【正文】 ze it for such failure is roughly parable to criticizing a thermometer for not measuring wind velocity.The other thing we have to notice is that the assessment of the intelligence of any subject is essentially a parative affair.(73)Now since the assessment of intelligence is a parative matter we must be sure that the scale with which we are paring our subjects provides a “valid” or “fair” parison. It is here that some of the difficulties which interest us begin. Any test performed involves at least three factors: the intention to do one’s best，the knowledge required for understanding what you have to do，and the intellectual ability to do it. (74)The first two must be equal for all who are being pared， if any parison in terms of intelligence is to be made. In school populations in our culture these assumptions can be made fair and reasonable，and the value of intelligence testing has been proved thoroughly. Its value lies，of course，in its providing a satisfactory basis for prediction. No one is in the least interested in the marks a little child gets on his test。 what we are interested in is whether we can conclude from his mark on the test that the child will do better or worse than other children of his age at tasks which we think require “general intelligence”. (75)On the whole such a conclusion can be drawn with a certain degree of confidence，but only if the child can be assumed to have had the same attitude towards the test as the others with whom he is being pared，and only if he was not punished by lack of relevant information which they possessed.1993年英譯漢試題(71)The method of scientific investigation is nothing but the expression of the necessary mode of working of the human mind。 it is simply the mode by which all phenomena are reasoned about and given precise and exact explanation. There is no more difference，but there is just the same kind of difference，between the mental operations of a man of science and those of an ordinary person，as there is between the operations and methods of a baker or of a butcher weighing out his goods in mon scales，and the operations of a chemist in performing a difficult and plex analysis by means of his balance and finely graded weights. (72)It is not that the scales in the one case，and the balance in the other，differ in the principles of their construction or manner of working。 but that the latter is much finer apparatus and of course much more accurate in its measurement than the former.You will understand this better， perhaps， if I give you some familiar examples. (73)You have all heard it repeated that men of science work by means of induction （歸納法） and deduction， that by the help of these operations，they，in a sort of sense，manage to extract from Nature certain natural laws， and that out of these， by some special skill of their own， they build up their theories. (74)And it is imagined by many that the operations of the mon mind can be by no means pared with these processes，and that they have to be acquired by a sort of special training. To hear all these large words，you would think that the mind of a man of science must be constituted differently from that of his fellow men。 but if you will not be frightened by terms，you will discover that you are quite wrong，and that all these terrible apparatus are being used by yourselves every day and every hour of your lives.There is a wellknown incident in one of Moliere’s plays，where the author makes the hero express unbounded delight on being told that he had been talking prose （散文） during the whole of his life. In the same way， I trust that you will take fort， and be delighted with yourselves， on the discovery that you have been acting on the principles of inductive and deductive philosophy during the same period. (75)Probably there is not one here who has not in the course of the day had occasion to set in motion a plex train of reasoning，of the very same kind，though differing in degree，as that which a scientific man goes through in tracing the causes of natural phenomena.1994年英譯漢試題According to the new school of scientists, technology is an overlooked force in expanding the horizons of scientific knowledge. (71)Science moves forward, they say, not so much through the insights of great men of genius as because of more ordinary things like improved techniques and tools. (72) “In short”, a leader of the new school contends, “the scientific revolution, as we call it, was largely the improvement and invention and use of a series of instruments that expanded the reach of science in innumerable directions.”(73)Over the years, tools and technology themselves as a source of fundamental innovation have largely been ignored by historians and philosophers of science. The modern school that hails technology argues that such masters as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and inventors such as Edison attached great importance to, and derived great benefit from, craft information and technological devices of different kinds that were usable in scientific experiments. The centerpiece of the argument of a technologyyes, geniusno advocate was an analysis of Galileo39。s role at the start of the scientific revolution. The wisdom of the day was derived from Ptolemy, an astronomer of the second century, whose elaborate system of the sky put Earth at the center of all heavenly motions. (74)Galileo39。s greatest glory was that in 1609 he was the first person to turn the newly invented telescope on the heavens to prove that the planets revolve around the sun rather than around the Earth. But the real hero of the story, according to the new school of scientists, was the long evolution in the improvement of machinery for making eyeglasses.Federal policy is necessarily involved in the technology vs. genius dispute. (75)Whether the Government should increase the financing of pure science at the expense of technology or vice versa often depends on the issue of which is seen as the driving force.1995 年英譯漢試題The s