[转载]怀疑论：一种美德—— 对“怀疑者”一词原始意义的质疑

freud5027UID: 2165870

以下译文转自：http://www.oursci.com/magazine/200204/020409.htm

怀疑论：一种美德—— 对“怀疑者”一词原始意义的质疑

Michael Shermer　
10million译自科学美国人2002.04

与科学家相比，诗人们总能用最凝练的语言表达出他们在人性这一问题上的远见。例如，亚历山大•蒲柏在其所著的《人论》中就对人类所处的两难境地做出了精辟的描述：

　　　　生灵于此，天地之间。
　　　　性恶而慧，陋俗厥伟。
　　　　博知少疑，多欲难刚。
　　　　不动不静，亦神亦兽。
　　　　东走于灵，西顾于肉。
　　　　生而将死，虑而必失。

　　Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
　　A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
　　With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
　　With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
　　He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
　　In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast,
　　In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
　　Born but to die, and reasoning but to err.

　　蒲柏的这一组叠句内蕴丰厚，而其中的最后一句指出了对科学的重大挑战∶我们的所有推理都会是毫无意义，并将最终归于谬误吗？在理性的探索道路上，这样的疑惧时常萦绕着我们探索的过程，而这也正是怀疑论之所以是一种美德的原因。我们在推理的过程中必须保持一贯的对谬误的警惕。这“永恒的警惕”不仅是自由的口号，也是思想的。这才正是怀疑论的本质。

　　我曾在《怀疑论者》杂志从事了５年的编辑及出版工作，其间我从未对怀疑论一词的定义作出过深入地思考，甚至也没有去考察别人对这一词语是如何使用的，这是我的一大遗憾。而后史蒂芬•杰伊•古尔德在为我的《人们为什么相信超自然现象》一书所写的前言中提到它源自希腊语中的skeptikos，意思是“深思的”。事实上，从词源上说，它在拉丁文中的派生词是scepticus，意思是“探求”或“深思”，而其词义在希腊文中的进一步演化包括“守夜人”或“为瞄准做标记”。因此怀疑论是深思和沉思的质疑。怀疑论的目标就是进行批判性的思考。怀疑论者是推理谬误的看守，是坏念头的拉尔夫•纳德（译注：美国消费者保护协会的创始人）。　　

　　这与现代把这个词误解为“愤世疾俗的”或者“虚无主义的”相去甚远，尽管通过考察这个词的历史我们能够知道一点为什么原始的定义已经改变了。牛津英语辞典对“sceptic”作出的第一条解释是：“像古希腊哲学家比罗（Pyrrho）及其追随者一样怀疑任何知识的可能性的人；坚信任何论断既命题均无足够基础的人。”这在哲学上或许是正确的，但在科学上却不然。如果我们把“可能性”代替“确定性”，命题正确的可能性就会有足够的证据。因为如果真实是建立在100％的确定性上的，科学中就不会有任何不容置疑的事实。

　　超弦理论或许是不确定的，但日心说并非如此。究竟是渐进主义还是间断平衡能对生命史作出最好的描述或许仍有争议，但生命是进化来的的事实是毋庸置疑的。其区别仅在于可能性的不同，这一点在sceptic的第二种用法中反映了出来：“对特别的所谓的既成知识的有效性作出怀疑的人。”好的，这么说来我们并不是怀疑一切，我们只怀疑那些缺乏证据和逻辑的事情。而在实际中，一些怀疑者却不幸的落入了这一词语的第三种用法：“习惯性的倾向于怀疑任何论断或眼前显而易见的事实的人；有怀疑性格的人。”为什么有些人在性格上比其他人更倾向于怀疑是另一篇文章的主题。而反过来说也同样是正确的：一些人在性格上倾向于相信而不是怀疑任何主张。哪一个极端都是不健康的。

　　或许最接近于我们所认同的怀疑论或科学态度的是第四种解释：“真理的探求者；还未被说服的调查者。”怀疑并不是“寻而必得”——这是被称为“证实的偏见”的一个典型事例——而是“在探索中保持开放的思想。”怎样才叫具有开放的思想呢？那即是在正统与异端之间寻找一种必要的平衡，既非对现状的的一味迷信，也决不是对新思想的盲目追求。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原文摘自Scientific American，版权所有，请勿随意转载。

Skepticism as a Virtue
An inquiry into the original meaning of the word “skeptic” By MICHAEL SHERMER


Poets often express deep insights into human nature with far less verbiage than scientists. Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man, for example, is filled with pithy observations on the dualistic tensions of the human condition:

Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast,
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err.

Pope has packed a lot into this refrain, but the final clause is an important challenge to science: Is all our reasoning for naught, to end only in error? Such fear haunts us in our quest for understanding, and it is precisely why skepticism is a virtue. We must always be on guard against errors in our reasoning. Eternal vigilance is the watchword not just of freedom but of thought. That is the very nature of skepticism.

To my considerable chagrin, it was five years into the editing and publishing of Skeptic magazine before I realized I had never bothered to define the word or even examined how others had used it. Then Stephen Jay Gould, in the foreword to my book Why People Believe Weird Things, mentioned that it comes from the Greek skeptikos, for “thoughtful.” Etymologically, in fact, its Latin derivative is scepticus, for “inquiring” or “reflective.” Further variations in the ancient Greek include “watchman” or “mark to aim at.” Hence, skepticism is thoughtful and reflective inquiry. To be skeptical is to aim toward a goal of critical thinking. Skeptics are the watchmen of reasoning errors, the Ralph Naders of bad ideas.

This is a far cry from modern misconceptions of the word as meaning “cynical” or “nihilistic,” although a consideration of the word’s history gives some insight into why its original definition has shifted. The Oxford English Dictionary offers this as its first definition of “sceptic”: “one who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever.” This may be true in philosophy, but not in science. There are more than adequate grounds for the probability of the truth of propositions—if we substitute “probability” for “certainty,” because there are no incontrovertible facts in science if fact is a belief held with 100 percent certitude.

Superstring theory may be uncertain, but heliocentrism is not. Whether the history of life is best described by gradualism or punctuated equilibrium may still be in dispute, but the fact that life has evolved is not. The difference is one of probabilities, and this is reflected in a second usage of “sceptic”: “one who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry.” Okay, so we don’t doubt everything, just some things—particularly those lacking in evidence and logic. Unfortunately, it is also true that some skeptics fall into a third usage of the word: “one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper.” Why some people are, by temperament, more skeptical than others is a subject for another essay. But suffice it to say that the reverse is also true— some folks are, by temperament, habitually inclined to believe rather than to doubt any assertion. Neither extreme is healthy.

Skepticism means finding a balance between orthodoxy and heresy.

Perhaps the closest fit to what we equate with a skeptical or scientific attitude is a fourth meaning: “a seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions.” Skepticism is not “seek and ye shall find”—a classic case of what is called the confirmation bias—but “seek and keep an open mind.” What does it mean to have an open mind? It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas.
---------------------------------------------
Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-10-5 01:33 编辑 ]

yogurt4UID: 198389

顶.这种帖子不顶不厚道的

shielUID: 2140229

谢谢!!

人真好!

staralwaysUID: 193479

好东西！谢谢分享！

lorraineyeUID: 2157370

顶,希望大家都看到