Unit 2 The Nature of Scientific Reasoning
by Jacob Bronowski
1 What is the insight in which the scientist tries to e into nature? Can it indeed be called either imaginative or creative? To the literary man the question may em merely silly. He has been taught that science is a large collection of facts; and if this is true, then the only eing which scientists need to do is, he suppos, eing the facts. He pictures them, the colorless professionals of science, going off to work in the morning into the univer in a neutral, unexpod state. They then expo themlves like a photographic plate. And then in the darkroom or laboratory they develop the image, so that suddenly and startlingly it appears, printed in capital letters, as a new formula for atomic energy.
2 Men who have read Balzac and Zola are not deceived by the claims of the writers that they do no more than record the facts. The readers of Christopher Isherwoodiea do not take him literally when he writes “I am a camera.” Yet the same readers solemnly carry with them from their school-days this foolish picture of the scientist fixing by some mechanical pr
ocess the facts of nature. I have had of all people a historian tell me that science is a collection of facts, and his voice had not even the ironic rasp of one filing cabinet reproving another.
为难英文
3 It ems impossible that this historian had ever studied the beginnings of a scientific discovery. The Scientific Revolution can be held to begin in the year 1543 when there was brought to Copernicus, perhaps on his deathbed, the first printed copy of the book he had finished about a dozen years earlier. The thesis of this book is that the earth moves around the sun. When did Copernicus go out and record this fact with his camera? What appearance in nature prompted his outrageous guess? And in what odd n is this guess to be called a neutral record of fact?
4 Less than a hundred years after Copernicus, Kepler published (between 1609 and 1619) the three laws which describe the paths of the planets. The work of Newton and with it most of our mechanics spring from the laws.numlock They have a solid, matter-of-fact sound. For example, Kepler says that if one squares the year of a planet, one gets a num
ber which is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the sun. Does anyone think that such a law is found by taking enough readings and then squaring and cubing everything in sight? If he does, then, as a scientist, he is doomed to a wasted life; he has as little prospect of making a scientific discovery as an electronic brain has.
玉米的营养价值
5 It was not this way that Copernicus and Kepler thought, or that scientists think today. Copernicus found that the orbits of the planets would look simpler if they were looked at from the sun and not from the earth. But he did not in the first place find this by routine calculation. His first step was a leap of imagination—to lift himlf from the earth, and put himlf wildly, speculatively into the sun. “The earth conceives from the sun,” he wrote; and “the sun rules the family of stars.” We catch in his mind an image, the gesture of the virile man standing in the sun, with arms outstretched, overlooking the planets. Perhaps Copernicus took the picture from the drawings of the youth with outstretched arms which the Renaissance teachers put into their books on the proportions of the body. Perhaps he had en Leonardo’sanchorpoint英语培训学校趿拉 drawings of his loved pupil Salai. I do not know. To me, the gesture of Copernicus, the shining youth looking outward from the sun, is still vivid in a drawing w
hich William Blake in 1780 bad on all the: the drawing which is usually called Glad Day北京播音主持培训.
6 Kepler’s mind, we know, was filled with just such fanciful analogies; and we know what they were. Kepler wanted to relate the speeds of the planets to the musical intervals. He tried to fit the five regular solids into their orbits. None of the likeness worked, and they have been forgotten; yet they have been and they remain the stepping stones of every creative mind. Kepler felt for his laws by way of metaphors, he arched mystically for likeness with what he knew in every strange corner of nature. And when among the guess he hit upon his laws, he did not think of their numbers as the balancing of a cosmic bank account, but as a revelation of the unity in all nature. To us, the analogies by which Kepler listened for the movement of the planets in the music of the spheres are farfetched. Yet are they more so than the wild leap by which Rutherford and Bohr in our own century found a model for the atom in, of all places, the planetary system?好听的男生英文名
7 No scientific theory is a collection of facts. It will not even do to call a theory true or fal in the simple n in which every fact is either so or not so. The Epicureans held that matter is made of atoms two thousand years ago and we are now tempted to say that their theory was true. But if we do so we confu their notion of matter with our own. John Dalton in 1808 first saw the structure of matter as we do today, and what he took from the ancients was not their theory but something richer, their image: the atom. Much of what was in Dalton’s mind was as vague as the Greek notion, and quite as mistaken. But he suddenly gave life to the new facts of chemistry and the ancient theory together, by fusing them to give what neither had: a coherent picture of how matter is linked and built up from different kinds of atoms. The act of fusion is the creative act.
reception动词
