WHAT IS SCIENCE?
WHAT IS SCIENCE?from an article in Science Magazine, reproduced in Maurice Garland Fulton\'s Writing Craftsmanship, New York, MacMillan and Company, 1929, pp. 229-232.
Ira Remsen （1846-1927）, American chemist and educator; professor of chemistry, John Hopkins University, 1876-1913; president of the same university, 1901-1912. Discoverer of saccharine;founder of the American Chemical Journal.
First, then, what is science? Surely there can be no difficulty in answering this, and yet I fear that, if I should pass through this or any other audience with the question, I should get many different answers.
A certain lady, whom I know better than any other, has told me that, should she ever be permitted to marry a second time, she would not marry a scientific man, because scientific men are so terribly accurate. I often hear the same general idea expressed, and it is clear that accuracy is one attribute of science according to prevailing opinions. But accuracy alone is not science. When we hear a game of baseball or of whist spoken of as thoroughly scientific, I suppose the idea here, too, is that the games are played accurately; that is, to use the technical expression, without errors.
Again, there are those who seem to think that science is something that has been devised by the Evil One for the purpose of undermining religion. The idea is not so common as it was a few years ago, when the professors of scientific subjects in our colleges were generally objects of suspicion. The change which has come over the world in this respect within my own memory is simply astounding. In general terms, an agreement has been reached between those who represent religion and those who represent science. This agreement is certainly not final, but it gives us a modus vivendi, and the clash of arms is now rarely heard. Religion now takes into consideration the claims of science, and science recognizes the great fundamental truths of religion. Each should strengthen the other, and in time, no doubt, each will strengthen the other.
Probably the idea most commonly held in regard to science is that it is something that gives us a great many useful inventions. The steam engine, the telegraph, the telephone, the trolley car, dyestuffs, medicines, explosives—these are the fruits of science, and without these science is of no avail. I propose farther on to discuss this subject more fully than I can at this stage of my remarks, so that I may pass over it lightly here. I need only say now that useful inventions are not a necessary consequence of scientific work, and that scientific work does not depend upon useful applications for its value. These propositions, which are familiar enough to scientific men, are apt to surprise those who are outside of scientific circles. I hope before I get through to show you that the propositions are true.
Science, then, is not simply accuracy, although it would be worthless if it were not accurate; it is not devised for the purpose of undermining religion; and its object is not the making of useful inventions. Then what is it?
One dictionary gives this definition: “Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes, ascertained truths or facts . . . Accumulated and established knowledge which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws, . . . especially such knowledge when it relates to the physical world, and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of nature, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.”
One writer says:“The distinction between science and art is that science is a body of principles and deductions to explain the nature of some matter. An art is a body of precepts with practical skill for the completion of some work. A science teaches us to know; an art, to do. In art, truth is means to an end; in science, it is the only end. Hence the practical arts are not to be classed among the sciences.” Another writer says, “Science and art may be said to be investigations of truth; but one, science, inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, art, for the sake of production;and hence science is more concerned with higher truths, art with the lower; and science never is engaged, as art, is, in productive application.”
Science, then, has for its object the accumulation and systematization of knowledge, the discovery of truth. The astronomer is trying to learn more and more about the celestial bodies, their motions, their composition, their changes. Through his labors, carried on for many centuries, we have the science of astronomy. The geologist has, on the other hand, confined his attention to the earth, and he is trying to learn as much as possible of its composition and structure, and of the processes that have been operating through untold ages to give us the earth as it now is. He has given us the science of geology, which consists of a vast mass of knowledge carefully systematized and of innumerable deductions of interest and value. If the time shall ever come when, through the labor of the geologist, all that can possibly be learned in regard to the structure and development of the earth shall have been learned, the occupation of the geologist would be gone. But that time will never come.
And so I might go on pointing out the general character of the work done by different classes of scientific men, but this would be tedious. We should only have brought home to us in each case the fact that, no matter what the science may be with which we are dealing, its disciples are simply trying to learn all they can in the field in which they are working. As I began with a reference to astronomy, let me close with a reference to chemistry. Astronomy has to deal with the largest bodies and the greatest distances of the universe; chemistry, on the other hand, has to deal with the smallest particles and the shortest distances of the universe. Astronomy is the science of the infinitely great; chemistry is the science of the infinitely little. The chemist wants to know what things are made of and, in order to find this out, he has to push his work to the smallest particles of matter. Then he comes face to face with facts that lead him to the belief that the smallest particles he can weigh by the aid of the most delicate balance, and the smallest particles he can see with the aid of the most powerful microscope, are immense as compared with those of which he has good reason to believe the various kinds of matter to be made up. It is for this reason that I say that chemistry is the science of the infinitely little.
Thus I have tried to show what science is and what it is not.
Notes
pass through, ask; put the question.
terribly, very.
attribute, essential or necessary property or characteristic.
prevailing, current; commonly or generally accepted.
baseball, the American national game, with nine players to a side or team.
whist, a card game for four players （those opposite being partners）, played with a pack of 52 cards.
technical expression, the term that is especially appropriate to the particular art, science, business, profession, etc.
the Evll One, the Devil; Satan.
undermining religion, used figuratively to mean subverting or weakening insidiously or secretly the influence of religion; ruining in an underhanded way the good influence of religion.
astounding, amazing; wonderful; surprising.
modus vivendi, the Latin expression meaning a mode or manner of living; hence, a temporary arrangement of affairs until disputed matters could be settled.
clash of arms, struggle; conflicting contention; argument.
trolley car, an electric car, called trolley car because of the overhead device （a grooved wheel at the end of a pole, pressed upward in rolling contact with the overhead wire; or a wire bow in sliding contact） for taking off current in electric traction.
pass over it lightly, barely mention the matter here; do not take the subject up fully at this point of the talk.
ascertained, learned for a certainty by trial, examination, or experiment; made certain to the mind.
systematized, arranged methodically according to a difinite plan.
formulated, reduced down to, expressed in, a formula; set forth systematically.
phenomena, things that are perceived or that appear; occurrences. The singular of this word is phenomenon.
functions, the activities that are proper to living tissues.
deductions, explicit knowledge, reasoned from the general to the particular or from the implicit to the explicit, as in a geometrical demonstration.
precepts, instructions or commands intended as rules of action or conduct.
astronomer, a person who is interested in the science of the heavenly bodies, the science of astronomy.
celestial, of or pertaining to the sky or the visible heavens.
geologist, one interested in geology, the science of the earth's crust, its strata, and their relations and changes.
untold ages, ages or years beyond count; so many years that one cannot count how many; many, many, many years ago.
tedious, wearisome; tiresome; long and wearying.
brought home to us, convinced into us.
disciples, follower; adherent; believer.
universe, all existing things; the whole creation.
balance, weighing apparatus with central pivot, beam, and two scales.
microscope, an optical instrument, consisting essentially of a lens or combination of lenses, for making enlarged images of minute objects.
Questions
1. What three mistaken notions are commonly held as to what is science?
2. What characteristic of science is emphasized in the definitions given in paragraphs 6-8?
3. What is the one thing that all scientists are trying to do?
参考译文
【作品简介】
《何为科学》一文原载于《科学杂志》。后收入毛理斯·加兰德·富尔顿编辑的《写作之技艺》，纽约麦克米伦公司1929年出版，229—232页。
【作者简介】
里拉·雷姆森（1846—1927），美国化学家、教育家，1876—1913年任约翰·霍普金斯大学化学教授，1901—1912年任该校校长。其主要贡献为发明糖精和创立《美国化学学刊》。
到底何为科学？要回答这个问题并不难。不过，如果这个问题由不同的人来回答，答案恐怕就会五花八门。
同我非常要好的一位女士曾对我说，假如允许她再婚的话，她不会选择搞科学的男人，因为科学男精确到吓人。我也经常听到一些类似的说法，显然主流观点认为，精确是科学的一种属性。反过来，仅有精确并不代表科学。当我们听到有人形容棒球或桥牌相当“科学”时，我想其意是说游戏玩法比较精确，用行话说，就是“严谨无误”。
也有人认为，科学是撒旦为了破坏宗教而设计之物。这种观点早年较常见，以至于当时我们学校搞科研的教授们都被视为撒旦的帮凶，现今这种看法已不多见了。就此回想起来，世界变化之大，令我着实感叹。总体而言，科学界和宗教界算是达成了共识。尽管此种共识并非最终定论，但至少提供了一些权宜之计，使双方鲜有冲突发生。现在宗教考虑到了科学的诉求，而科学也认可宗教伟大的基本真理。二者理应互为强化，毫无疑问，双方最终将会实现互帮互助。
对于什么是科学这个话题，可能最常见的观点就是：能带给我们很多实用发明的就是科学。比如，蒸汽机、电报、电话、电车、染料、药物、炸药等等，这些都是科学的成果。当然，如果没有这些成果，那“科学”的名头也就徒然虚无。后文中我会就该话题展开讨论，在这里我只是简单一提，一带而过。现在，我只需强调，实用发明不是科学工作的必然产物，即科学工作的价值并不取决于那些实用发明。这些观点对科学界的内行来说耳熟能详，但会让非科学界的外行人愕然惊讶。在此，我希望向你们阐明清楚这一观点的正确性。
不精确，科学就没有价值可言。但是，科学不仅仅是实现精确这么简单。科学不是破坏宗教之物，其目的也不是搞实用发明。那科学到底是什么呢？
有部字典对科学的定义是：一切知识，包括各种原理、事物成因及确定的真理或事实；……根据所发现的一般真理或运行的普通法则进行系统整理及归纳总结，进而实现知识的积累和建立，……尤其是涉及物质世界及其现象、本质、构成，有关于自然的力量，有关于活体组织的特征及功能等等。
有位作家写道：“科学与艺术的区别在于科学是一套解释原则和演绎系统，用于说明某些物质的本质，而艺术则是一套具有实践技能的规律，其目的为了完成某些工作。科学教给我们‘是什么’；艺术教给我们‘怎么做’。比如真理，在艺术中，它是我们实现某个目标的手段；而在科学里，它是我们追求的唯一目标。因此，艺术实践不能算作科学。”另外一位作家写道：“可以说，科学和艺术都是进行真理探寻，而前者注重的是知识，后者关心的则是作品。所以，和艺术相比，科学更关乎高层面的真理，不会参与到生产应用当中去。”
就目的而言，科学是要积累知识、系统化知识，以及发现真理。天文学家不断尝试研学天体知识，了解其运动、构成和变化。通过天文学家若干世纪的努力工作，方有今日的天文科学。与天相对，地理学家关注的是大地，尽其所能地了解地质成分和结构，并试图搞清楚在无历史记载时期地质构造如何变化才形成今日之模样。地理学家将大量的知识精心系统化，并形成无数有趣且有意义的推演，所有这些铸就了地理科学。如果有一天，经过地理学家的努力，所有关于地质结构和发展过程的知识都被掌握了，那么，地理学家这一行也就不复存在了。不过，那一天永远不会来到。
我还可以继续指出科学界各领域学者所做工作的总体特点，不过那样太乏味了。我们只需要深刻认识到一个事实：无论科学中的哪个领域，科学工作者总会尝试获取该领域中的所有知识。我以天文学的例子开始，现在举个化学的例子来收尾。天文学研究的是宇宙中最遥远的距离和最大的天体，与之相对，化学研究的是宇宙中最短的距离和最小的粒子。天文学是研究无穷大的科学，而化学是研究无穷小的科学。化学家想要了解物质的成分，因此，他们不断探索，直至物质构成的最小粒子。然而，摆在眼前的事实使化学家相信，借助最精密的仪器能够计量的最小粒子和借助性能最强大的显微镜能够观察到的最小粒子，相比他们所认为的理应是构成物质的最小粒子，依然庞大无比。正是基于这一点，我才认为化学是研究无穷小的科学。
这样我就试图表明了什么是科学，什么不是科学。
（罗选民 译）
