原文

Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets。

How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it。

In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said, "The data are still inconclusive。" We know that, the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.

What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but also has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team."

译文

在实践中，科学与其说是依靠事先准备的试验还不如说是依靠观察实验者的有准备的头脑。据称艾萨克·牛顿爵士通过苹果落地，发现了万有引力。多少个世纪以来，苹果一直在许多地方落下，成千上万的人看见它落地。但多年来牛顿一直对月球和行星绕轨道运行的起因感到好奇。是什么使它们各就其位？它们为什么不从天上掉下来？苹果朝地下掉落而不是往树上飞这一事实，回答了牛顿长期以来对月球和行星那些较大的天上果实所存的疑问。

有多少人会考虑过苹果向上飞到树上的可能性？牛顿考虑过，因为他不想对任何事情进行预测。他只是在不断思考。他的思想对不可预测的事情有所准备。不可预测性是研究的本质不可缺少的一部分。如果没有不可预测的事物，就没有研究。科学家们在撰写千篇一律、枯燥乏味的论文供专业期刊发表时往往忘记这一点，而历史上这样的例子比比皆是。

在和一些科学家，特别是较为年轻的科学家们交谈时，也许会得出这样一种印象，即他们认为“科学方法”，可以取代想象思维。我参加过不少研讨会，会上某一位科学家总被问到，他对继续进行某项实验的合理性有何想法。那位科学家皱皱眉头，看看图表，然后说“数据仍不够充分”。“这点我们知道，”预算办公室人员说，“但你的意见如何？还值得往下做吗？”“你认为我们的结果可能会如何？”那位科学家大为震惊，他没有料到别人会让他预测。

当然这些就等于说，那位科学家已经成为自己论文的牺牲品，他所提出的种种断语不容置疑，以致他不仅自以为是，而且使工商管理人员深信无疑。如果试验完全按照科学期刊报告中陈述的那样，照计划不折不扣地去设计完成，那么，管理人员就认为，研究的结果可以美元，美分计，这完全符合逻辑。审计人员也完全有理由相信，确切知道自己的目标并知道如何使其实现的科学家们根本没必要三心二意，一直眼睛盯着现金记录卡，另一只眼睛则盯着显微镜。如果像科学家写论文所反映的那样，渴求规律性和与某种标准模式的一致性，那么管理人员歧视研究人员中的“标新立异者”而赞赏“善于合作者”即思想上也较为循规蹈矩的人，也是无可指责的。

看完了阅读，一起来记单词吧！>>