Being human, scientists also sometimes engage in observational selection: they like to remember those cases when they’ve been right and forget when they’ve been wrong. But in many instances, what is ‘wrong’ is partly right, or stimulates others to find out what’s right.

if we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition - even when it seems to be doing a little good - we abet a general climate in which scepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.

There are perhaps ten times more astrologers than astronomers in the United States. In France there are more astrologers than Roman Catholic clergy.

​

at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.

An ancient Chinese proverb advises, ‘Better to be too credulous than too sceptical’, but this is from an extremely conservative society in which stability was much more prized than freedom and where the rulers had a powerful vested interest in not being challenged. Most scientists, I believe, would say, ‘Better to be too sceptical than too credulous’.

这是哪句谚语啊​​每次在外文书里看见中国谚语我都对不上号，想了想感觉我知道的最接近的是“宁可信其有 不可信其无”？但英文翻译成这样感觉跟作者批判的完全就不是一回事儿了？不知道是不是别的谚语…

Every now and then, I’m lucky enough to teach a kindergarten or first-grade class. Many of these children are natural-born scientists - although heavy on the wonder side and light on scepticism. They’re curious, intellectually vigorous. Provocative and insightful questions bubble out of them. They exhibit enormous enthusiasm. I’m asked follow-up questions. They’ve never heard of the notion of a ‘dumb question’.
But when I talk to high school seniors, I find something different. They memorize ‘facts’. By and large, though, the joy of discovery, the life behind those facts, has gone out of them. They’ve lost much of the wonder, and gained very little scepticism. They’re worried about asking ‘dumb’ questions; they’re willing to accept inadequate answers; they don’t pose follow-up questions; the room is awash with sidelong glances to judge, second-by-second, the approval of their peers. They come to class with their questions written out on pieces of paper, which they surreptitiously examine, waiting their turn and oblivious of whatever discussion their peers are at this moment engaged in.

啊啊啊我又看到书里说小孩子有时候十万个为什么的时候会被大人嫌弃/随便打发，我就总想着如果我有孩子一定会好好回答它们“月亮为什么是圆的”“草为什么是绿的”这种问题…

但可能也是我低估了育儿的劳累程度？如果我烦得要死的时候被问到这样的问题说不定也会态度不好​​

又或者我的孩子是个没有好奇心的傻子，根本不问这种问题呢？？​​

Bright, curious children are a national and world resource. They need to be cared for, cherished, and encouraged. But mere encouragement isn’t enough. We must also give them the essential tools to think with.

How much science is there on the radio or television talk shows, or on those dreary Sunday morning programmes in which middle-aged white people sit around agreeing with each other?

“in which middle-aged white people sit around agreeing with each other”好好笑​​

But what are these time-varying electric and magnetic fields permeating all of space? What do E and B mean? We feel so much more comfortable with the idea of things touching and jiggling, pushing and pulling, rather than ‘fields’ magically moving objects at a distance, or mere mathematical abstractions. But, as Feynman pointed out, our sense that at least in everyday life we can rely on solid, sensible physical contact to explain, say, why the butter knife comes to you when you pick it up, is a misconception. What does it mean to have physical contact? What exactly is happening when you pick up a knife, or push a swing, or make a wave in a waterbed by pressing down on it periodically? When we investigate deeply, we find that there is no physical contact. Instead, the electrical charges on your hand are influencing the electrical charges on the knife or swing or waterbed, and vice versa. Despite everyday experience and common sense, even here, there is only the interaction of electric fields. Nothing is touching anything.

If we no longer insist on our notions of how Nature ought to behave, but instead stand before Nature with an open and receptive mind, we find that common sense often doesn’t work. Why not? Because our notions, both hereditary and learned, of how Nature works were forged in the millions of years our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. In this case common sense is a faithless guide because no hunter-gatherer’s life ever depended on understanding time-variable electric and magnetic fields. There were no evolutionary penalties for ignorance of Maxwell’s equations.

no evolutionary penalties for ignorance of Maxwell’s equations 好好笑😆

His unification of electricity, magnetism and light into one coherent mathematical whole is the inspiration for subsequent attempts - some successful, some still in their rudimentary stages […]

我还以为他要说 some successful, some failed！学到了，以后做得不咋成功的项目就说还在 rudimentary stage​​我国处于并将长期处于社会主义 rudimentary stage（什么

听说麦克斯韦结婚早但是没有孩子。我觉得如果我能做出些厉害成果，我就不在乎我有没有孩子，我的成果就是我的孩子，为啥要生个孩子然后寄希望于孩子能做出什么成就呢，我自己就行。知识造福千秋万代，孩子一百年后就死了，啥也不是。得真的很喜欢小孩子才生。

其实也不需要特别厉害的成就…有些论文里就是一个小小的 idea 就可以启发后人做出更厉害的东西，所以只要能做一点小小的东西就可以了​​

书里说到假设女王 1860 想造出电视机，并愿意大量投钱的话，那大概是不可能如愿的，因为前置的技术都还没有发明出来。事实上麦克斯韦方程组发现的时候，谁也不知道它能启发电波塔，通讯卫星，电视和雷达的发明。
所以，不能投钱然后指明必须发现什么技术，科学家们做不到，很可能前置技术还没有发现也根本不知要如何发现。我们应当广泛地探索，等待意想不到的结果的出现。
我就想到我读博的这个 funding 支持的 topic 其实跟我现在做的项目一毛钱关系也没有​​跟 funding body 做报告的时候必须要解释我为什么在做这些东西，都是教授帮我扯的谎，说我是在 explore，是意外的发现，是 creative works 所必须的，一大通一大通的。那边买账了。我教授真厉害​​

Basic research is where scientists are free to pursue their curiosity and interrogate Nature, not with any short-term practical end in view, but to seek knowledge for its own sake. Scientists of course have a vested interest in basic research. It’s what they like to do, in many cases why they became scientists in the first place. But it is in society’s interest to support such research. This is how the major discoveries that benefit humanity are largely made.

Maxwell wasn’t thinking of radio, radar and television when he first scratched out the fundamental equations of electromagnet-ism; Newton wasn’t dreaming of space flight or communications satellites when he first understood the motion of the Moon; Roentgen wasn’t contemplating medical diagnosis when he investigated a penetrating radiation so mysterious he called it ‘X-rays’; Curie wasn’t thinking of cancer therapy when she painstakingly extracted minute amounts of radium from tons of pitchblende; Fleming wasn’t planning on saving the lives of millions with antibiotics when he noticed a circle free of bacteria around a growth of mould; Watson and Crick weren’t imagining the cure of genetic diseases when they puzzled over the X-ray diffractometry of DNA; Rowland and Molina weren’t planning to implicate CFCs in ozone depletion when they began studying the role of halogens in stratospheric photochemistry.

Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn. We may have a little more to eat next winter, but what will we plant so we and our children will have enough to get through the winters to come?

不得不讲本书作者真的是对后代非常有责任心的…我真的就是做着好玩，没想过能有什么用，不过看来只要我自己觉得好玩就够了，有没有用是后人的事​​

If we’re absolutely sure that our beliefs are right, and those of others wrong; that we are motivated by good, and others by evil; that the King of the Universe speaks to us, and not to adherents of very different faiths; that it is wicked to challenge conventional doctrines or to ask searching questions; that our main job is to believe and obey - then the witch mania will recur in its infinite variations down to the time of the last man.

@unagi 聰明反被聰明誤，傻人自有傻人福⋯⋯之類的？😂

@overdrive 这里没有谈到聪不聪明啊​​

@unagi 聰明反被聰明誤的聰明也不是說智商高的意思吧，就是說一個人攻於心計精於算計吧，我感覺和sceptical有點類似的（警惕/算計/多疑）。相對來說傻人有傻福的那個傻也指的是憨厚老實，沒有警惕和算計。我是這麼理解的。😂