论文部分内容阅读
When his daughter turned 10， evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins—arguably today’s most vocal atheist and celebrated skeptic—wrote her a simply worded but tremendously thoughtful letter about how we know what we know， stressing the importance of evidence over blind belief.1 The letter， found in the 2004 essay anthology A Devil’s Chaplain： Reflections on Hope， Lies， Science， and Love， is a fine addition to history’s best letters of fatherly advice and an important reminder that it’s never too early for critical thinking.2
Dawkins writes：
“To my dearest daughter，
Now that you are ten， I want to write to you about something that is important to me. Have you ever wondered how we know the things that we know？ How do we know， for instance， that the stars， which look like tiny pinpricks3 in the sky， are really huge balls of fire like the Sun and very far away？ And how do we know that the Earth is a smaller ball whirling4 round one of those stars， the Sun？
The answer to these questions is ‘evidence.’
Sometimes evidence means actually seeing （or hearing， feeling， smelling…） that something is true. Astronauts5 have traveled far enough from the Earth to see with their own eyes that it is round. Sometimes our eyes need help. The ‘evening star’ looks like a bright twinkle in the sky but with a telescope you can see that it is a beautiful ball—the planet we call Venus.6 Something that you learn by direct seeing （or hearing or feeling…） is called an observation.
Often evidence isn’t just observation on its own， but observation always lies at the back of it. If there’s been a murder， often nobody （except the murderer and the dead person！） actually observed it. But detectives can gather together lots of other observations which may all point towards a particular suspect. If a person’s fingerprints match those found on a dagger，7 this is evidence that he touched it. It doesn’t prove that he did the murder， but it can help when it’s joined up with8 lots of other evidence. Sometimes a detective can think about a whole lot of observations and suddenly realize that they all fall into place and make sense if so-and-so did the murder.”9
He then offers an oblique10 addition to the finest definitions of science：
“Scientists—the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe—often work like detectives. They make a guess （called a hypothesis11） about what might be true. They then say to themselves： if that were really true， we ought to see so-and-so. This is called a prediction12. For example， if the world is really round， we can predict that a traveler， going on and on in the same direction， should eventually find himself back where he started. When a doctor says that you have measles13 he doesn’t take one look at you and see measles. His first look gives him a hypothesis that you may have measles. Then he says to himself： if she really has measles， I ought to see… Then he runs through his list of predictions and tests them with his eyes （have you got spots？）， his hands （is your forehead hot？）， and his ears （does your chest wheeze in a measly way？）.14 Only then does he make his decision and say， ‘I diagnose15 that the child has measles.’ Sometimes doctors need to do other tests like blood tests or X-rays， which help their eyes， hands and ears to make observations.” Dawkins goes on to warn against “three bad reasons for believing anything”—“tradition，” “authority，” and “revelation”16—particularly as they apply to religion. But perhaps the most moving part of his letter deals with love， exploring the difference between naming feelings with concrete labels and intuiting them from the living fabric， the “evidence，” of experience：17
“People sometimes say that you must believe in feelings deep inside， otherwise you’d never be confident of things like ‘My wife loves me.’ But this is a bad argument. There can be plenty of evidence that somebody loves you. All through the day when you are with somebody who loves you， you see and hear lots of little tidbits18 of evidence， and they all add up. It isn’t purely inside feeling， like the feeling that priests19 call revelation. There are outside things to back up the inside feeling： looks in the eye， tender notes in the voice， little favors and kindnesses；20 this is all real evidence.”
He relates this to the importance of intuition in scientific discovery， something a number of famous scientists have attested to， but only as a starting point：21
“Inside feelings are valuable in science too， but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking for evidence. A scientist can have a ‘hunch’22 about an idea that just ‘feels’ right. In itself， this is not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment， or looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything until they are supported by evidence.”
After returning to the perils of tradition， Dawkins concludes with some practical advice reminiscent of the Baloney Detection Kit：23
“What can we do about all this？ It is not easy for you to do anything， because you are only ten. But you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important， think to yourself： ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence？ Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition， authority or revelation？’ And， next time somebody tells you that something is true， why not say to them： ‘What kind of evidence is there for that？’ And if they can’t give you a good answer， I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Your loving，
Daddy”
1. 当女儿长到10岁时，进化生物学家理查德·道金斯——如今最直言不讳的无神论者和最著名的怀疑论者——给她写了一封深入浅出的信，讲述了我们认知的过程，强调了证据应高于迷信之上的重要性。evolutionary biologist： 进化生物学家；arguably： 可以说；vocal： 直言不讳的；atheist： 无神论者；celebrated： 著名的，有名望的；skeptic： 怀疑论者； tremendously： 非常地；thoughtful： 有思想的，经仔细推敲的；blind belief： 迷信。 2. essay anthology： 散文選集；A Devil’s Chaplain： Reflections on Hope， Lies， Science， and Love： 《魔鬼的牧师：关于希望、谎言、科学和爱的思考》；critical thinking： 批判性思维。
3. pinprick： 小孔。
4. whirl： 旋转，回旋。
5. astronaut： 宇航员。
6. 长庚星看起来像天空中一个明亮的闪光点，但通过望远镜，你能看到它是一个美丽木的球体——一个我们称为“金星”的行星。evening star： 长庚星，晚星，即下文的金星（Venus）；twinkle： 闪烁；telescope： 望远镜。
7. fingerprint： 指纹；dagger： 匕首。
8. join up with： 汇合，联结。
9. fall into place： （开始）形成有条不紊、一目了然的格局；make sense： 讲得通；so-and-so： 某某人，某某事。
10. oblique： 拐弯抹角的，间接的。
11. hypothesis： 假设。
12. prediction： 预测。
13. measles： 麻疹，后文measly为形容词，意为“患麻疹的”。
14. forehead： 额头；chest： 胸腔； wheeze： 喘息，呼哧呼哧地响。
15. diagnose： 诊断。
16. authority： 权威；revelation： 启示。
17. 但也许他信中最动人的部分是关于爱的描述，探索了给情感贴上具体的标签和用直觉去感知鲜活的构成，即从经验的“证据”中获知的区别。concrete： 具体的，实在的；intuit： 凭直觉知道，后文intuition为名词，意为“直觉”；living fabric： 鲜活组成。
18. tidbit： 生活杂谈，趣闻。
19. priest： 牧师。
20. back up： 支持；tender： 温柔的； note： 调子；favor： 欢心，好感。
21. attest to： 证明，证实；starting point： 出发点。
22. hunch： 预感。
23. peril： 危险；conclude with： 以……结束；reminiscent of： 令人回忆起，引起联想；Baloney Detection Kit： 鉴别谎言的技术，出自美国天文学家、科幻作家、自然科学方面的科普作家卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan，1934—1996）在1996年出版的《魔鬼出没的世界》（The Demon-Haunted World）一书。
Dawkins writes：
“To my dearest daughter，
Now that you are ten， I want to write to you about something that is important to me. Have you ever wondered how we know the things that we know？ How do we know， for instance， that the stars， which look like tiny pinpricks3 in the sky， are really huge balls of fire like the Sun and very far away？ And how do we know that the Earth is a smaller ball whirling4 round one of those stars， the Sun？
The answer to these questions is ‘evidence.’
Sometimes evidence means actually seeing （or hearing， feeling， smelling…） that something is true. Astronauts5 have traveled far enough from the Earth to see with their own eyes that it is round. Sometimes our eyes need help. The ‘evening star’ looks like a bright twinkle in the sky but with a telescope you can see that it is a beautiful ball—the planet we call Venus.6 Something that you learn by direct seeing （or hearing or feeling…） is called an observation.
Often evidence isn’t just observation on its own， but observation always lies at the back of it. If there’s been a murder， often nobody （except the murderer and the dead person！） actually observed it. But detectives can gather together lots of other observations which may all point towards a particular suspect. If a person’s fingerprints match those found on a dagger，7 this is evidence that he touched it. It doesn’t prove that he did the murder， but it can help when it’s joined up with8 lots of other evidence. Sometimes a detective can think about a whole lot of observations and suddenly realize that they all fall into place and make sense if so-and-so did the murder.”9
He then offers an oblique10 addition to the finest definitions of science：
“Scientists—the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe—often work like detectives. They make a guess （called a hypothesis11） about what might be true. They then say to themselves： if that were really true， we ought to see so-and-so. This is called a prediction12. For example， if the world is really round， we can predict that a traveler， going on and on in the same direction， should eventually find himself back where he started. When a doctor says that you have measles13 he doesn’t take one look at you and see measles. His first look gives him a hypothesis that you may have measles. Then he says to himself： if she really has measles， I ought to see… Then he runs through his list of predictions and tests them with his eyes （have you got spots？）， his hands （is your forehead hot？）， and his ears （does your chest wheeze in a measly way？）.14 Only then does he make his decision and say， ‘I diagnose15 that the child has measles.’ Sometimes doctors need to do other tests like blood tests or X-rays， which help their eyes， hands and ears to make observations.” Dawkins goes on to warn against “three bad reasons for believing anything”—“tradition，” “authority，” and “revelation”16—particularly as they apply to religion. But perhaps the most moving part of his letter deals with love， exploring the difference between naming feelings with concrete labels and intuiting them from the living fabric， the “evidence，” of experience：17
“People sometimes say that you must believe in feelings deep inside， otherwise you’d never be confident of things like ‘My wife loves me.’ But this is a bad argument. There can be plenty of evidence that somebody loves you. All through the day when you are with somebody who loves you， you see and hear lots of little tidbits18 of evidence， and they all add up. It isn’t purely inside feeling， like the feeling that priests19 call revelation. There are outside things to back up the inside feeling： looks in the eye， tender notes in the voice， little favors and kindnesses；20 this is all real evidence.”
He relates this to the importance of intuition in scientific discovery， something a number of famous scientists have attested to， but only as a starting point：21
“Inside feelings are valuable in science too， but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking for evidence. A scientist can have a ‘hunch’22 about an idea that just ‘feels’ right. In itself， this is not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment， or looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything until they are supported by evidence.”
After returning to the perils of tradition， Dawkins concludes with some practical advice reminiscent of the Baloney Detection Kit：23
“What can we do about all this？ It is not easy for you to do anything， because you are only ten. But you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important， think to yourself： ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence？ Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition， authority or revelation？’ And， next time somebody tells you that something is true， why not say to them： ‘What kind of evidence is there for that？’ And if they can’t give you a good answer， I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Your loving，
Daddy”
1. 当女儿长到10岁时，进化生物学家理查德·道金斯——如今最直言不讳的无神论者和最著名的怀疑论者——给她写了一封深入浅出的信，讲述了我们认知的过程，强调了证据应高于迷信之上的重要性。evolutionary biologist： 进化生物学家；arguably： 可以说；vocal： 直言不讳的；atheist： 无神论者；celebrated： 著名的，有名望的；skeptic： 怀疑论者； tremendously： 非常地；thoughtful： 有思想的，经仔细推敲的；blind belief： 迷信。 2. essay anthology： 散文選集；A Devil’s Chaplain： Reflections on Hope， Lies， Science， and Love： 《魔鬼的牧师：关于希望、谎言、科学和爱的思考》；critical thinking： 批判性思维。
3. pinprick： 小孔。
4. whirl： 旋转，回旋。
5. astronaut： 宇航员。
6. 长庚星看起来像天空中一个明亮的闪光点，但通过望远镜，你能看到它是一个美丽木的球体——一个我们称为“金星”的行星。evening star： 长庚星，晚星，即下文的金星（Venus）；twinkle： 闪烁；telescope： 望远镜。
7. fingerprint： 指纹；dagger： 匕首。
8. join up with： 汇合，联结。
9. fall into place： （开始）形成有条不紊、一目了然的格局；make sense： 讲得通；so-and-so： 某某人，某某事。
10. oblique： 拐弯抹角的，间接的。
11. hypothesis： 假设。
12. prediction： 预测。
13. measles： 麻疹，后文measly为形容词，意为“患麻疹的”。
14. forehead： 额头；chest： 胸腔； wheeze： 喘息，呼哧呼哧地响。
15. diagnose： 诊断。
16. authority： 权威；revelation： 启示。
17. 但也许他信中最动人的部分是关于爱的描述，探索了给情感贴上具体的标签和用直觉去感知鲜活的构成，即从经验的“证据”中获知的区别。concrete： 具体的，实在的；intuit： 凭直觉知道，后文intuition为名词，意为“直觉”；living fabric： 鲜活组成。
18. tidbit： 生活杂谈，趣闻。
19. priest： 牧师。
20. back up： 支持；tender： 温柔的； note： 调子；favor： 欢心，好感。
21. attest to： 证明，证实；starting point： 出发点。
22. hunch： 预感。
23. peril： 危险；conclude with： 以……结束；reminiscent of： 令人回忆起，引起联想；Baloney Detection Kit： 鉴别谎言的技术，出自美国天文学家、科幻作家、自然科学方面的科普作家卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan，1934—1996）在1996年出版的《魔鬼出没的世界》（The Demon-Haunted World）一书。