇，哺乳期的妈妈，和很小的小孩子会比普
: 通人多一些限制。比如抽烟，喝酒，咖啡，生鱼，甚至可能含有
: 过量水银的海产，我们都知道对尚未成熟的孩子的伤害比对普通
: 人的伤害严重很多。在西药方面，有少部分药对孕妇和孩子是安
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | | S****p
发帖数: 3928 | |
|
