主题：【原创】翻译讨论 -- 人间树

我对英语语法、科学哲学都没有你和九霄兄那份功底，其实已经很懊恼自己那么冒昧地发帖了。后来想给你们大伙儿的讨论送花，我旁听学点东西就很好，但并不是说对你指出的谬误没在反省啊。

------------------------------------

语法和波普尔我不大懂，所以就不说了（你若有时间介绍波普尔，我定会很开心）。就语义，我单纯从这封信的文本出发，再和你讨论几句好么？

我们先来看看这信的结构：

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

第一段，提出问题：指出科学结论总是伴有一定的不确定性，以便民众更好地理解为何面对Climate change这个问题需要及时行动。

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

第二段，解释科学结论的得出路径，并指出scientific process“寻找并改正错误的内禀机制”为科学结论趋近“well-established theories”提供背书。

无疑，该段第一句中的“Scientific conclusion”并不是一个“well-established theories”，其承接第一段的“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions”而来。在这一点上，我完全赞同你的理解。

但是，和你不同的是，我并不认为把“supported......”这个分词短语理解为对其的修饰，就意味着“原作者在文章一开头就给 all scientific conclusions 赋予了 "well-established theories" 的地位”。令“some well-established conclusion ”不同于其他conclusion的原因不在于后者未经实验、观察或模拟，而是因为这些实验、观察和模拟的深度和广度，也就是“thoroughly and deeply”。比如说某研究小组发论文称其寻找到治疗癌症的新方法。这种方法的作用机理，我们且称之为一个scientific conclusion，他们得出这个结论经过了数年的小鼠实验、观察、模拟，最后用该机理制成的药物，却对人类癌症的作用及其有限，甚至对某些病人完全失效。在这里，实验、观察、模拟的support并没有改变该小组的结论仍伴有不确定性这一本质属性。

另外，我并不认为该文在以basic laws的信用为scientific conclusion的信用作担保，因为全文并未解释在气候变化这一问题上到底什么是basic laws，作为读者，我连虎皮长什么样都不知道，如何能信它来做了大旗？作者是在通过解释科学结论的得出过程，通过解释scientific process来为科学结论做背书。他们一直说得是：是，我们不能100%确定地说“人类行为改变了气候”，在这个问题上，科学家也难免犯些错误（所以被人捉了把柄用作攻击的口舌），但是相比于其他，scientific process的内禀纠错机制，或者说代代科学家们不断地实验、观察、模拟，是他们这样的努力才令科学结论能够不断趋近“basic laws”。

(对不起，我先去做晚饭。）