科学的价值（注） 

费曼

时常，人们对我提出，科学家应该多多关心社会问题，特别是要考虑科学对于社会的影响。人们似乎相当普遍地认为，只要科学家们对于错综复杂的社会问题加以关注，而不是成天钻在枝尾末节的科学研究之中，那么巨大的成功就会自然到来。

我以为，我们科学家是很关注这些社会问题的，只不过我们不是把它们当作自己的全职而已。其原因是，对于这些比科学研究复杂千百倍的社会问题，我们也是百思不得其解，绝无灵丹妙药。

我认为当科学家思考非科学问题时，他（她）和所有的人一样无知；当他（她）要对非科学问题发表见解时，他（她）和所有的门外汉一样幼稚。今天我的讲演“科学的价值”所针对的并不是一个科学课题，而是价值评判；这样看来，我下面将要讲的大概也是粗浅不堪的了。

科学的价值的第一点是众所周知的。科学知识使人们能制造许多产品、做许多事业。当然，当人们运用科学做了善事的时候，功劳不仅归于科学本身，而且也归于指导着我们的道德选择。科学知识给予人们能力去行善，也可以作恶，它本身可并没有附带着使用说明。这种能力显然是有价值的，尽管好坏决定于如何使用它。

在一次去夏威夷的路途中，我学会了一种方法来表达上述问题——一个佛祠的主持向游客们谈及佛学，最后他说他的临别赠言将使游客们永不忘却（我是真的从未忘却）。这赠言是佛经中的一句箴语：“每个人都掌握着一把开启天堂之门的钥匙，这把钥匙也同样能打开地狱之门。”

如此说来，开启天堂之门的钥匙又有什么价值呢？如果我们没有办法分辨一扇门是通向天堂还是地狱，那么手中的钥匙可是个危险的玩艺儿。

可是这钥匙又确实有它的价值——没有它，我们如何能开启天堂之门？

没有它，我们即使明辨了天堂与地狱，也还是束手无策。这样推论下来，尽管科学知识可能被误用以导致灾难，它的这种产生巨大影响的能力本身是一种价值。

科学的另一个价值是提供智慧与思辨的享受。这种享受一些人可以从阅读、学习、思考中得到，而另一些人则要从真正的深入研究中方能满足。这种智慧思辨享受的重要性往往被人们忽视，特别是那些喋喋不休地教导我们科学家要承担社会责任的先生们。

我常常想这些奇妙的东西，这些从前人们根本不可想象，而如今科学知识使我们可以想象的东西。

我当然不是说个人在智慧思辨中的享受是科学的全部价值所在。不过，如果我们社会进步的最终目标正是为了让各种人能享受他想做的事，那么科学家们思辨求知的享受也就和其他事具有同等的重要性了。

另外一个不容低估的科学的价值是它改变了人们对世界的概念。由于科学的发展，我们今天可以想象无穷奇妙的东西，比诗人和梦想者的想象丰富离奇千万倍。自然的想象和多姿比人类要高明得多。比如吧，诗人想象巨大的海龟驮着大象到海里旅行；而科学给了我们一幅图画——天宇中一个巨大的球在旋转；在它的表面，人们被神奇的引力吸住，并附着它在旋转。

我常常想这些奇妙的东西，这些从前人们根本不可想象，而如今科学知识使我们可以想象的东西。

曾经，我站在海边的沙滩上，陷入了这样的深思：

潮起潮落

无法计数的分子

各自孤独地运行

相距遥远却又息息相关

泛起和谐的白浪

旷代久远

在尚无生物的上古

眼睛还未出现

年复一年

惊涛拍岸如今

为了谁，为了什么？

在一个死寂的星球

没有为之欣悦的生命

永无休止

骄阳弥散着能量

射向无垠的宇宙

掀动着大海的波浪

大洋深处

分子重复不变

忽然，萌生新的组合

它们会复制自身

由此演出了全新的一幕

愈变愈大

愈变愈复杂

生物，DNA，蛋白质

它们的舞蹈愈加神奇

跃出海洋

走向陆地

站立着

具有认知力的原子

具有好奇心的物质

凭海向洋

一个好奇者在好奇

我——

一个原子的宇宙

一个宇宙中的原子

这样的激动、惊叹和神秘，在我们研究问题时一次又一次地出现。知识的进步总是带来更深、更美妙的神秘，吸引着我们去更深一层地探索。有时探索的结果令人失望，可这又有什么关系？我们总是兴致勃勃而自信地深钻下去，发现无法想象的奇妙和随之而来的更深更美妙的神秘。这难道不是最激动人心的探索么！

诚然，没有过科学研究经历的人大概不会有这种近似宗教的感受。诗人不会写它，艺术家也无法描述这种奇妙的感受。我很是不解——难道他们都不为我们所发现的宇宙所激动吗？歌唱家现在还不会歌唱科学带来的神奇美妙，科学对于人们来说还是在讲课中接受的，而不是在诗与歌之中。这说明我们还没有进入一个科学的时代。

这种沉默无歌的原因之一，大概是人们必须懂得如何读这种音乐的乐谱才能歌唱。比如，一篇科学论文说，“鼠的脑中放射标记的磷在两周中减了一半。”这是什么意思呢？

它的意思是鼠脑中（你、我的脑子也没什么差别）的磷有一半已经不是两周前的原子了，它们已被替换了。那么我要问：“究竟什么是载有意识的分子呢？子虚乌有么？这些全新的分子能承载一年前在我脑中的记忆，可当时发生记忆的分子却早已被置换了！

这个发现就像是说我这个体仅仅是一个舞蹈的编排。分子们进入我的大脑，跳了一场舞就离开了；新的分子又进来，还是跳和昨天一模一样的舞蹈——它们能记住！”

有时我们会从报纸上念到这样的话：“科学家认为这项发现对于治疗肿瘤是十分重要的……”。看，这报道只注重那项发现有什么可利用之处，而完全丢开了它本身的意义。而实际上它是多么奇妙啊！偶尔，小孩子反倒会意识到那些意义；此时，一个科学家的苗子出现了。如果当他们上大学时我们才教他们这些，那就太晚了。我们必须从孩童教起。

现在，我来谈谈科学的第三个价值——它稍稍有些间接，不过并不牵强。科学家们成天经历的就是无知、疑惑、不确定，这种经历是极其重要的。当科学家不知道答案时，他是无知的；当他心中大概有了猜测时，他是不确定的；即便他满有把握时，他也会永远留下质疑的余地。承认自己的无知，留下质疑的余地，这两者对于任何发展都必不可少。科学知识本身是一个具有不同层次可信度的集合体：有的根本不确定，有的比较确定，但没有什么是完全确定的。

科学家们对上述情形习以为常，他们自然地由于不确定而质疑，而且承认自己无知。但是我认为大多数人并不明白这一点。在历史上科学与专制权威进行了反复的斗争才渐渐赢得了我们质疑的自由。那是一场多么艰辛、旷日持久的战斗啊！它终于使我们可以提问、可以质疑、可以不确定。我们绝不应该忘记历史，以致丢失千辛万苦争来的自由。这，是我们科学家对社会的责任。

人类的潜能之大、成就之小，令人想起来未免神伤，总觉得人类可以更好。先人在恶魇中梦想未来；我们（正是他们的未来）则看到他们的梦想有些已经成真，大多却仍然是梦想，一如往日。

有人说教育的不普及是人类不能前行的原因。可是难道教育普及了，所有的人就都能成为伏尔泰吗？坏的和好的是同样可以被传授的；教育同样拥有趋善或趋恶的巨大能力。

另一个梦想是国与国之间的充分交流一定会增加互相理解。可是交流的工具是可以被操纵的。如此说来所交流的既可以是真实，也可以是谎言。交流也具有趋善和趋恶双重可能。

应用科学可以解决人们的物资需求，医药可以控制疾病——看上去总算尽善尽美了吧？可偏偏有不少人在专心致志地制造可怖的毒物、细菌，为化学生物战争做准备。

几乎谁都不喜欢战争，和平是人类的梦想——人们尽可能地发挥潜能。可没准儿未来的人们发现和平也可好可坏。没准儿和平时代的人因没有挑战而厌倦不堪，于是终日痛饮不止，而醉熏熏的人并不能发挥潜能、成就大业。

和平显然是一个很大的力量，如同严谨、物资发展、交流，教育、诚实和先人的梦想。与先人相比，我们确实进步了，有更多的能力了。可与我们能够成就的相比，所达到的就相形见绌。

原因何在？为什么我们就无法战胜自己？

因为我们发现，巨大的潜能和力量并没有带着如何使用它们的说明书。譬如，对物质世界认识愈多，人们就愈觉得世界真是毫无目的意义可言。科学并无法指导行善或行恶。

有史以来，人们一直都在探究生命的意义。他们想：如果有某种意义和方向来指导，人的伟大潜能定会充分发挥。于是有了许多种对生命意义的阐述和教义。这些各自不同的教义有着自己的信徒，而某一种教义的信徒总是怀着恐惧的心情看待其余教义的信徒。这种恐惧来自于信念的互不相容，致使原本良好的出发点都汇入了一条死胡同。事实上，正是从这些历史上错误信仰所制造的巨大谬误中，哲学思考者们慢慢发现了人类美妙无限的能力。人们梦想能发现一条通途。

那么，这些又有什么意义呢？我们如何来解开存在之谜呢？

如果把所有的加以考量——不仅是先人所知，而且他们不知而我们今天所知的——那么我认为我们必须坦率地承认，我们还是知之甚微。

不过，正当我们如此承认的时候，我们便开始找到了通途。

这并非一个新观念，它是理性时代的观念，也正是它指导着先贤们缔造了我们今日享用的民主制度。正因为相信没有一个人绝对懂得如何管理政府，我们才有这样一个制度来保证新的想法可以产生发展、被尝试运用、并在必要的时候被抛弃；更新的想法又可以如此地轮回运行。这是—种尝试——纠偏的系统方法。这种系统方法的建立，正是因为在18 世纪末，科学已经成功地证明了它的可行性。在那时，关注社会的人们已经意识到：对各种可能性持开明态度便带来机会；质疑和讨论是探索未知的关键，如果我们想解决以前未能解决的问题，那我们就必须这样地把通向未知的门开启。

类还处在初始阶段，因此我们遇上各种问题是毫不奇怪的。好在未来还有千千万万年。我们的责任是学所能学、为所可为、探索更好的办法，并传给下一代。我们的责任是给未来的人们一双没有束缚自由的双手。在人类鲁莽冲动的青年期，人们常会制造巨大的错误而导致长久的停滞。倘若我们自以为对众多的问题都已有了明白的答案，年轻而无知的我们一定会犯这样的错误。

如果我们压制批评，不许讨论，大声宣称“看哪，同胞们，这便是正确的答案，人类得救啦！”我们必然会把人类限制在权威的桎梏和现有想象力之中。这种错误在历史上屡见不鲜。

作为科学家，我们知道伟大的进展都源于承认无知，源于思想的自由。那么这是我们的责任——宣扬思想自由的价值，教育人们不要惧怕质疑，而应该欢迎它、讨论它，而且毫不妥协地坚持拥有这种自由——这是我们对未来千秋万代所负有的责任。

注：译文主要来自【2】

参考文献：

【1】http://faa.unm.edu/P302.041.SU17/Resources/Reflections/feynman.pdf

【2】https://www.sohu.com/a/451090894_812382

原文：

The value of science - Feynman

From time to time people suggest to me that scientists ought to give more consideration to social problems – especially that they should be more responsible in considering the impact of science on society. It seems to be generally believed that if the scientists would only look at these very difficult social problems and not spend so much time fooling with less vital scientific ones, great success would come of it.

It seems to me that we do think about these problems from time to time, but we don’t put a full-time effort into them – the reasons being that we know we don’t have any magic formula for solving social problems, that social problems are very much harder than scientific ones, and that we usually don’t get anywhere when we do think about them.

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy – and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he sounds as naive as anyone untrained in the matter. Since the question of the value of science is not a scientific subject, this talk is dedicated to proving my point – by example.

The first way in which science is of value is familiar to everyone. It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things. Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work. Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad – but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value – even though the power may be negated by what one does with it.

I learned a way of expressing this common human problem on a trip to Honolulu. In a Buddhist temple there, the man in charge explained a little bit about the Buddhist religion for tourists, and then ended his talk by telling them he had something to say to them that they would never forget – and I have never forgotten it. It was a proverb of the Buddhist religion:

To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.

What then, is the value of the key to heaven? It is true that if we lack clear instructions that enable us to determine which is the gate to heaven and which the gate to hell, the key may be a dangerous object to use.

But the key obviously has value: how can we enter heaven without it?

Instructions would be of no value without the key. So it is evident that, in spite of the fact that it could produce enormous horror in the world, science is of value because it can produce something.

Another value of science is the fun called intellectual enjoyment which some people get from reading and learning and thinking about it, and which others get from working in it. This is an important point, one which is not considered enough by those who tell us it is our social responsibility to reflect on the impact of science on society

Is this mere personal enjoyment of value to society as a whole? No! But it is also a responsibility to consider the aim of society itself. Is it to arrange matters so that people can enjoy things? If so, then the enjoyment of science is as important as anything else.

But I would like not to underestimate the value of the world view which is the result of scientific effort. We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvelous than the imaginings of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man. For instance, how much more remarkable it is for us all to be stuck – half of us upside down – by a mysterious attraction to a spinning ball that has been swinging in space for billions of years than to be carried on the back of an elephant supported on a tortoise swimming in a bottomless sea.

I have thought about these things so many times alone that I hope you will excuse me if I remind you of this type of thought that I am sure many of you have had, which no one could ever have had in the past because people then didn’t have the information we have about the world today.

For instance, I stand at the seashore, alone, and start to think.

There are the rushing waves mountains of molecules

each stupidly minding its own business

trillions apart

yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages before any eyes could see year after year

thunderously pounding the shore as now. For whom, for what?

On a dead planet

with no life to entertain.

Never at rest

tortured by energy

wasted prodigiously by the sun

poured into space.

A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea

all molecules repeat

the patterns of one another

till complex new ones are formed.

They make others like themselves

and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity

living things

masses of atoms

DNA, protein

dancing a pattern ever more intricate. Out of the cradle

onto dry land

here it is

standing:

atoms with consciousness;

matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,

wonders at wondering: I

a universe of atoms

an atom in the universe.

The same thrill, the same awe and mystery, comes again and again when we look at any question deeply enough. With more knowledge comes a deeper, more wonderful mystery, luring one on to penetrate deeper still. Never concerned that the answer may prove disappointing, with pleasure and confidence we turn over each new stone to find unimagined strangeness leading on to more wonderful questions and mysteries – certainly a grand adventure!

It is true that few unscientific people have this particular type of religious experience. Our poets do not write about it; our artists do not try to portray this remarkable thing. I don’t know why. Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers: you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this silence is that you have to know how to read the music. For instance, the scientific article may say, “The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of the rat decreases to one-half in a period of two weeks.” Now what does that mean?

It means that phosphorus that is in the brain of a rat – and also in mine, and yours – is not the same phosphorus as it was two weeks ago. It means the atoms that are in the brain are being replaced: the ones that were there before have gone away.

So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week’s potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago – a mind which has long ago been replaced.

To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out – there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday.

When we read about this in the newspaper, it says “Scientists say this discovery may have importance in the search for a cure for cancer.” The paper is only interested in the use of the idea, not the idea itself. Hardly anyone can understand the importance of an idea, it is so remarkable. Except that, possibly, some children catch on. And when a child catches on to an idea like that, we have a scientist. It is too late1 for them to get the spirit when they are in our universities, so we must attempt to explain these ideas to children.

I would now like to turn to a third value that science has. It is a little less direct, but not much. The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still

1I would now say, “It is late – although not too late – for them to get the spirit...” in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question – to doubt – to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. Herein lies a responsibility to society.

We are all sad when we think of the wondrous potentialities human beings seem to have, as contrasted with their small accomplishments. Again and again people have thought that we could do much better. Those of the past saw in the nightmare of their times a dream for the future. We, of their future, see that their dreams, in certain ways surpassed, have in many ways remained dreams. The hopes for the future today are, in good share, those of yesterday.

It was once thought that the possibilities people had were not developed because most of the people were ignorant. With universal education, could all men be Voltaires? Bad can be taught at least as efficiently as good. Education is a strong force, but for either good or evil.

Communications between nations must promote understanding – so went another dream. But the machines of communication can be manipulated. What is communicated can be truth or lie. Communication is a strong force, but also for either good or evil.

The applied sciences should free men of material problems at least. Medicine controls diseases. And the record here seems all to the good. Yet there are some patiently working today to create great plagues and poisons for use in warfare tomorrow.

Nearly everyone dislikes war. 

Our dream today is peace. In peace, man can develop best the enormous possibilities he seems to have. But maybe future men will find that peace, too, can be good and bad. Perhaps peaceful men will drink out of boredom. Then perhaps drink will become the great problem whifh seems to keep man from getting all he thinks he should out of his abilities.

Clearly, peace is a great force – as are sobriety, material power, communication, education, honesty, and the ideals of many dreamers. We have more of these forces to control than did the ancients. And maybe we are doing a little better than most of them could do. But what we ought to be able to do seems gigantic compared with our confused accomplishments.

Why is this? Why can’t we conquer ourselves?

Because we find that even great forces and abilities do not seem to carry with them clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behavior seems to have a kind of meaninglessness. The sciences do not directly teach good and bad.

Through all ages of our past, people have tried to fathom the meaning of life. They have realized that if some direction or meaning could be given to our actions, great human forces would be unleashed. So, very many answers have been given to the question of the meaning of it all. But the answers have been of all different sorts, and the proponents of one answer have looked with horror at the actions of the believers in another – horror, because from a disagreeing point of view all the great potentialities of the race are channeled into a false and confining blind alley. In fact, it is from the history of the enormous monstrosities created by false belief that philosophers have realized the apparently infinite and wondrous capacities of human beings. The dream is to find the open channel.

What, then, is the meaning of it all? What can we say to dispel the mystery of existence?

If we take everything into account – not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn’t know – then I think we must frankly admit that we do not know.

But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.

This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in – a trial-and-error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not un- reasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are.

If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming “This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.