| 参考译文：
论题: “只有通过犯错误，才能有发现和进步。”
范文：
化学家Paul
Ehrlich发现了一种可为梅毒患者提供治疗的药物。该药物被名命为“606号配方”，因为前605次测试均以失败而告终。我们从这一故事中所能吸取的经验教训清晰而又简单：发现和进步乃孕育于失误。
只有犯错误，我们才能知道哪些东西行不通。一个现在在IBM广为流传的故事与IBM创始人Thomas
Watson及其一位副总裁相关。这位副总裁自告奋勇去开发一个新产品。据《财富》杂志报道，该产品是项风险投资，以全面惨败而告终，致使公司亏损了一亿美元。Watson唤这位行政主管来他办公室，说有事要与他讨论。毫无疑问，他将丢掉他的饭碗。这位年轻人脱口而出：“我想你是要我的辞呈？”Watson答道：“你肯定在开玩笑。我们刚花了1亿美元来让你进行学习。”这就是Watson的逻辑：任何能够犯下一个1亿美元错误的人，必须要从失误中学到某些东西，以便有助于他下次做得更加出色。管理咨询师Peter
Drucker曾指出，“一个人越是杰出，他犯的错误也愈多，因为他必须比别人尝试更多的新事物。任何一个不犯错误的人，我是绝不会将他提拔到高层职务的”。我亦如此。
除此之外，失误可以给人以机会，去尝试新途径和新方法。中国的改革便是一个适例。在1949年解放之后，在毛主席的领导下，中国逐渐建立起一个全国范围内的国营计划经济。这一经济模式最初旨在保证隐定的经济发展和社会公正。不幸的是，它所导致的却是经济的停滞与持久的贫穷。为社会正义而确立的那种社会主义理想渐趋沦为一种纯粹的“铁饭碗”。在认识到毛泽东这一经济政策中的致命失误后，邓小平先生采用了一种全新的方法—— 一场渐进式的却又急剧的改革。他首先引入了市场经济的某些因素，希望让计划经济和市场经济齐头并进。这一方法在最初的若干年中行之有效，但随后变得无效。最后，经过一系列试验和失误，他和他的政府得出结论，市场经济乃中国唯一的选择。由于这一战略性转变，中国经济现在正行进在一条稳定而又强劲的轨道上。虽然毛泽东的错误给中国人民带来了痛苦的牺牲，但值得庆幸的是，我们已吸取了经验教训，并且我们现在正在步出昔日的失误。
需要承认的一点是，错误本身并不会自行导致发现或进步。我们必须分析每一次失败，以便从中寻找出原因。我们必须真诚地面对失败，而绝不假装成功。我们必须善于利用我们的失误，但我们绝不能将失败用作一种借口，藉以拒绝进行新的尝试。总而言之，我们必须学会如何去聪明地犯错误。
正如谚语所云：凡人多舛误。在此基础上，我想补充的是：从失误中学习有益的教训便是进步。
此文开头所引用的例子极具感染力，而结尾则更妙。它套用了英国18世纪诗人Alexander
Pope的英雄体偶句（heroic
couplet） “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”（凡人多舛误，唯神能见宥）而推陈出新，成为“To
err is human, to learn from errors is progress.”
文章主体部分的论述也相当深入全面，几乎无可指摘。
然而，正如我此前所指出的那样，整篇文章之所以显得言之成理，甚至言之确凿，是因为作者首先界定了一个有利于自己论述的前提，而在对这个前提进行界定时使用了一种“障眼法”——原来的题目“Only
through mistakes can there be discoveries and progress”被作者在其行文时“篡改”成为“Discovery
or progress is born in mistakes.” 有咬文嚼字嗜好的人会立刻注意到“only”一词被这篇文章的作者有意地无意地（consciously
or unconsciously）疏漏掉了。
出于对这一题目的浓厚兴趣，也出于想检验自己思辨能力的冲动，更出于咬文嚼字的爱好，我在读完上述范文后便自己动笔写了一篇“反其意而用之”的文章。我给自己界定的前提是
“We can make discoveries
and progress through mistakes but mistakes alone cannot
be the only source for discoveries and progress. There are
sources other than mistakes from which to achieve discoveries
and progress.” 全文如下（英文原文及中文翻译均为本文作者）：
Issue
Topic
| “Only
Through Mistakes Can There Be Discoveries and Progress.” |
嘉文博译Sample
Essay
“Failure
is Mother to Success”, a more popular and more widely publicized
version of “Only through mistakes can there be discoveries
and progress”, has been championed as an adage of encouragement
perhaps since our earliest childhood, by people ranging
from kindergarten nurses, teachers of elementary through
middle to senior high schools, to university professors,
and even by employer to his employee in the moving story
at IBM involving Watson and one of his vice presidents.
Admittedly, it is totally possible for Paul Ehrlich, one
of the few exceptionally talented scientists in the world,
to discover—perhaps under the encouragement of his childhood
axiom—an syphilis-curing drug (which he symbolically named
“Formula 606” as an indication of his perseverance, for
he failed for the first 605 trials in developing the drug),
thereby making important contributions to the progress of
medical science as a whole. Nevertheless, it should be pointed
out that it is seriously misleading to take this apparently
encouraging remark as a lifelong principle and even to live
by this principle. There are times when mistakes are committed
in such a way that there is no time for discoveries. Imagine
how you would think if you, still committing mistakes in
your great seniority, were approached and admonished with
this “motto” by your grandson, who received it from his
father to whom it was precisely you that had handed it down
innumerable decades ago?
The
process of “making mistakes”, especially when it is connected
with “making discoveries”, strongly implies that a human
agent, presumably a scientist, is engaged in an act of highly
positivistic and empirical scientific research. However,
with life being so transitory, we should keep in mind that
the wealth of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scientists
who precede us can help us effectively and directly head
toward discoveries and progress by bypassing possible pitfalls
and mistakes. The fact that we can exploit existing scientific
findings in a more speedy and fruitful manner precludes
us from the necessity to achieve scientific progress by
resorting to mistake-making as the sole source of knowledge,
as is advocated by the foregoing argument.
Moreover,
the proposition that “only through mistakes can there be
discoveries and progress” induces the illusion that, as
long as researchers keep on undertaking trials and experiments
regardless of efficiency and cost, victory will be there
automatically and inevitably. The proposition that perseverance
will ultimately lead to discoveries and progress further
implies that every scientific effort would end up in success.
By inference, there would never be such a thing as resignation
or giving up halfway, as if success can always be guaranteed
by an “anti-failure insurance company.” But there are
instances in which certain scientific missions have to be
terminated eternally because the prospect of making a discovery
is all too bleak. If we allow ourselves to cherish the blind
faith in an ultimate victory, two serious consequences would
ensure thereof. On one hand, those mistake-makers would
comfortably indulge themselves in committing infinite mistakes,
and even blind mistakes. It would scarcely occur to them
to make opportune reflections on their sustained failures
and to seek fresh and more efficacious perspectives and
methodologies. It is pathetic to expect the occurrence of
the final miracle which in actuality might never occur.
On the other hand, this will also give rise to the development
of magnanimous but ill-fated tolerance on the part of the
general public for mistake-making. In this case, the general
public itself live under the illusory misconception that
the perpetrator of constant mistakes would eventually evolve
into a scientific genius, given enough time. It is absolutely
conceivable that, by being exonerated for committing “innocent
and necessary” mistakes, the perpetrator tends to contract
inertia and indolence on one hand and become increasingly
irresponsible on the other, thereby resulting in alarming
physical wastes of materials and resources.
In
connection with this consequence is the cost of making mistakes.
Since making mistakes is generally negative, it carries
the implication that a cost must be paid for every mistake.
And when it comes to the point that the cost of making mistakes
significantly dwarfs the possible benefits that can be derived
from a trivial discovery, every sensible person would come
to the conclusion that the practice of achieving minor discoveries
through making costly mistakes should by no means be encouraged.
It
might be contended that, given the incessant emergence of
changing circumstances and fresh challenges, making mistakes
are ineluctable and hence excusable. This is, at least partially,
an ill-founded pretext for being immature. For one thing,
a person who commits mistakes under each changed circumstance
or commits the same mistake in similar cases can only be
characterized as incapable of maturity. For another thing,
although a definite demarcation line between maturity and
naivety can be identified sooner or later in a person’s
lifetime, it is hardly logical to say that a mistake-committing
senior citizen has not completed his evolutionary process
of de-naivetization when he is virtually on his deathbed.
Progress, either personal or social, is absolutely impossible
in a state of lasting naivety.
As
is universally acknowledged, human beings differ from other
creatures in that they are rational. This faculty of rationality
functions by endowing man with the ability to foresee and
to predict, to make full preparations based on past experience
and knowledge for the advent of potential adversities caused
by changed circumstances. The capacity for foresight makes
it possible for man to be prepared in advance for impending
problems, thus eliminating and avoiding mistakes.
In
conclusion, the proposed argument is seriously flawed on
two accounts. In the first place, by the use of the word
“only”, it posits the committing of mistakes as an absolute
condition for accomplishing discoveries and progress, ignoring
the foundational importance of the research performed by
those scientists preceding us in leading to scientific discoveries
and progress. In the second place, the argument is merely
negative, based on the act of being erroneous and even being
fallacious. A more plausible and compelling explanation
for human discoveries and progress is man’s intelligence
as a rational being, his long-accumulated experience and
knowledge that have been proved effective through practice,
his sound judgments, his right methodologies in understanding
himself and the world around him, and his correct decision-making
in choosing the proper course of action.
中文翻译：
“唯有通过犯错误，才会有发现和进步。”
“失败乃成功之母”，作为“唯有通过犯错误，才会有发现与进步”这一说法的一种流传更广、更加广为渲染的版本，或许自从我们孩提时代起就被反复倡导，当作一句激励人们不懈努力的话。无论是幼稚园阿姨，小学、中学和高中的老师，还是大学教授，甚至是你的雇主，无不对此津津乐道。在IBM那则涉及到总裁Watson和他的一位副总裁的动人故事中，我们可略知一斑。诚然，对于Paul
Ehrlich这样一位世界上为数不多的几个具有非凡天赋的科学家来说，是全然有可能——在其或许是童年时代就已接触到的这一至理名言的激励下——去发现一种能医治梅毒的药物（他将其象征性地命名为“606配方”，以表明其坚忍不拔的品格，因为他研发该药的最初605次尝试均以失败而告终），从而对整个医学进步作出重大贡献。然而，我们也必须指出，如果将这番视若予人鼓励的话视作一种终身的准则，并按此准则来度过一生的话，这无疑将产生严重的误导作用。确实有这样一些时候，亡羊补牢，已为迟也。试问，如果老态龙钟的您依然还在犯下一个个错误，您的孙儿来到您身旁用这句由您不知多少年前传授给您儿子，再由您儿子传授给您孙子的“人生箴言”来告诫您时，您又会作何感想呢？
“犯错误”这一过程，尤其当它与“作出发现”相联系在一起时，强烈地暗示出有某个人类主体——我们可不无道理地将其假定为一位科学家——正置身于一种极具实证主义和经验主义色彩的科学研究行为之中。然而，人生何其短暂，我们应该牢记，前辈科学大师们已为我们积累起了大量的科学知识，足以帮助我们绕过可能存在的诸多弯路和谬误，直接且有效地迈向科学发现和进步。我们能够以一种更为快捷和卓有成效的方式去利用既存的科学发现，这一事实本身足以使我们大可不必象上述题目中的论点所倡导的那样，去诉诸于犯错误这一行为，将其视作唯一的知识之源泉，藉以实现科学进步。
此外，“唯有通过犯错误，才会有发现与进步”这一命题会诱导这样一种错觉，即只要科研人员不断进行试验和实验，无论效率与成本如何，成功将会理所当然地、不可避免地在那里等着你。“坚持不懈终将导致发现与进步”这一命题进一步暗示，任何一种科学努力均会以成功而告终，故诸如放弃与半途而废这样的事情绝不会出现，仿佛成功总可以在一家“反失败保险公司”里得到保障一样。但在实际情形中，某些科学使命不得不被永久性地中止，因为得以作出一项发现的前景微乎其微。如果我们允许自己对一次终极的成功执迷不悟，盲目相信的话，两个严重的后果会随之而来。首先，那些犯错误者会心安理得地沉湎于没完没了地犯错误这一行为之中，即使所犯的是盲目的错误亦在所不惜。他们很少会意识到去对其持续的失败作出及时的反思，并去寻觅全新的和更有可能奏效的视角和对策。对实际上或许永远也不会发生的最终奇迹的发生满怀期待，这无疑是可悲的。另一方面，这也会导致在公众身上养成一种对犯错误行为“宽宏大量的”但却注定没有好结果的容忍。在这一情形中，公众本身就生活在一种虚妄的误解中，仿佛那恒久的犯错者只要假以时日，必将演化为一个科学奇才。完全可以想象的是，当犯错者因其所犯错误是“必要的和无辜的”而获宽宥时，他一方面易于陷入懒惰与惰性之中而不思进取，另一方面亦易于变得越来越缺乏责任心，从而导致物质和资源的惊人浪费。
与上述后果相涉的还有犯错误的代价这一因素。既然犯错误这一行为普遍地具有负面意义，这便意味着每犯一个错误就必须付出代价。但当事情发展到这样一个地步，即当犯错误这一行为的代价远远超过从一项微不足道的发现中所能获得的回报时，每个明智之士想必都会得出这样的结论，即通过犯下代价高昂的错误而获得一些无足轻重的发现，这一做法绝不应该予以鼓励。
有人或许会辩驳道，由于新情况、新挑战层出不穷，犯错误是不可避免的，因此理应获得宽宥。这一论点至少在部分程度上是一种站不住脚的借口，藉以为不成熟作辩解。这是因为，其一，每次情况有变便必犯错误，或遇到类似情形仍犯同样的错误，这样的人只能被形容为“长不大”。
其次，虽然成熟与幼稚之间的分界线在一个人的一生中总是可以被分辨出来，在有些人身上早一些，在另一些人身上迟一些，但如果有人说一个依然在铸错的老者在行将就木之际还尚未完成他从幼稚中蜕变的过程，这恐怕甚不合乎逻辑。进步，无论是个人的抑或是社会的，在一种持久性幼稚状态中是断无可能的。
众所公认，人类之所以有别于其他种类的动物，就在于人是有理性的。这种理性能力之所以有其效用，就在于它可赋以人类以预测、预知和预见的能力，以前人的经验和知识为基础，对由于环境变化而导致的潜在逆境的出现作好充分准备。前瞻能力使人类得以对行将降临的问题预先作好准备，从而消除并避免失误。
本文题目中所提出的论点由于二种缘故而存在严重缺陷。其一，通过应用“唯一”这一字眼，该论点将铸错设定为获得发现和实现进步的绝对条件，对前辈科学家们所从事的研究在导致科学发现和科学进步中的奠基性意义置若罔闻，熟视无睹。其次，该论点具有消极色彩，仅仅立足于“错误”与“谬误”这一行为上。关于人类发现和人类进步，一种更为合理和更为严谨的解释应该是人类作为理性动物的聪明才智，他长期积累起来的、且经由实践证明确是行之有效的那些经验和知识，其明智的判断力，他用以了解其自身和了解其周围世界的正确方法论，以及他在选择正确的行动方向时所作出的正确决策。
需要申明的是，笔者这篇1500多个英文单词、超过实际篇幅2-3倍的文章并不是在实战条件下写出来的。撰写此文，只是为了探索我的思辨严谨性及对丰富材料的驾御能力，并意欲以此为例，来论证这样一个道理——只要你拥有一个适当的角度（perspective），只要你具备细腻的咬文嚼字的能力，只要你具有严谨的思辨能力，你就能够写出独到的文字来。
至于这篇文章背后所隐含的写作思路，我将在本文稍后的地方进行详尽描述。 |
