第6段

历史备注：1945年，安德森教授邀请波普尔从基督城搬到悉尼，但在哈耶克的帮助下，他最终去了伦敦。后来，安德森转而反对波普尔，他的学生大卫·斯托夫也是如此，几乎将抨击波普尔作为职业生涯。原本令人钦佩的克莱夫·詹姆斯也以一种尖酸刻薄、小气的方式否定了《开放社会及其敌人》，称其“枯燥且重复”。

A historical note; in 1945 Professor Anderson invited Popper to move from Christchurch to Sydney but with help from Hayek he went to London instead. Later Anderson turned against Popper, as did his student, David Stove, who practically made a career out of sledging Popper. The otherwise admirable Clive James turned on Popper with a waspish and small-minded dismissal of The Open Society and Its Enemies, “boring and repetitive.”

第7段

许多批评者认为波普尔关于检验的观点存在问题，称他对科学史了解不足，并天真地忽视了人们为保护自己偏好的范式而抵抗证伪。事实上，波普尔从一开始就在《科学发现的逻辑》（1935年德文版）中注意到这一点。在观察到牛顿学派为了抵制爱因斯坦的创新而进行的守势时，他列出了四种“免疫策略”来“保护”他们的立场免受批评。这四种策略是：(1) 对明显不利的指控进行临时或“即兴”的解释，(2) 改变原系统中术语的定义，(3) 怀疑反方结果，(4)怀疑批评者的判断力。

Many critics of Popper’s views on testing claim that he didn’t know enough about the history of science and he naively ignored the way that falsification is resisted by people who are determined to protect their preferred paradigms. In fact Popper was onto this from the beginning, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, published in German in 1935. Observing the rearguard action by Newtonians resisting Einstein’s innovation, he itemised four “conventionalist stratagems” to “immunize” their position against criticism. These are (1) ad hoc or “off the cuff ” explanations of apparently adverse observations, (2) changing the definition of terms in the system, (3) questioning the results and (4) casting doubt on the acumen of the critic.

第8段

随着时间的推移，气候危言耸听者采用了这些策略。他们是不是读了波普尔的书却得出了错误的信息？首先，在1998年的一次强厄尔尼诺现象导致气温飙升之后，他们将术语从“全球变暖”转变为“气候变化”。当所有预测的可怕事件（如世界将再也没有雪了、不再有北极熊、不再有海滩）并未实现时，而事实证明，现在的极端天气与有记录以来的任何时期相比，并没有更好或更坏。气候专家们又转而拥抱“极端天气”这一术语。至于质疑评论家的洞察力，如今他们被那些掌控资助、任命和出版的人所使用。

In due course, climate alarmists adopted these tactics. Did they read Popper and get the wrong message? First they shifted from “global warming” to “climate change” after a spike caused by a big El Nino in 1998. When all the dire events that were predicted did not materialize — snow will become “a thing of the past”, no more polar bears, no more beaches — the climate caravan moved on to embrace the term “extreme weather”, which turns out to be no better or worse than at any other time since records have been collected. As for casting doubt on the acumen of critics, nowadays they are simply cancelled by the people who control grants, appointments and publishing.

**第9段**

在1965年的一次会议上，托马斯·库恩向波普尔提出著名地挑战，邀请他一起探讨科学进步的社会学/心理学方面。波普尔干脆地拒绝了这一邀请，并遗憾地错过了向观众提醒他自己关于科学的制度方法的机会——这一方法他在1945年的一篇论文中已有概述，该论文后来在《历史主义的贫困》（1957年）中再版。

At a conference in 1965 Thomas Kuhn famously confronted Popper with a challenge to join him in addressing the sociological/psychological aspects of scientific progress. Popper briskly rejected the invitation and, regrettably, missed the opportunity to remind the audience of his own institutional approach to science, which he sketched in 1945 in a paper that was reprinted in The Poverty of Historicism (1957.)

第10段

在1950年代，波普尔对政府在科学中日益增长的作用感到震惊，他受到开发原子弹的曼哈顿计划的影响。他担心“大科学”为了服务于政治家而影响伟大科学的未来。他看到了过多的资金追逐太少想法的危险、出版物的激增（好作品被埋没在坏作品之下）以及为了获得时尚和政治上“热门”课题的资助而扭曲的激励机制。

In the 1950s Popper was horrified by the growing role of government in science, inspired by the example of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb. He feared for the future of Great Science as a result of Big Science in the service of politicians. He saw the danger of too much money chasing too few ideas, the publication explosion (good buried under bad) and the distortion of incentives by the pressure to obtain grants for fashionable and politically “hot” topics.