拜運輸機教科學 CARGO CULT SCIENCE

CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman

拜運輸機教科學

--理查德·費曼

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

錄自1974年加州理工學院畢業典禮演講，（譯註：標題為加州理工校刊所加，此前新語絲曾發布譯文《祖神來歸式科學》）

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 didnt 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.

中世紀時，有著各種各樣的奇思異想，例如一片犀牛角可以壯陽。後來發現了一種方式可以區分這些想法--通過試驗以證明是否有效，如果一種想法沒有效果，就排除它。當然了，這種方式被組織歸納為科學。它發展得很好，所以我們現在生活在科學時代。實際上，在這個科學時代，我們很難理解巫醫怎麼還能存在，他們的治療意見從不奏效，或者說極少有效。

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 Ive concluded that its not a scientific world.

但直到今天，我還是會遇到許多人。他們和我談話時，遲早總會扯到UFO，占星術，或者某些形式的神秘主義，大覺悟，新意識，超感覺 諸如此類的東西。我的結論是，這些都不屬於科學世界。

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 Im 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 (its a wonderful place; you should

go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didnt realize how

much there was.

大多數人都相信這麼多精彩的故事，以至於我決定研究一下為什麼他們迷這個。我被好奇心驅使著研究，參考的資料讓我頭大。發現了這麼多垃圾，我簡直要跪了。起初，我從研究各種神秘主義和神秘體驗開始。我鑽進隔離艙里，出現了好幾個小時的幻覺。如此，我得到了一些與之有關的感悟。再後來我去了埃薩蘭學院，那裡是這類思想的溫床。（此地風景甚好，建議遊玩），我也是醉了，沒想到那裡這麼誇張。

（譯註：這所學院位於加州大蘇爾，知乎上有相關的回答https://www.zhihu.com/question/24481556/answer/144564176）

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.

在埃薩倫，海拔30英尺的岩架上有幾處溫泉大浴池。我最喜歡的回憶之一是坐在一個浴池中，俯視浪拍礁岸，仰望碧空如洗，一個美麗裸體悄然出現，同池共坐，饗我眼福。

One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl

sitting with a guy who didnt seem to know her. Right away I began

thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this

beautiful nude babe?"

一次，我所在的浴池中，有一位漂亮女郎和另一個傢伙坐在一起，他似乎並不認識她。我立即開始琢磨，「哎呀，我要如何與這可人兒搭訕呢？」

Im trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her,

Im, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?"

我還在琢磨呢，那傢伙已經問姑娘：「嗯，我正在學習按摩術， 可以在你身上試驗一下嗎？」

"Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a

massage table nearby.

「當然可以。」姑娘回答，他倆出了浴池，她躺在就近的一張按摩椅上。

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?"

我暗想：「這一手真漂亮！我就想不到。」他開始按摩她的大腳趾，「我想我感覺到了。」他說，「我覺察到一點凹陷，這是腦垂體吧？」

I blurt out, "Youre a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!"

我脫口而出「夥計，你離腦垂體遠著呢！」

They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "Its

reflexology!"

他倆嚇了一跳，看著我--光著的--然後說「這是反射療法！」

（譯註：足反射療法是通過按摩足部穴位，刺激人體其他部位以治療的醫術。始於中國傳到歐美日本，後在中國衰微，近年又回傳回國內）

I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.

我趕緊地閉上眼，作沉思狀。

Thats 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

mindreading and bending keys. He didnt do any mindreading 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.

這只是讓我跪的例子之一。我也曾研究過超感知覺和超心理現象，最近的一個瘋狂的例子來自尤里·蓋勒。據這位先生稱，他可以用手指摩擦鑰匙就把它們弄彎。於是我應他所邀，前往他下榻的酒店房間，一睹讀心術與彎鑰匙的演示。他的讀心術表演無一成功，我猜沒人能測出我的思想。我兒子拿著一把鑰匙，蓋勒摩擦它，沒有什麼發生。然後他告訴我們，水下表演效果更好。你可以想像，我們站在浴室里，把浴缸水閥打開，淹沒了鑰匙，他用手指摩擦鑰匙。還是沒有什麼發生，我可沒法研究這種現象了。

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,

youll 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. Theres a witch doctor remedy that doesnt

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.

但是，接下來我開始思考，對於這些東西，我們還能相信什麼？ （然後，我又想到了巫醫，只要注意到無用的醫療，就很容易識穿他們了。）所以，我發現了許多人相信的一些事情，例如我們所知的某些教育學。有幾家大學派研究閱讀方法，數學方法諸如此類的學問。但如果你留意的話，閱讀能力的分數在持續下降，或者說少有提升。儘管我們一直用同一批人來改善這些學問，還是如同巫醫一樣療效甚微。值得研究的是，他們如何知道他們的學問有用？另一個例子是，如何處分罪犯。儘管有著一大堆理論，我們通過老法子處理罪犯，以降低犯罪數量的做法明顯沒有收效。

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I

think ordinary people with commonsense 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 didnt do "the right

thing," according to the experts.

我們研究的這些東西仍然被稱作科學。我想，有常識的普通人會被這些偽科學嚇住。一位老師雖然知道一些教學生閱讀的好想法，卻被學校體系所迫，用別的辦法教學，或者說，是被學校體系所愚，覺得她的法子並非是必要良策。再舉一例，有頑劣兒子的父母，用某些規矩管束孩子後，餘生都會內疚，因為她（譯註：原文為She）沒按那些專家說的做「正確的事」。

So we really ought to look into theories that dont work, and

science that isnt science.

因此，我們要研究這些沒用的理論和那些不是科學的科學。

I tried to find a principle for discovering more of these kinds of

things, and came up with the following system.Any time you find your

self in a conversation at a cocktail party in which you do not feel

uncomfortable that the hostess might come around and say,"Why are you

fellows talking shop?"or that your wife will come around and say,"Why

are you flirting again?"--then you can be sure you are talking about

something about which nobody knows anything.

我曾試著發現一條方法來揭示這些乃至更多事情，得出下面我要說的理論體系。

每當你在一場雞尾酒會裡談論，而無需困擾於女主人湊近來問「為什麼你們男人討論購物？」，或你老婆湊近來問「你為什麼又在調情？」時，你就能肯定，你所談論的東西，沒人明白。

Using this method, I discovered a few more topics that I had forgotten

--among them the efficacy of various forms of psychotherapy.So I began to

investigate through the library,and so on, and I have so much to tell you

that I cant do it at all. I will have to limit myself to just a few little

things. Ill concerntrate on the things more people believe in. Maybe I will

give a series of speeches next year on all these subjects. It will take a long

time.

通過這個方法，我發現了好多故事，我原本都忘記了的，其中包括各種形式的心理治療的功效。於是我開始在圖書館和其他場所研究這些。我有太多的東西要告訴你們，我簡直沒法全部說完。我不得不限制自己只說幾件事。我會重點說那些大家都深信不疑的事。或許我明年會做一系列的報告來演講所有的論題。這會花很長時間了。

(譯註，費曼文集中收錄的本文並不包含上面兩段。上面的文字引自加州理工網站上校刊記錄。http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf）

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 theyve 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--hes

the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. Theyre

doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the

way it looked before. But it doesnt 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

theyre missing something essential, because the planes dont land.

上面我提到的那些教育學和心理學研究的例子，我想可以稱為 拜運輸機教科學。南太平洋群島上有一群崇拜運輸機的人們，在二戰期間，他們目睹運載大量物資的飛機著陸，戰爭結束後的今日，他們希望同樣的事情再次發生。於是他們模仿著鋪設跑道，在跑道周邊生火以作指示。搭建一座棚屋，讓一個人坐在裡邊扮演地面領航員，他頭戴兩片耳機形狀的木頭，上邊還伸出幾條竹枝，彷彿天線---他們期待著飛機降落。他們所做的一切都沒錯。形式完美無缺，與之前他們所見一般無二，可就是不奏效，沒有飛機降落。我稱這些事物為拜運輸機教科學。他們遵循了所有科研的表面規矩和形式，卻缺少了某些要素。因為飛機沒有降落。

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what theyre 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.

現在，我有必要告訴你們，什麼是他們沒有做的。但這有點難，就象向島民們解釋如何安排才能通過他們那一套發財。這可不是告訴他們 如何修改木頭耳機的外形 這麼簡單。不過，我注意到拜運輸機教科學中缺失了一件特性。那就是我們都希望你們在學校科研中學到的思維方式，我們從來沒有清楚地說明這是什麼，卻希望你們通過所有的科研範例來把握的。

It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now

and speak of it explicitly. Its a kind of scientific integrity,

a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of

utter honesty--a kind of learning over backwards. For example, if

youre 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 youve eliminated by some other

experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can

tell they have been eliminated.

因此，把這種思維方式提出來，清楚的說明白是一件有趣的事。這是一種正直的科學精神，遵循一種完全誠實的科學思考原則---一種儘可能的學習方式。例如：當你做實驗時，應當報告所有你考慮到的，會使實驗失效的因素---不僅是你想到的，還有那些其他可能也能解釋你的實驗結果的部分，那些你以為已經通過其他實驗排除的部分以及如何實驗的---以確認別人可以認為這些因素已經排除了。

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.

如果你知道有哪些細節會對你的闡釋引起疑點，那麼這些細節也得列出來。如果你知道任意一個漏洞或可能的錯失，你必須全力以赴來解釋它。如果你要得出一個理論，例如宣傳它，證明它，然後你要記錄下那些與之相衝突的事實，正如記錄那些與之相符的事實。還有一個小問題，當你把許多想法整合在一起，得出一套你要確認的精巧理論時，你要解釋這套理論支持的不僅是那些啟發你得出結論的事實，而且還有那些已經證明的理論推導出的正確的其他事實。

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.

總的來說，這個思維方式就是試圖給出所有的信息，讓別人來判斷你的貢獻的價值，而不是給出部分信息，只能根據其在某些方向作出判斷。

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for

example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil

doesnt soak through food. Well, thats true. Its not dishonest;

but the thing Im talking about is not just a matter of not being

dishonest, its 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 its the implication which has been

conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what

we have to deal with.

解釋這個思維方式，最簡單的方法是作比較。用廣告舉個例子，昨晚我聽說維森油品不會滲透到食物中，好，這是真的，不算假廣告。不過我要說的可不是不誠實的事，而是科學的正直，這是另一個層次了。事實上，這個廣告詞應該補充說明事實：如果在特定的溫度下，沒有油會滲透到食物中。如果在另一個設定的溫度，所有的油都會滲透到食物中，包括維森油。這個廣告傳達的是暗示，並不是事實。真實與事實之間的區別就是我們需要說明白的。

Weve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other

experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you

were wrong or right. Natures phenomena will agree or theyll

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 havent tried to be very careful in this kind

of work. And its 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.

我們從經驗知道，真相終會證實。其他的實驗者重複你的實驗來確認你是否正確。自然現象會證實或證偽你的理論。而且，倘若你在試驗中沒有仔細工作，儘管你可能獲得暫時的聲望與激動，你並不會得到科學家的美譽。仔細的工作態度是正直的方式，這種方式不會愚弄你自已，這就是許多拜運輸機教式科學探索中在很大程度上所缺失的。

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. Thats why the planes dont(網路其他版本為didnt )

land--but they dont land.

當然了，他們的許多困難在於論題本身的難點和不能採用科學方式來證明這一論題。無論如何，應該記住這不是唯一的難點，得知道現在不降落的原因外，還要知道過去不降落的原因。

（譯註：這一句的翻譯存在疑問。與加校圖書館聯繫後，確認此處應為誤植，故從didnt。)

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. Its a

little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the

viscosity of air. Its 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 Millikans, and the next ones a little bit bigger than

that, and the next ones a little bit bigger than that, until

finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

我們從經驗中學習到許多東西，如何處理某些會愚弄自己的陷阱。舉例：米利根通過滴落油滴測量一個電子所帶的電荷，得到了一個結果，我們現在知道那並不太準確。因為他在設定空氣的黏性係數時取了不正確的值，所以結果有一點小偏差。審視在他之後電子電荷測定的歷史，我們發現這很有趣。倘若你把這些結果當成一個時間變數函數，你發現一個略大於米利根的結果，其後幾個又略大於這個結果，最後確定了一個更高的數據。

（譯註：米利根測值偏小的原因，除費曼指出的空氣黏度外，還有其他科研人員認為實驗中沒有考慮到科里奧利力）

Why didnt they discover that the new number was higher right away?

Its a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because

its apparent that people did things like this: When they got a

number that was too high above Millikans, 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

Millikans value they didnt look so hard. And so they eliminated

the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

Weve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we dont have that

kind of a disease.

為什麼他們沒能立刻發現新數據更高呢？這讓相關歷史上的科學家們都羞愧。很明顯，他們是這麼操作的：當他們得到一個比米利根的數據高出許多的結果時，他們想到肯定有某些地方出錯了，然後找到一個原因說明某些地方出錯。而當他們得到和米利根相近的結果時，他們就不那麼起勁地尋錯了。如此，他們排除了那些偏差太大的數據，他們也如此處理其他的事務。我們今天已經知道這些把戲，也不再犯這樣的錯誤了。

But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of

having utter scientific integrity--is, Im sorry to say, something

that we havent specifically included in any particular course that

I know of. We just hope youve caught on by osmosis.

學習如何不要自我愚弄，保持頂級的正直的科學精神，這是一段漫長的歷史。我很抱歉地說，我們還沒把它歸納在任何一門我所知道的特定的課程里。我們就是希望你們潛移默化地掌握它。

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 youve not fooled yourself, its easy not to fool other

scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after

that.

第一條原則就是：你們一定不要愚弄自已---你們是最容易被愚弄的對象。所以你們必須非常地仔細。當你們不愚弄自己後，不愚弄別的科學家就很簡單了。那之後，你們就得習慣誠實了。

I would like to add something thats not essential to the science,

but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool

the layman when youre 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 youre not trying to be

a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. Well

leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. Im 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.

我要多說一件於科學並不必要，但我卻深信的事。你們作為科學家談話時，不要愚弄外行。我不是試著告訴你們，不做科學家，作為常人，怎麼欺騙你們的妻子，愚弄你們的女友或者其他類似的事，這是你和你的牧師（譯註：原文為RABBI，猶太教士）的事。我說的特別的，額外的正直不是扯謊，而是儘可能的彎下腰，表示你可能如何地犯錯。這才是作為一個科學家，你應有的品質。這是我們作為科學家，對其他科學家，我想還有外行們，必需的職責。

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 arent any."

He said, "Yes, but then we wont get support for more research of

this kind." I think thats kind of dishonest. If youre

representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to

the layman what youre doing--and if they dont want to support you

under those circumstances, then thats their decision.

舉個例子，我有次和一個要上電台的朋友談話時，小小地驚訝了。研究宇宙論和天文學的他想解釋自已的工作如何得到應用的。

「嗯,」我說，「就沒有嘛。」

他說：「是啊，可這麼說，就不會有人支持我們更多的探索工作了。」

我想，這就是一種不誠實。倘若你自稱是一個科學家，那麼就應該向外行解釋清楚你所做的工作。---如果在這些環境下，他們不想支持你，那是他們的決定。

One example of the principle is this: If youve 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.

這條原則的一個範例就是：如果你下了決心測驗一個理論，或者想要解釋某個想法，無論結果如何，你一直應該決定公開。如果我們只是公開一部分結果，可以把論據做得很好看。我們必須公布兩種結果。

For example--lets take advertising again--suppose some particular cigarette

has some particular property,like low nicotine.Its published widely by the

company that this means it is good for you--they dont say, for instance,that

the tars are a different proportion,or that something else is the matter with

the cigarette. In other words,publication probability depends upon the answer.

that should not be done.

再舉一個廣告的例子---某種特別的雪茄具有某種特性，比如低尼古丁含量。煙草公司廣泛宣傳這個對你有好處的特性。他們沒說的是，比如焦油含量與其他雪茄不同，或者是雪茄里有其他的東西。也就是說，宣傳內容是由客戶回應導向的。這可不應該。

I say thats 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 dont publish such a

result, it seems to me youre not giving scientific advice. Youre

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 dont publish

it at all. Thats not giving scientific advice.

我認為，在給政府作某些方面的建議時，這也是很重要的。假設一位參議員向你徵求意見，是否可以在他的州鑽個洞，你認為在其他州鑽洞更好。如果你不公布整個研究結果，在我看來，你就沒有給出科學的建議。你被他利用了。如果你的回答正巧與政府或政客們喜歡的方向相符，他們會按自己的喜好把它當作自己的論據；如果你的結果和他們的期望有分歧，他們根本不會公布。這算不得是給出科學的建議。

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.

其他類型的錯誤有著更不科學的特徵。我在康奈爾大學的時候，（譯註：曼哈頓計劃結束後，費曼曾短期任教康奈爾物理系）經常和心理學系的人談話。其中一個同學告訴我，她希望做一個實驗，內容是這樣的：前人發現在特定的環境X下，老鼠會做A動作。她想知道，當她把環境改成Y後，老鼠仍然會做A動作。也就是說，她的建議是在環境Y下，看老鼠是否仍然會做A動作。

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.

我跟她解釋，首要的是在她的實驗室里 重複前人已經做過的實驗，在環境條件X下觀察她是否也能得到結果A。然後把條件X改變成條件Y，再觀察結果A是否改變了。那時她會知道，真正的差異是那些她本以為自己已經控制了的因素。

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.

聽到這個主意，她很開心，然後去找她的教授。他的回復是「不，你不要那麼做，因為這個實驗已經做過了，你在浪費時間」。這事發生在１９４７年前後，看來不重複實驗，只是改變條件來觀察結果已經成為心理學的常規了。

Nowadays theres 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 elses experiment on light

hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why,

he said it was because he couldnt get time on the program (because

theres so little time and its such expensive apparatus) to do the

experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there

wouldnt 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.

現在，同樣的做法所引起的這種危險也出現了，甚至出現在著名的物理學。我得知某人用氘在國家加速器實驗室的大加速器上做的實驗時，大吃一驚。為了比較他所做的重氫實驗結果與輕氫實驗可能的結果；他「不得不」使用別人在不同設備上的輕氫實驗結果。當被問到原因時，他說因為他的項目里沒有安排時間在大加速器上做輕氫實驗，因為不會有什麼新結果。（時間那麼少，設備那麼貴）。項目負責人也是如此急於得到新結果，為了搞到更多的錢保住項目運作以滿足公眾關係目的。他們極大可能地破壞了實驗本身的價值---這才是實驗的目的。實驗者要秉持著正直科學的品質來完成工作，這經常難以做到。

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.

不過並不是所有的心理學實驗都是這麼做的。例如，有過許多的老鼠跑各種迷宮之類的種種實驗，沒有取得明確的結果。但是在１９３７年，一位楊先生做了一個非常有趣的實驗。他做了一條長廊，一側有幾扇門，他從這些門放進老鼠。長廊另一側的門邊放了食物。他想看看；不管他從哪扇門放進老鼠，是否可以訓練老鼠跑向出來後的第三扇門。結果是不，老鼠立刻跑到之前放食物的門邊。

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 commonsense person. So he covered the

corridor, and still the rats could tell.

問題是，長廊的做工如此漂亮，外觀如此標準，老鼠怎麼知道這就是之前施食的同一扇門的？顯然，這扇門和其他門有些不同。於是他把所有門都仔細刷了漆，把表面的紋理變得完全相同。老鼠還是認得出來。然後他想這或者是老鼠能聞出食物的氣味。於是每次老鼠跑完，他都用化學品改變氣味。老鼠還是認得出來。然後他意識到老鼠可能能象常人一樣通過觀察燈光和實驗室的布置來辨別。於是他蓋上了長廊，結果老鼠還是認得出來。

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.

最後，他發現老鼠能夠根據跑過地板時的響聲來認出門，他只能把長廊放進沙子，來修正這個條件。這樣他依次掩蓋了所有的可能的線索，終於可以欺騙老鼠，讓它們不得不學習跑進第三扇門。只要他放鬆條件之一，老鼠們就能察覺。

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 its 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.

現在，從科學的觀點來看，這是一個頂級棒的實驗。這個實驗讓「老鼠跑」實驗變得有條理，因為在實驗中，發現了老鼠用到的真正線索，而不是你以為它們所用的線索。而且，它準確地揭示了當你操作一個「老鼠跑」實驗時，為了仔細控制所有細節，你必須使用的條件。

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 didnt

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.

我檢視過此後的「老鼠跑」探索的歷史。接下來的實驗，和再接下來的實驗，從沒有參考楊先生的實驗。他們從沒用到他在沙基上放置長廊的或是非常仔細的實驗準則。他們只是直接用同樣的老方法讓老鼠跑步，對楊先生的偉大發現毫不留意，他的論文也未被參考，因為他並沒有在老鼠身上發現什麼。實際上，他發現了所有的要素，這是你在老鼠身上做出新發現的前提條件。忽視這樣的偉大實驗，是拜運輸機教科學的特徵之一。

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, its people this time they do a lot of things and

get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they dont

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?

另一個例子，萊恩先生和其他人的超感覺實驗。正如不同的人所批評的那樣---他們自己也批評了實驗---改善了技術，結果導致了實驗效果越來越小，直到消失。甚至，所有的詭異心理學家們尋找著一些統計學上可重複的實驗。即你重做實驗時可以得到相同結果的那種。他們放出一百萬隻老鼠，啊，這次他們研究的是人。他們做許多的事情，取得某個統計結果。下一次再試，也沒有新收穫。現在你發現某人說期待可重複性實驗是不重要的要求。這是科學嗎？

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.

在卸任詭異心理學院總監的談話中，這位先生還闡述過一個新規矩。在告訴別人接下來怎麼做的時候，他說你們必須要做的事情之一，是確認只培訓那些已經顯現出能力，可以把超心理做到可接受程度的學生；而不是在那些只獲得機率性結果的，有抱負，感興趣的學生身上浪費時間。這樣的教育方式很危險。只教育學生如何去獲得特定的結果，而不是如何秉持正直的科學精神來做實驗。

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，我對你們只有一個希望。無論身處何處，你們可以自由地保有我所描述的正直的科研精神；你們不會為了自己在單位里的職位，或是財務支持等別的原因丟掉你們的正直。願你們保有這份自由。

譯者後記：

1974年6月，加州理工學院的畢業典禮上，著名物理學家費曼作了一篇演講Cargo Cult Science。後人翻譯作《祖神來歸式科學》。

我得知這篇演講是在大學英語學習的閱讀理解中，那時費曼先生已經過世。但南太平洋土人崇拜運輸貨機的故事卻一直留在印象里。前不久有朋友約稿，談到科學思維，想起了這篇文章。新語絲上已經有前輩翻譯過一回，語言風趣淺近易懂。但可能當時條件所限，這位前輩的譯文中有少許錯漏。

國慶長假的最後兩天里，在加州理工的網路上找到了原文，重新翻譯了一回。其中有部分句子存在疑問，寫信向加州理工圖書館諮詢，得到了他們的熱心回復，一一糾正。正直的科學精神一脈相承，足見盛情。

翻譯的過程中，深深感受到費曼先生幽默的語言風格，嚴謹的科學態度。即使對於怪力亂神之類的研究，他也並沒有輕易的否定。尤其是科研工作者需要保持以誠待己，以誠待人的謙卑態度，足以為訓。

當然，由於個人能力所限，翻譯錯失在所難免。希望方家指正。多謝。