为什么我们相信地球是圆的

为什么我们相信地球是圆的 Unit 3 Warm-Up Questions 1. What would you say to someone who believed the earth is flat rather than round, 2. Should we believe everything experts tell us? 3. Where does most of our knowledge come from? From our own experience or from what we learn from others? Can you prove that the earth is round? Go ahead and try! Will you rely on your senses or will you have to draw on the opinions of experts? Why Do We Believe That the earth Is Round George Orwell Somewhere or other — I think it is in the preface to Saint joan — Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality. Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me. As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizon. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it? Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, an they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either. My second card is the earth’s shadow: when cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don’t know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of experts. The astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal’s statement, and would I even know a way testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am, to my delight, justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth. If the Oval Earth man answers — what I believe is true — that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ships round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter. It will be seen that my reason for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramus as soon as he strays away from his own specialty? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that “everyone knows ” the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible. [ 774 words ] 译文:你能证明地球是圆的吗,来试试看吧～你将依靠你自己的智力还是不得不引用专家的观点呢, 我们为什么相信地球是圆的, 乔治?奥韦尔 记得在什么地方——我想是在《圣女贞德》序言中——萧伯纳评论说，今天我们比在中世纪更加轻信，更加迷信。而作为现代轻信的例证，他举出地圆说这一个广为传播的信念。萧伯纳说，普通人举不出一条理由来说明为什么相信地球是圆的。他全盘接受这一理论，只是因为这一理论中有一种迎合20世纪心态的东西。 当然，萧伯纳是夸大其词了。但他说的也确实有些道理。这一问题值得经一步探讨，因为它会帮助人们看清现代知识的真实情况。我们究竟为什么会相信地球是圆的呢,我说的不是数千位天文学家、地理学家之类的人，他们可以用观察到的事实，或用理论上的根据来证实这一点，我指的是如同你我之辈的报纸的普通读者。 至于“地平说”，我相信我能驳斥。如果你在天气晴朗的日子站立海边，你可以看到船桅和烟囱沿着地平线移动，而不见船本身，只有假设地球表面呈曲线状，这一现象才能得到解释。但不能由此推断地球是球形的。设想另一个称作“地球卵形说”的理论吧，这一学说声称地球形如蛋形。对此我能说什么加以驳斥呢, 面对“地球卵形说”者，我能打的第一张牌是，可以根据太阳和月亮来类推。“地球卵形说”者立即回敬道，我无法根据自己的观察得知那些天体是球形的。我只能得知他们是圆形的。而他们完全可能呈扁平状，我对此无言以答。此外他还会说，我凭什么理由认为地球一定与太阳和月亮形态相同,对此，我同样无法解答。 我的第二张牌是地球的影子:月食期间，地球投在月亮上影子看上去呈圆形物体状。但“地球卵形说”者马上要问我怎么知道月食是由地球的影子造成的呢,回答是，我并不知道，我是照搬报刊文章和科普小册子上说法而已。 小小交锋受挫，于是我打出一张王牌“Q”:专家的看法。英国格林威治皇家天文台 台长总该是权威了，他告诉我说地球是圆的。“地球卵形说”者用他的“K”牌压到我的“Q”牌。天文台台长的话我检验过没有,再说，我知道怎么个检验法吗,这时我打出我的“爱司”。是的，我确定知道一个检验方法，天文学家能预报月食，这一点表明他们关于太阳系的看法是非常可信的，因此令我高兴的是，我接受他们关于地球形状的论断是有道理的。 如果“地球卵形说”者反驳道——我以为他反驳的有道理——认为太阳绕地球转的古代埃及人也能预言月食，那我的“爱斯”牌立刻化为乌有。我只剩下一张牌:航海。人们可以扬帆绕地球航行而达到他们的目的地，其航程的计算，就是以地球为球形的假定为依据的。我相信这一下可以彻底击败“地球卵形说”者了。不过即便如此，他还有可能有回击的办法。 由此可见，我认为地球是圆的，其根据是相当步牢靠的。然而这却是一点极其基本的知识。在别的大多数问题上，我只得更早的依赖专家的理论，且更少有办法检验他的结论了。我们的知识，其绝大部分停留在这一水平上。它不是依靠推理或实验。而是依赖权威。可是，不这样，又有什么别的法子呢,知识的范围如此广博，一旦越出其专业范围，专家也会变得一无所知，对大多数人来说，如果要他们证明地球是圆的话，就连我上面概述的这些相当无力的证据，他们也不愿提出来。他们一开始就会说:谁都知道地球是圆的。要是再加追问，就会生气了。在某种程度上讲，萧伯纳是说对了，如今是一个轻信的时代。究其缘由，部分在于，我们现今需要掌握的知识实在太多了。