Part of the scientific faith of the late nineteenth century was the view that there was one and only one scientific method.This method，argued writers like Karl Pearson in his Grammar of Science，was the only sure method for arriving at knowledge in any sphere.The method was easily described： collect the facts in the area under study;order them into sequences，such that law like occurrences could be seen;then，write down the laws so identified.According to this view，disciplines differed only as to subject matter，since the unity of science consisted of its method alone.Also，according to this view，the results of scientific investigation(that is，new knowledge)will always be embodied in the form of a law connecting the facts in the area under study.

Explanation，according to this view，is simply accounting for facts on the basis of a deduction from a known law or laws，or accounting for some subordinate law on the basis of a deduction from some more general law or laws.The most influential formulation of this explanation is Carl G Hempel‘s， perhaps most accessibly articulated in his article“Explanation in Science and History”。Sometimes，according to Hempel，such laws are of a strictly universal form and other times they are of a probabilistic or statistical form.They are assertions，in this latter case，of the kind that if certain specified conditions are realized then an occurrence of such and such a kind will come about with such a probability.

I think that it would be true to say that in the late nineteenth century it was felt that one feature distinguishing physics from history as a discipline was that，even if they shared exactly the same method，physics had no need for the latter kind of probabilistic explanation——at least in principle——while in history it was unavoidable.

However，in the twentieth century，whatever else may distinguish physics and history as disciplines it is not that physics uses only strictly universal laws and deductive explanations in the nineteenth century sense，while history does not.The physics of the century，from 1 900 onward，has been interested in aggregates of certain classes of physical individuals(the particles)and in accounts of the individuals that would enable one to understand the aggregates.As a consequence partly of this interest in statistical data pertaining to the very small，as well as for a number of other reasons，physicists have tended to formulate the mechanics of the very small in terms of equations in which probabilistic notions are fundamental.

1. According to Karl Pearson，only one scientific method——。

[A J prevailed in every field of study during 1890s

[B]directed the collection and arrangement of facts

[C]served as a unique element uniting all disciplines

[D]made the identification of new knowledge plausible

2. As stated by Hempel，general laws are——。

[A]based on detailed accounts of actual facts

[B]composed of subordinate laws by deduction

[C]realized in probabilistic or statistic form

[D]applied to all cases or under certain conditions

3. The author feels sure of the truth that in 19th century———————

[A]physics and history shared a common feature

[B]the same method blended history with ph)rsics

[C]statistical laws were compatible with physics

[D]probabilistic method was inapplicable to history

4. In the 20th century， it was true that—————————

[A]universal laws ceased to belong merely to physics

[B]deductive explanations became dominant in history

[C]distinction between history and physics turned obscure

[D]statistical explanations were adopted by physicists

5. In the study of physical particles_____

[A]statistical information accounts for the interest in aggregates

[B]probabilistic conceptions result from their formulation

[C] description of their mechanics is based on statistical data

[D]physical equations are accountable for probabilistic ideas

核心詞匯

sphere n.范圍，領域

subordinate adj.從屬的

probability n.可能性

sequence n.次序，順序

articulate vt.清晰地表達

consequence n.結果

embody vt.使具體化

statistical adj.統(tǒng)計的

formulate vt.用公式表示

完整譯文：

19世紀末期的科學信仰中包括這樣一種觀點，即世界上有且僅有一種科學方法。一些作家指出(如卡爾。皮爾遜在其著作《科學的語法》中寫道)：這種方法是惟一一種在任何領域都可獲得知識的有效方法。這種方法描述起來十分容易：通過調查研究后，在該領域收集事實;將這些事實按順序排好，以保證根據(jù)所發(fā)生的事件總結出定律;然后，將所發(fā)現(xiàn)的定律寫下來。根據(jù)這種觀點，既然科學是統(tǒng)一的，并且只包含這惟一一種方法，因此各個學科的區(qū)別僅僅在于內容的不同。同樣，根據(jù)這種觀點，科研調查的結果(也就是新知識)永遠都是以在該領域進行調查的前提下連接各類事實的定律的形式所體現(xiàn)出來的。

根據(jù)這種觀點，解釋僅僅是在演繹的基礎上說明事實，而這種演繹來自于著名的定律，或者是在演繹的基礎上說明某種從屬定律，這種演繹來自于更普遍的定律。關于解釋最具影響力的確切表達來自于卡爾吉。亨普爾，在他的《科學與歷史中的解釋》一文中表述得很清楚。根據(jù)亨普爾的觀點，有的時候，這些定律有著十分嚴格的共同形式;其他時候，這些定律體現(xiàn)的則是概率或是統(tǒng)計數(shù)字的形式，這種情況下，這些定律屬于論斷，即如果滿足某些具體條件，某種結果便會依某種概率而發(fā)生。

在19世紀末期，人們認為物理作為一門學科，與歷史相比，一個明顯區(qū)別就是即使兩種學科均使用同一種方法，但至少從原則上講，物理沒有必要進行概率解釋，而歷史這門學科則不可避免。我個人認為這種說法是正確的。

但是，在20世紀，不論還有些什么別的特征可能用來區(qū)分物理學與歷史學這兩門學科，從以下角度加以區(qū)分肯定是不對的：物理學只是嚴格運用19世紀那個意義上的普遍規(guī)律和演繹性解釋，而歷史學并非如此。從1900年以后，20世紀的物理研究興趣主要在于某些種類的物質個體(粒子)的總計及對這些物質個體的解釋以便人們了解這種總計。部分地由于物理學對于微觀世界的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)的興趣，同時也由于很多其他相關原因，物理學家們傾向于用方程式來闡述微觀世界的力學原理，而在這些方程式中，有關概率的概念是最基礎的。