Question

谁能帮我翻译或讲解一下这篇文章？谢谢了

It is a curious paradox that we think of the physical sciences as “hard”, the social sciences as “soft”, and the biological sciences as somewhere in between. This is interpreted to mean that our knowledge of physical systems is more certain than our knowledge of biological systems, and these in turn are more certain than our knowledge of social systems. In terms of our capacity to sample the relevant universes, however, and the probability that our images of these universes are at least approximately correct, one suspects that a reverse order is more reasonable. We are able to sample earth’s social systems with some degree of confidence that we have a reasonable sample of the total universe being investigated. Our knowledge of social systems, therefore, while it is in many ways extremely inaccurate, is not likely to be seriously overturned by new discoveries. Even the folk knowledge in social systems on which ordinary life is based in earning, spending, organizing, marrying, taking part in political activities, fighting and so on, is not very dissimilar from the more sophisticated images of the social system derived from the social sciences, even though it is built upon the very imperfect samples of personal experience.
In contrast, our image of the astronomical universe, of even of earth’s geological history, can easily be subject to revolutionary changes as new data comes in and new theories are worked out. If we define the “security” our image of various parts of the total system as the probability of their suffering significant changes, then we would reverse the order of hardness and see the social sciences as the most secure, the physical sciences as the least secure, and again the biological sciences as somewhere in between. Our image of the astronomical universe is the least secure of all simply because we observe such a fantastically small sample of it and its record-keeping is trivial as compared with the rich records of the social systems, or even the limited records of biological systems. Records of the astronomical universe, despite the fact that we see distant things as they were long ago, are limited in the extreme.
Even in regard to such a close neighbour as the moon, which we have actually visited, theories about its origin and history are extremely different, contradictory, and hard to choose among. Our knowledge of physical evolution is incomplete and highly insecure.

Answer 1

这是一个有趣的悖论,我们认为自然科学是“硬”,社会科学是“软”,而生物科学介于两者之间。这是解释意味着我们的知识的物理系统都更加肯定比我们所知的生物系统,这些反过来更特定的社会系统比我们的知识。按照我们的样品有关领域的能力,然而,和概率,我们这些宇宙的图像至少大体正确,有人认为,一个相反的顺序是更合理的。我们能够样本地球的社会系统提供了一定程度的信心,我们有一个合理的样本的宇宙总被调查。我们的知识的社会系统,因此,当它在很多方面都是极其不准确的,是不可能被严重推翻新发现。即使社会系统的民间知识中,普通的生活是建立在收入、支出、组织、结婚、参与政治活动,战斗等等,并不是非常不同的更复杂的社会系统的图像来自社会科学,尽管它是建立在非常不完美的样本个人经验。
相比之下,我们的形象的天文宇宙、甚至地球的地质历史,可以很容易地接受革命性的变化,新数据来自于和新理论了。如果我们定义的“安全”我们的各个部分的形象总系统作为他们的苦难的概率显著变化,然后我们将反向顺序的硬度和看到社会科学是最安全的,自然科学是最不安全,并再次生物科学则介于两者之间。我们的形象的天文宇宙是最安全的,仅仅是因为我们观察这样的一个充满了小样本的它和它的记录相比微不足道的丰富的记录的社会系统,或者甚至是有限的记录的生物系统。记录的天文宇宙,尽管事实上我们看到遥远的事情他们很久以前,被限制在极端。
即使在考虑这样一个亲密的邻居如月亮,我们已经去过,理论对其起源和历史是非常不同的,矛盾,努力中进行选择。我们的知识的身体进化是不完整的,高度不安全。

Answer 2

这是一个奇怪的悖论，认为自然科学是“硬”，社会科学是“软”，而生物科学之间的某个地方。这被解释为意味着我们的知识，物理系统更肯定比我们的生物系统的知识，而这些反过来更肯定比我们所知的社会系统。在我们的能力，对有关领域的研究，但是，和概率的图像，这些宇宙至少大约正确，有人怀疑，倒序更合理。我们可以品尝地球的社会系统具有一定程度的信心，我们有一个合理的抽样调查的全宇宙。我们的社会制度，因此，虽然在很多方面都是非常不准确的，是不可能被严重地被新发现。即使社会系统的民间知识中，寿命是普通的收入，支出，组织，婚姻，政治活动的参与，以及战斗等等，并没有很大的不同从更精细的社会系统描述来自社会科学，尽管它是建立在个人非常完美的样本经验。与此相反，我们对宇宙天体，甚至地球的地质历史，可以很容易地受到革命性变化新数据、新理论不断出现。如果我们定义“安全”的图像的各部分的总系统作为概率的痛苦重大变化，那么我们就会本末倒置，看到的是最安全的社会科学，是最安全的物理科学，并再次为生物科学之间的某个地方。我们对天文宇宙是最安全的一切只是因为我们看到这样一个非常小的样本和记录相比是微不足道的与社会体系的记录，或甚至是唱片公司的生物系统。记录的宇宙天体，尽管事实上我们看到远处的东西，他们很久以前，是有限的极限。甚至在这样一个亲密的邻居如月亮，我们已经去过，理论的起源和历史是非常不同的，矛盾的，和难以选择。我们的物理知识的进化是不完整的，高度不安全。

追问

请不要用翻译软件帮我翻译，谢谢

Answer 3

大概是在讲科学理论吧，来讨论地球和宇宙。