无用知识的有用性

THE USEFULNESS OF USELESS KNOWLEDGE     by Abraham Flexner       Is it not a curious fact that in a world steeped in irrational hatreds which threaten civilization itself, men and women—old and young—detach themselves wholly or partly from the angry current of daily life to devote themselves to the cultivation of beauty, to the extension of knowledge, to the cure of disease, to the amelioration of suffering, just as though fanatics were not simultaneously engaged in spreading pain, ugliness, and suffering? The world has always been a sorry and confused sort of place—yet poets and artists and scientists have ignored the factors that would, if attended to, paralyze them. From a practical point of view, intellectual and spiritual life is, on the surface, a useless form of activity, in which men indulge because they procure for themselves greater satisfactions than are otherwise obtainable. In this paper I shall concern myself with the question of the extent to which the pursuit of these useless satisfactions proves unexpectedly the source from which undreamed-of utility is derived…   …We may look at this question from two points of view: the scientific and the humanistic or spiritual. Let us take the scientific first. I recall a conversation which I had some years ago with Mr. George Eastman on the subject of use. Mr. Eastman, a wise and gentle farseeing man, gifted with taste in music and art, had been saying to me that he meant to devote his vast fortune to the promotion of education in useful subjects. I ventured to ask him whom he regarded as the most useful worker in science in the world. He replied instantaneously: “Marconi.? I surprised him by saying, “Whatever pleasure we derive from the radio or however wireless and the radio may have added to human life, Marconi’s share was practically negligible.?   I shall not forget his astonishment on this occasion. He asked me to explain. I replied to him somewhat as follows:   “Mr. Eastman, Marconi was inevitable. The real credit for everything that has been done in the field of wireless belongs, as far as such fundamental credit can be definitely assigned to anyone, to Professor Clerk Maxwell, who in 1865 carried out certain abstruse and remote calculations in the field of magnetism and electricity. Maxwell reproduced his abstract equations in a treatise published in 1873. At the next meeting of the British Association Professor H. J. S. Smith of Oxford declared that ‘no mathematician can turn over the pages of these volumes without realizing that they contain a theory which has already added largely to the methods and resources of pure mathematics.’ Other discoveries supplemented Maxwell’s theoretical work during the next fifteen years. Finally in 1887 and 1888 the scientific problem still remaining—the detection and demonstration of the electromagnetic waves which are the carriers of wireless signals—was solved by Heinrich Hertz, a worker in Helmholtz’s laboratory in Berlin. Neither Maxwell nor Hertz had any concern about the utility of their work; no such thought ever entered their minds. They had no practical objective. The inventor in the legal sense was of course Marconi, but what did Marconi invent? Merely the last technical detail, mainly the now obsolete receiving device called coherer, almost universally discarded.?   Hertz and Maxwell could invent nothing, but it was their useless theoretical work which was seized upon by a clever technician and which has created new means for communication, utility, and amusement by which men whose merits are relatively slight have obtained fame and earned millions. Who were the useful men? Not Marconi, but Clerk Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz. Hertz and Maxwell were geniuses without thought of use. Marconi was a clever inventor with no thought but use.   The mention of Hertz’s name recalled to Mr. Eastman the Hertzian waves, and I suggested that he might ask the physicists of the University of Rochester precisely what Hertz and Maxwell had done; but one thing I said he could be sure of, namely, that they had done their work without thought of use and that throughout the whole history of science most of the really great discoveries which had ultimately proved to be beneficial to mankind had been made by men and women who were driven not by the desire to be useful but merely the desire to satisfy their curiosity.     “Curiosity?? asked Mr. Eastman.     “Yes,? I replied, “curiosity, which may or may not eventuate in something useful, is probably the outstanding characteristic of modern thinking. It is not new. It goes back to Galileo, Bacon, and to Sir Isaac Newton, and it must be absolutely unhampered. Institutions of learning should be devoted to the cultivation of curiosity and the less they are deflected by considerations of immediacy of application, the more likely they are to contribute not only to human welfare but to the equally important satisfaction of intellectual interest which may indeed be said to have become the ruling passion of intellectual life in modern times.? II   What is true of Heinrich Hertz working quietly and unnoticed in a corner of Helmholtz’s laboratory in the later years of the nineteenth century may be said of scientists and mathematicians the world over for several centuries past. We live in a world that would be helpless without electricity. Called upon to mention a discovery of the most immediate and far-reaching practical use we might well agree upon electricity. But who made the fundamental discoveries out of which the entire electrical development of more than one hundred years has come?   The answer is interesting. Michael Faraday’s father was a blacksmith; Michael himself was apprenticed to a bookbinder. In 1812, when he was already twenty-one years of age, a friend took him to the Royal Institution where he heard Sir Humphrey Davy deliver four lectures on chemical subjects. He kept notes and sent a copy of them to Davy. The very next year, 1813, he became an assistant in Davy’s laboratory, working on chemical problems. Two years later he accompanied Davy on a trip to the Continent. In 1825, when he was thirty-four years of age, he became Director of the Laboratory of the Royal Institution where he spent fifty-four years of his life.   Faraday’s interest soon shifted from chemistry to electricity and magnetism, to which he devoted the rest of his active life. Important but puzzling work in this field had been previously accomplished by Oersted, Amp瞨e, and Wollaston. Faraday cleared away the difficulties which they had left unsolved and by 1841 had succeeded in the task of induction of the electric current. Four years later a second and equally brilliant epoch in his career opened when he discovered the effect of magnetism on polarized light. His earlier discoveries have led to the infinite number of practical applications by means of which electricity has lightened the burdens and increased the opportunities of modern life. His later discoveries have thus far been less prolific of practical results. What difference did this make to Faraday? Not the least. At no period of his unmatched career was he interested in utility. He was absorbed in disentangling the riddles of the universe, at first chemical riddles, in later periods, physical riddles. As far as he cared, the question of utility was never raised. Any suspicion of utility would have restricted his restless curiosity. In the end, utility resulted, but it was never a criterion to which his ceaseless experimentation could be subjected…   …In the domain of higher mathematics almost innumerable instances can be cited. For example, the most abstruse mathematical work of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the “Non-Euclidian Geometry.? Its inventor, Gauss, though recognized by his contemporaries as a distinguished mathematician, did not dare to publish his work on “Non-Euclidian Geometry? for a quarter of a century. As a matter of fact, the theory of relativity itself with all its infinite practical bearings would have been utterly impossible without the work which Gauss did at Gùttingen.   Again, what is known now as “group theory? was an abstract and inapplicable mathematical theory. It was developed by men who were curious and whose curiosity and puttering led them into strange paths; but “group theory? is today the basis of the quantum theory of spectroscopy, which is in daily use by people who have no idea as to how it came about.   The whole calculus of probability was discovered by mathematicians whose real interest was the rationalization of gambling. It has failed of the practical purpose at which they aimed, but it has furnished a scientific basis for all types of insurance, and vast stretches of nineteenth century physics are based upon it…   III   …I am not for a moment suggesting that everything that goes on in laboratories will ultimately turn to some unexpected practical use or that an ultimate practical use is its actual justification. Much more am I pleading for the abolition of the word “use,? and for the freeing of the human spirit. To be sure, we shall thus free some harmless cranks. To be sure, we shall thus waste some precious dollars. But what is infinitely more important is that we shall be striking the shackles off the human mind and setting it free for the adventures which in our own day have, on the one hand, taken Hale and Rutherford and Einstein and their peers millions upon millions of miles into the uttermost realms of space and, on the other, loosed the boundless energy imprisoned in the atom. What Rutherford and others like Bohr and Millikan have done out of sheer curiosity in the effort to understand the construction of the atom had released forces which may transform human life; but this ultimate and unforseen and unpredictable practical result is not offered as a justification for Rutherford or Einstein or Millikan or Bohr or any of their peers. Let them alone. No educational administrator can possibly direct the channels in which these or other men shall work. The waste, I admit again, looks prodigious. It is not really so. All the waste that could be summed up in developing the science of bacteriology is as nothing compared to the advantages which have accrued from the discoveries of Pasteur, Koch, Ehrlich, Theobald Smith, and scores of others—advantages that could never have accrued if the idea of possible use had permeated their minds. These great artists—for such are scientists and bacteriologists—disseminated the spirit which prevailed in laboratories in which they were simply following the line of their own natural curiosity.   I am not criticizing institutions like schools of engineering or law in which the usefulness motive necessarily predominates. Not infrequently the tables are turned, and practical difficulties encountered in industry or in laboratories stimulate theoretical inquiries which may or may not solve the problems by which they were suggested, but may also open up new vistas, useless at the moment, but pregnant with future achievements, practical and theoretical.   With the rapid accumulation of “useless? or theoretic knowledge a situation has been created in which it has become increasingly possible to attack practical problems in a scientific spirit. Not only inventors, but “pure? scientists have indulged in this sport. I have mentioned Marconi, an inventor, who, while a benefactor to the human race, as a matter of fact merely “picked other men’s brains.? Edison belongs to the same category. Pasteur was different. He was a great scientist; but he was not averse to attacking practical problems—such as the condition of French grapevines or the problems of beer-brewing—and not only solving the immediate difficulty, but also wresting from the practical problem some far-reaching theoretic conclusion, “useless? at the moment, but likely in some unforeseen manner to be “useful? later. Ehrlich, fundamentally speculative in his curiosity, turned fiercely upon the problem of syphilis and doggedly pursued it until a solution of immediate practical use—the discovery of salvarsan—was found. The discoveries of insulin by Banting for use in diabetes and of liver extract by Minot and Whipple for use in pernicious anemia belong in the same category: both were made by thoroughly scientific men, who realized that much “useless? knowledge had been piled up by men unconcerned with its practical bearings, but that the time was now ripe to raise practical questions in a scientific manner.   Thus it becomes obvious that one must be wary in attributing scientific discovery wholly to any one person. Almost every discovery has a long and precarious history. Someone finds a bit here, another a bit there. A third step succeeds later and thus onward till a genius pieces the bits together and makes the decisive contribution. Science, like the Mississippi, begins in a tiny rivulet in the distant forest. Gradually other streams swell its volume. And the roaring river that bursts the dikes is formed from countless sources…   …The considerations upon which I have touched emphasize—if emphasis were needed—the overwhelming importance of spiritual and intellectual freedom. I have spoken of experimental science; I have spoken of mathematics; but what I say is equally true of music and art and of every other expression of the untrammeled human spirit. The mere fact that they bring satisfaction to an individual soul bent upon its own purification and elevation is all the justification that they need. And in justifying these without any reference whatsoever, implied or actual, to usefulness we justify colleges, universities, and institutes of research. An institution which sets free successive generations of human souls is amply justified whether or not this graduate or that makes a so-called useful contribution to human knowledge. A poem, a symphony, a painting, a mathematical truth, a new scientific fact, all bear in themselves all the justification that universities, colleges, and institutes of research need or require…   …We make ourselves no promises, but we cherish the hope that the unobstructed pursuit of useless knowledge will prove to have consequences in the future as in the past. Not for a moment, however, do we defend the Institute on that ground. It exists as a paradise for scholars who, like poets and musicians, have won the right to do as they please and who accomplish most when enabled to do so. 无用知识的有用性2007-03-03 12:14[按] 30年代美国普林斯顿大学校长亚伯拉罕·弗莱克斯纳 (Abraham Flexner)教授曾以“无用知识的有用性”为题，发过一篇在科学界有影响的文章。该文章强调了基础研究以及自由探索的重要性。全文一万余字，现节译如下，以餐读者。 智力与精神生活在表面上是一种无用型活动。人们之所以大量从事这种活动，是因为他们能获得更大的满足。在本文中，我将探讨这些无用满足的追求程度问题，而这种追求，却往往能意外地得到梦想不到的有用效果。 人们不断地重复说：我们的时代是一个物质主义时代。在这个物质主义时代，人们更关注物质利益的广泛分配和世俗机会，因此使不断增多的学子离开他们父辈所从事的研究而转向同样重要的和紧迫的社会问题、经济问题和政府部门问题的研究。我与这种倾向并无争议。我们生活的世界是我们感觉唯一能证实的世界。除非将它改造成一个较好的世界，一个较理想的世界，否则无数的人将继续安静地、忧伤地、痛苦地走向他们的坟墓。现在，我有时纳闷，如果这个世界缺乏某些可赋予它精神上具有重要性的“无用之物”，是否能给人的整个一生都提供足够的机会？换句话说，我们关于“有用之物”的概念是否已变得太狭窄，以致不足以适应人类精神的游荡和变幻莫测的可能。 我们可以从科学角度及人文主义或精神角度来看这个问题。让我们先从科学角度谈起。几年前我同乔治·伊斯曼(George Eastman)曾谈起了“效用”这个主题。伊斯曼先生是一位聪明、文雅而有远见的人，他一向对我说他打算尽其所能致力于促进有用知识的教育上。我冒昧地问他认为谁是世界上最有用的科学研究人员，他立即回答说：“马可尼(Maconi) 。”我说：“无论我们从收音机得到什么乐趣，无论无线电广播和收音机能给人类生活增加什么内容，马可尼的贡献实际上是微不足道的。”这使他感到惊奇，他要我解释。我大体上作了如下回答：“伊斯曼先生，马可尼的出现是必然的。对无线电领域所做的一切，真正的功劳应归于克拉克·麦克斯韦(Clerk Maxwell)教授。他于1865年对电场与磁场进行了一些深奥的预言式的计算，并在1873年出版的一部专著中再次列出了他的抽象方程。在英国科学促进协会另一次会议上，牛津大学的史密斯(H.J.S. Smith)教授宣称：‘如果没有认识到这部多卷的著作中包含着一种大量添加到纯粹数学方法和手段中的新理论，任何数学家都读不懂这部著作。’在其后的15年间，其他的发现补充了麦克斯韦的理论工作，最后在1887和1888年，一项仍未解决的科学问题－－无线电信号的载体电磁波的检测与显示，最终由在柏林亥姆霍兹实验室工作的赫兹(Heinrich Herts)解决了。无论是麦克斯韦还是赫兹都没有想到他们的研究工作的效用，他们的研究都没有实际目标。法律意义上的发明家当然是马可尼。” 赫兹和麦克斯韦未能发明任何东西，但正是他们的无用理论被一位聪明的技术人员抓住，而且这种理论为通讯、公共事业和娱乐创造了新的用品。赫兹和麦克斯韦是未想到实用的天才，马可尼是一位没有“设想”但重视实用的聪明发明家。赫兹和麦克斯韦究竟做了什么？一件事可以肯定，即他们做了研究工作而没有想到实用。在整个科学史中，已最终证明，有益于人类的大多数真正的伟大发现，并不是由实用愿望所推动的，而是由满足好奇的愿望所推动的。好奇心也许能或也许不能最终产生某种有用之物，这种好奇心大概就是现代思想的突出特征。这不是什么新东西，它可以追溯到伽利略、培根和牛顿时代。学术机构应该致力于培养好奇心，它们因考虑立竿见影的应用而发生偏移越少，它们对人类福利和满足智力兴趣的贡献会越大。这种智力兴趣也许的确可以说已成为现代智力生活的统治模式。 如果说到一项最有实际应用价值和深远意义的发现，那么我们会同意它就是电。是谁做出了一百多年来在整个电力发展以之为基础的基本发现呢？回答是有趣的。 法拉第(Michael Faraday)的父亲是一位铁匠，法拉第本人原先跟一位图书馆装订工当学徒。在1812年，他已经21岁时，一位朋友把他带到英国皇家研究院，在那里他听了戴维爵士（Sir Humphrey Davy）四次关于化学的讲座。1813年他成为戴维的实验室助理，研究化学问题。但法拉第的兴趣很快由化学转向电和磁，以其充满活力的余生献身于电磁。此前奥斯特(Oersted)、安培(Ampere)和渥拉斯顿(Wollaston)已完成了这个领域的一些疑难而又重要的研究工作，法拉第解决了他们留下的难题，并于1841年成功地完成了电磁感应实验。四年后，他在事业上开辟了第二个光辉时代，他发现了偏振光上的磁效应。但是无论在他那无可比拟的事业的任何时期，他都不对实用感到兴趣。从来没有一个准则可以作为他不停实验的依据，实用上的任何怀疑都会限制他那无休止的好奇心。最终，却产生了实用效果。 在高等数学领域，几乎可以列举无数个例子。例如：18世纪和19世纪最深奥难解的数学研究工作是“非欧几何”。它的发明人高斯(Gauss)虽然被同时代人公认为杰出的数学家，但他也未敢在25年中出版他的著作“非欧几何”。事实上，如果没有高斯在格丁根做的研究工作，相对论本身同他所显示的实际应用都是不可能的。同样，现在成为“群论”的理论是一种抽象的、并非直接实用的数学理论。它是一些有奇异思想的人提出的，这些人的好奇心和提问引导他们走上了奇特的道路。但是“群论”今天已成为光谱学量子论的基础。概率的完整计算是由那些对博奕理论充满兴趣的科学家做出的。这些科学家并没有实用的目的，但是它为所有类型的保险提供了一种科学基础。十九世纪物理学的广大领域也以其为基础。 爱因斯坦1925年的不是关于相对论，而是讨论了一些那时没有任何实际意义的问题。报告描述了接近温标下限的“理想”气体的变态行为。因为大家都知道所有气体在所说的温度下都冷凝为液体，所以科学家们一直忽视爱因斯坦15年前的研究工作。然而，最近发现的液态氦的特性已经给爱因斯坦的理论带来新的可用性。因为大多数液体随着温度的下降，黏滞性会增加。而液态氦却例外，在绝对零度以上2.19度，即δ点的温度下，液态氦的流动比它在高温下的流动更好。在液态氦奇怪特性中还包括其巨大的导热性。在δ点，其导热性大约为铜在室温的500倍。液态氦的这些特性给物理学家和化学家们提出了一个重大的谜。 我们来看看另一个方面，医学和卫生领域。在瓦尔代尔(Wilhelm van Waldeyer)教授的《回忆录》中，他讲了这样一件事情。在随同他去斯特拉斯堡大学的学生中，有一个小个头、沉默寡言、不显眼的17岁男孩，名叫保尔·埃尔利奇(Paul Ehrlich)。那时的解剖课包括解剖和组织的显微镜检查，但埃尔利奇并不太重视解剖。《回忆录》中作了如下描述：我很早就注意到埃尔利奇往往伏案工作很长时间，全神贯注于显微镜观察，而且在他的办公桌上逐渐盖满了一些带有各种说明的彩色斑点。有一天我问他桌子上那些彩虹似的彩色阵列是什么，这个在第一个学期应该学习常规解剖课的年轻学生抬起头来看着我，和蔼地说：“Lchprobiere” 。这可译为“我在试验”或“我正在干傻事”。我对他说：“很好，继续干傻事吧。”虽然我不去教他，也不去指导他，但我很快发现，我拥有了埃尔利奇这样一个素质非凡的学生。埃尔利奇通过医学课程走自己的路，最后获得了学位。后来，他到了布雷斯劳，跟随科恩海姆(Cohnhiem)教授工作。我不认为埃尔利奇头脑中曾闪动过实用的念头。他是一个有心人，他干傻事是由一种深深的本能所推动，那是一种纯科学的而不是一种实用的动力。结果如何？科赫(Koch)和他的同事们建立了一种新学科--细菌学。埃尔利奇的实验那时由一位研究生应用于给细菌染色，因而有助于鉴别。埃尔利奇自己则创立了血液膜染色法。我们关于白血球、红血球形态的现代知识就是以此为基础的。现在全世界成千上万的医院里，埃尔利奇的技术每天都用于化验血液。因此，在斯特拉斯堡瓦尔代尔解剖室里显然无目的的行为已成为今天医学实验的重要方面。 我从不认为在实验室进行的每项实验都将最终转向某种意料之外的实用，或最终实用是其出发点正确的证明。我更赞同废除“实用”这个词，并赞同解放人类精神。可以肯定，我们将因此浪费一些宝贵的钱财。但更为重要的是，为使人们心灵获得自由而涉足风险，使人类的心灵摆脱枷锁。这种风险一方面使得像海尔(Hale)、卢瑟福(Rutherford)和爱因斯坦等人经亿万里进入最遥远的宇宙领域；另一方面将束缚在原子中的无穷的能量释放出来。这些人完全出于好奇心而做的研究，可使人类改观。但这种最终的、未可预测的实际结果并不能用来作为当时他们出发点正确的证明。 我不是在批评有用性动机占统治地位的像理工学院或法律学院那样的学术机构。工业上或实验室里遇到的实际困难会刺激理论探索，理论探索也许可能、也许不可能解决向其提出的问题，理论探索还可能开辟新的领域。理论探索暂时也许是无用的，但孕育着未来的成果，即实用成果或理论成果。 随着“无用”知识或理论知识的快速积累，创造了一种局面。在这种局面下，以科学精神解决实际问题之风日益增长。不仅发明家，而且“纯”科学家也加入了进来。我已提到马克尼这位发明家，一方面是一位有益于人类的人，而另一方面，在实际上只不过是“拾取了他人之脑”。爱迪生属于同一类型的人。巴斯德则不同，他是一位大科学家，但他不愿解决像法国葡萄属植物的状况或啤酒酿造这样的实际问题。然而，它不仅解决了直接的难题，而且根据实际问题得到了某些具有深远意义的理论上的结论，暂时看似无用，以后可能以某种未能预见的方式变得有用了。 同时，有一点必须注意，即谨防把科学发现完全归功于某一个人。几乎每项发现都有长期而坎坷的历史，有人在这里发现一点，另一个人在那里发现一点，第三个人继续向前，直至一位天才把这些拼在一起并作出决定性的贡献，发现才算成功。科学像密西西比河，开始来自遥远森林的小河，众多的小河汇合增大了水量，最终形成了这个能冲破堤坝的咆哮的河流。 我想引用一高速发展的“高级研究所”作为例子，来阐述最明显和最直接的“外来影响”。“高级研究所”系班伯格(Louis Bamberger)先生和他的妹妹福尔德(Felix Fuld)太太于1930年在新泽西州普林斯顿建立。那时，因为普林斯顿大学有个小规模的高水平研究生院，这个研究生院的许多部门同这个研究所有密切的合作，所以这个研究所受惠于普林斯顿大学。这个研究所的大部分研究工作始于1933年，研究所的人员中，数学家中有美国的维布伦(Veblen)、亚历山大(Alexandar)和摩尔斯(Morse)；人文学者中有梅里特(Merrit)、洛(Lowe)和戈德曼(Goldman)；法学家和经济学家中有斯图尔特(Stewart)、里夫勒(Riefler)、沃伦(Warren)、厄尔(Earle)和米特拉尼(Mitrany)。此外还应加上已经在普林斯顿大学、普林斯顿图书馆和普林斯顿实验室任职的同等水平的学者和科学家。高级研究所还“受惠”于希特勒，因为他逼来了数理科学方面的爱因斯坦、外尔(Weyl)和诺伊曼(VonNeumann)；人文科学家赫兹菲尔德(Herzfield)和帕诺夫斯基(Panofsky)以及一大批慕名而来的年轻人。 从组织机构看，这个研究所是最简单、最不正规的。它有三个学院－－数学学院、人文科学学院及经济和政治学院。各个学院由一个长期聘任的教授小组和一个成员不断更换的访问学者小组组成。各学院自行管理各自的事物，有充分的自主权。在各小组内，每个人可以自由地处理其时间和展现能力。来自22个国外的和来自美国39个高等学府的访问学者被接纳入学，按学科分到上述研究小组内。他们享受与教授完全一样的自由，自由地与不同教授一起研究。同时他们也可独自研究，不时地请教可能有所帮助的任何人。没有例行公事需要遵循，教授、访问学者、访问者之间没有划出任何界限。普林斯顿大学的学生和教授及研究所学员和教授非常自由地结合，因而难辨师生。不存在委员会，不召开系的会议，行政管理工作在程度上和重要性上已减至最低。有设想的人享有有利于产生想法、有利于交流思想的条件。没有设想或没有集中设想能力的人在这个研究所里不会像在家里那样自在。 我扼要地引述几个例证也许会使这一点更加清楚。 如拨出一份薪金使哈佛大学一位教授来普林斯顿。他来函问道：“我的职责是什么？”我回答说：“你没有职责，只有机会。” 一位能干的年轻数学家，在普林斯顿工作一年后来向我告别。他说：“也许你想知道这一年对我意味着什么。”“是的，”我回答说。他接着说：“数学发展很快，现时的文献浩繁。我取得博士学位已十余年，前一段时间我能够继续我的课题研究，但后来的那个课题越来越困难和不明朗。在这里工作一年后，盲点找出来了，窗户打开了，房间亮了。我头脑里已有了两篇论文，我很快就写。”“这需要多长时间？”我问道。“五年，也许十年。”“然后呢？”“我会再回来。” 第三个例子是最近发生的事。一位西部大学的教授去年12月末来到普林斯顿，他想要恢复同普林斯顿大学莫利教授的某些研究工作。但莫利教授建议他去找帕诺夫斯基和斯瓦尔岑斯基(Swarzenski)，现在他们三人忙于同一研究工作。 这个研究所目前还没有大楼，那些数学家们是普林斯顿数学家们在法恩大楼的客人；人文学家是普林斯顿人文学家在麦克科米克大楼的