上外版大学英语写作精选第六册(10)

    College students， and for that matter high school students， should be exposed very early， perhaps at the outset， to the big arguments currently going on among scientists. Big arguments stimulate their interest， and with luck engage their absorbed attention. Few things in life are as engrossing as a good fight between highly trained and skilled adversaries. But the young students are told very little about the major disagreements of the day； they may be taught something about the arguments between Darwinians and their opponents a century ago， but they do not realize that similar disputes about other matters， many of them touching profound issues for our understanding of nature， are still going on and， indeed， are an essential feature of the scientific process. There is， I fear， a reluctance on the part of science teachers to talk about such things， based on the belief that before students can appreciate what the arguments are about they must learn and master the "fundamentals". I would be willing to see some experiments along this line， and I have in mind several examples of contemporary doctrinal dispute in which the drift of the argument can be readily perceived without deep or elaborate knowledge of the subject.

    There is， for one， the problem of animal awareness. One school of ethologists devoted to the study of animal behavior has it that human beings are unique in the possession of consciousness， differing from al other creatures in being able to think things over， capitalize on past experience， and hazard informed guesses at the future. Other， "lower"， animals （with possible exceptions made for chimpanzees， whales， and dolphins） cannot do such things with their minds； they live from moment to moment with brains that are programmed to respond， automatically or by conditioning， to contingencies in the environment， Behavioral psychologists believe that this automatic or conditioned response accounts for human mental activity as well， although they dislike that word "mental". On the other side are some ethologists who seems to be more generous-minded， who see no compelling reasons to doubt that animals in general are quite capable of real thinking and do quite a lot of it —— thinking that isn't as dense as human thinking， that is sparser because of the lack of language and the resultant lack of metaphors to help the thought along， but thinking nonetheless.

    The point about this argument is not that one side or the other is in possession of a more powerful array of convincing facts； quite the opposite. There are not enough facts to sustain a genuine debate of any length； the question of animal awareness is an unsettled one.

    Another debatable question arises when one contemplates the whole biosphere， the conjoined life of the earth. How could it have turned out to possess such stability and coherence， resembling as it does a sort of enormous developing embryo， with nothing but chance events to determine its emergence？ Lovelock and Margulis， facing this problem， have proposed the Gaia Hypothesis， which is， in brief， that the earth is itself a form of life， "a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere， atmosphere， oceans and soil； the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." Lovelock postulates， in addition， that "the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth， of the atmosphere， and of the oceans has been an is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself."

    This notion is beginning to stir up a few signs of storm， and if it catches on， as I think it will， we will soon find the biological community split into fuming factions， one side saying that the evolved biosphere displays evidences of design and purpose， the other decrying such heresy. I believe that students should learn as much as they can about the argument.