By Ira Remsen
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》。