Charles Percy Snow斯诺简介

合集下载

试论李约瑟的科学史观

试论李约瑟的科学史观

试论李约瑟的科学史观李约瑟的巨著scienee &civilisation in china(以下简称scc)有两个中文全译本:《中国之科学与文明》和《中国科学技术史》。

单从译名而言,似乎后者不够贴切。

事实上李约瑟本人对这个译名也有所保留。

(参见〔1〕,p.515)当然名称本身或许并不重要,但是由此却引出了一个科学史观的问题。

笔者认为在scc中,文明(文化)与科学是密切相关的,因而不可忽略。

这正是李约瑟科学史观的特点。

本文试图阐明这一在学术界尚未得到足够重视的特点,并就有关的问题进行初步的探讨。

一、科学史是人类文明史的一个部分李约瑟在scc第一章序言中指出:“现在,已经有越来越多的人认识到,科学史是人类文明史中一个头等重要的组成部分。

”(〔2〕,p.1)科学史的发展既影响文明史的进程,也受文明史的制约。

因此它的研究不能孤立地进行,而必须具备统观人类文明的广阔视野。

这可以说是李约瑟研究科学史的指导思想。

按照英美文化学及科学史的传统,“文化”与“文明”在其广义上可以混用,而科学技术作为一个组成部分则包含在其中。

在文化学方面,泰勒(edward burnett tylor,18321917)对“文化”概念作了基础性的开拓。

他指出:“文化或文明,就其广泛的民族学意义来说,乃是包括知识、信仰、艺术、道德、法律、习俗和任何人作为一名社会成员而获得能力和习惯在内的复杂的整体。

”(〔3〕,p.99)显然,科学作为知识被排到了第一位。

这个经典定义在西方具有深远的影响。

继泰勒之后,弗雷泽(j.frazer 18541941)进一步从进化的角度提出了“巫术——宗教——科学”的发展模式,在西方科学史中引起广泛地共鸣。

比如,李约瑟关于中国古代科学技术主要起源于道教的观点,便与弗雷泽的影响有关。

(参见〔4〕,p.304)继弗雷泽之后,马林诺斯基(bronislaw kaspar malinowski,18841942)进一步完成了文化学从古典研究到现代研究的转折,他从泰勒的广义文化着眼,打开了跨学科研究文化动态发展的大门,揭示了文化功能的整体性。

自然辩证法——第八讲 科学技术与社会

自然辩证法——第八讲 科学技术与社会
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
Henan Polytechnic University 2010.11
(2)汽车生产与现代消费方式 • 福特的以大量消费来支持大规模生产 • 斯隆塑造了美国消费文化(满足不同人群的个体需要) • 分期付款
1923年,美国汽车销售量达350万辆,其中将近80% 是通过某种分期付款方式进行的 Henan Polytechnic University 60年代中期,分期付款信贷额是任何其它种类消费信 贷的三倍。1/4以上的美国家庭用分期付款法购买汽 车
二是一部分科学家和发明家更让人不快他们似乎对人类在五六千年中积累起来的全部美和知识财富一无所知他们不能领略和欣赏过去的魅力和高尚并且认为艺术家和历史学家等都是一些毫无用场的梦想henanpolytechnicuniversity201011henanpolytechnicuniversity阿迪达斯三条纹标志是由阿迪达斯的创办人阿迪达斯勒设计的三条纹的阿迪达斯标志代表山区指出实现挑战成就未来和不断达成目标的愿望
阿波罗登月计划:巨大的组织工程
人类基因组计划(HGP):国际合作
Henan Polytechnic University 2010.11
• “为了保持美国在科学上的突出成就并推进科 学在重大国家利益中的作用,我们必须重新考 虑和重新塑我们的科学政策。国家利益中的每 一核心要素,都要求科学研究和教育给予强有 力的保证。”(克林顿:《科学与国家利益》) Henan Polytechnic University
Henan Polytechnic University 2010.11
双向四面(正负)的作用方式
科技与社会其他子系统的基本的作用方式——双 向四面的活动 (1)科技系统对社会各子系统发生作用,社会 各子系统也对科技系统发生作用。 Henan Polytechnic University (2)科技系统对社会各子系统既有正面的、积 极的作用,也有负面的、消极的作用;同时, 社会各子系统对科技系统也是既有正面的作用, 又有负面的作用。

数字媒体艺术知识点

数字媒体艺术知识点

•知识点:
1、虚拟现实造型语言VRML
2、数字绘画最常用的软件是PhotoShop和Painter。

3、、中国动漫领域第一家上市公司是奥飞动漫
备创作的
10、虚拟现实(VirtualReality)技术是20世纪80年代末90年代初崛起的一种实用技术。

它是由计算机硬件、软件以及各种传感器构成的三维信息的人工环境——虚拟环境
11、尼葛洛庞帝在《数字化生存》中用“互动式多媒体”(InteractiveMultimedia)一词来描述电子计算机的图形界面。

12、数字媒体艺术的学科意义:
•(1.)时代发展的需要
•(2.)学科发展的需要
20.数字技术加速了全球化和本土化的进程。

21.数字媒体艺术较早的称谓有“计算机艺术”、“电子艺术”、“电脑艺术”等。

22.宽泛的讲,数字媒体艺术是数字时代的艺术。

23.诞生于现代科技、传播学、艺术学等学科的交汇处,体现着现代
科技和艺术创造的融合。

24.1986年第42届威尼斯双年展的主题就是“艺术与科学”,艺术与科学的关系这一争论不止的话题重新引起了当代艺术家们的思考。

25.尼葛洛庞帝在《数字化生存》中用“互动式多媒体”(InteractiveMultimedia)来描述电子计算机的图形界面。

与传统
造了一种成功的商业模式
31.物联网是通过射频识别(RFID)、红外感应器、全球定位系统、激光扫描器等信息传感设备,按约定的协议,把任何物品与互联网连接起来。

2019笔译人名翻译

2019笔译人名翻译

英国作家Geoffrey Chaucer杰佛利·乔叟William Shakespeare莎士比亚Francis Bacon培根John Milton约翰·弥尔顿John Bunyan班扬Joseph Addison艾迪生Richard Steele理查德·斯梯尔Danniel Defoe丹尼尔·迪福Jonathan Swift斯威夫特Alexander Pope蒲柏Henry Fielding亨利·菲尔丁Samuel Johnson塞缪尔·约翰生Oliver Goldsmith哥尔斯密William Blake布莱克Robert Burns彭斯William Wordsworth威廉·华兹华斯Samuel Taylor Coleridge柯勒律治Walter Scott瓦尔特·司各特Jane Austin简·奥斯丁Charles Lamb查尔斯·兰姆William Hazlitt威廉·赫兹里特George Gordon Byron乔治·拜伦Percy Bysshe Shelley波西·比希·雪莱John Keats约翰·济兹Thomas Hood胡德Ernest Jones琼斯Afred Tennyson丁尼生Robert Browning 勃朗宁Charles Dickens狄更斯William MakepeaceThackery萨克雷Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell盖斯凯尔Charlote/Emily/Anne Bronte夏洛蒂/爱米丽/安妮·勃郎特George Eliot爱略特Thomas Carlyle卡莱尔George Meredith梅瑞狄斯William Morris莫里斯Samuel Butler勃特勒Thomas Hardy哈代Robert Couis Stevenson史蒂文生Isabella Augusta Gregory/Perse格葛瑞/珀斯Oscar Wilde王尔德George Bernard Shaw萧伯纳George Gissing吉辛Joseph Conrad康拉德Joseph Rudyard Kipling罗德雅德·吉卜林William Butler Yeats叶芝Herbert George Wells威尔斯Enoch Arnord Bennett阿诺德·本涅特John Galworthy高尔斯华绥Saki萨奇(Hector Hugh Munro孟柔)Edward Morgan Forster福斯特John Millington Synge沁孤Bertrand Russell罗素William Somerset Maugham毛姆John Masefield梅斯菲尔德Giles Lytton Strachey斯特雷奇Sean O’casey肖恩·奥凯西James Joyce乔伊斯Virginia Woolf沃尔芙David Herbert Lawrence劳伦斯Katherine Mansfield曼斯菲尔德Thomas Stearns Eliot艾略特Aldous Leonard Huxley赫胥黎John Boynton Priesley普里斯特利Hugh MacDiarmid麦克迪尔米德Ivor Armstrong Richards理查兹Elizabeth Bowen鲍恩Victor Sawdon Pritchett普里彻特George Orwell奥威尔Frank O’connor奥康纳Evelyn Waugh伊夫林·沃Christopher Isherwood 衣修午德Graham Greene格雷厄姆·格林Charles Percy Snow斯诺Peter Courtney Quennell昆纳尔William Empson燕卜荪Wystan Hugh Auden奥登William Golding戈尔丁Angus Wilson威尔逊Dylon Thomas迪伦·托马斯Muriel Sarah Spark斯帕克Richard Lessing多丽丝·莱辛Iris Murdoch默多克Philip Larkin拉金Kingsley Amis 金斯莱·艾米斯John Wain韦恩Brian Wilson Aldiss奥尔迪斯Alan Sillitoe西利托Margaret Drabble德雷伯尔Ted Hughs特德·休斯Arnold Wesker韦斯克John Osborne奥斯本美国作家Benjamin Franklin 本杰明·富兰克林Philip Freneau 菲利普·弗伦咯美国诗歌之父Washington Irving 华盛顿。

斯诺《两种文化》

斯诺《两种文化》
c.p.斯诺《两种文化》
汇报人: xx年xx月xx日
目录
• 引言 • 主题概述 • 科学文化的分析 • 人文文化的分析 • 两种文化的融合与挑战 • 结论与启示
01
引言
背景介绍
20世纪50年代,英国社会和文化发生了显著变化。科技和产 业革命带来了新的发展机遇,同时也带来了一系列社会问题 。人们对文化的认知和价值观念开始出现分歧。
人文文化的成就
艺术创作
人文文化在艺术领域取得了许多杰出的成就,如文学、绘画、音乐等,为人类文明的发展 做出了重要贡献。
社会科学研究
人文文化在社会科学领域的研究和应用,为理解人类社会和文化现象提供了重要的理论和 方法支持。
文化遗产保护
人文文化对于保护和传承人类文化遗产起到了重要作用,对于维护世界文化的多样性和丰 富性具有重要意义。
THANKS
谢谢您的观看
两种文化的影响
要点一
知识领域的分离
要点二
社会结构的影响
两种文化导致知识体系之间的隔阂, 使科学与人文领域难以相互理解和交 流。
两种文化的分离反映在社会结构和教 育体系中,形成片面的知识体系和教 育模式。
要点三
文化冲突与融合
两种文化的对立和冲突同时也在不断 寻求融合与协调,试图弥合知识体系 之间的鸿沟。
科学文化与人文文化 的分裂
c.p.斯诺在书中指出,现代社会中科 学文化与人文文化之间存在明显的分 裂,导致两种文化之间的相互误解和 隔阂。
科学文化的优越性
斯诺认为,科学文化在当代社会中具 有明显的优越性,能够为人类带来实 际的利益和进步,而人文文化则逐渐 被边缘化。
人文文化的危机
斯诺指出,人文文化在现代社会中面 临着严重的危机,其影响力逐渐减弱 ,甚至被视为无关紧要的领域。

第三文化在上海迪士尼乐园本土化营销策略中的体现-市场营销毕业论文-本科毕业论文-毕业论文

第三文化在上海迪士尼乐园本土化营销策略中的体现-市场营销毕业论文-本科毕业论文-毕业论文

第三文化在上海迪士尼乐园本土化营销策略中的体现-市场营销毕业论文-本科毕业论文-毕业论文——文章均为WORD文档,下载后可直接编辑使用亦可打印——摘要:在跨国企业进军海外市场的过程中, 企业之中会出现本土文化(第一文化) 和外来文化(第二文化) 相互混融的现象。

这种混融是过程性和发展性的。

混融的结果就是新式文化出现, 即第三文化。

第三文化对跨国企业市场营销策略的制定和实施有很大的影响。

本文旨在通过分析上海迪士尼中的本土化营销策略来发现第三文化的特点, 以便从文化角度为相关企业制定市场营销策略提供理论帮助。

关键词:文化混融; 第三文化; 上海迪士尼主题乐园; 本土化; 营销策略;1982年, 迪士尼第一座海外主题乐园出现在日本。

乐园在营业初期便吸引了众多游客。

此后, 迪士尼公司陆续又修建了三座主题乐园, 分别位于法国巴黎以及我国的香港和上海。

由于各地区情况不同, 迪士尼公司因地制宜地制定和实施了本土化营销策略, 而这些策略制定的依据主要在于文化因素。

为了获得最大的利润并且满足市场游客的文化消费习惯, 迪士尼公司在设计建造相关主题乐园时将自身文化和本土文化相混融, 进而结合实际营销需求对文化进行创新, 最终发展出新的文化第三文化。

这种新型文化是主题公园发展自身的必备条件, 也是吸引游客的主要卖点。

本论文中分析的上海迪士尼乐园正是凭借自身独特的文化卖点不断发展, 逐渐成为国内外著名的主题乐园。

一、第三文化理论概述第三文化的概念首先出现于人类学领域。

1963年, 英国史学家查尔斯珀西斯诺(Charles Percy Snow) 在《两种文化》(The Two Cultures) 一文中, 首次提出了第三种文化的概念。

[1]第三文化真正进入跨文化研究领域是在20世纪末期。

在20世纪50年代, 美国社会学家鲁斯尤西姆(Ruth Useem) 在印度进行了一次田野调查。

在总结自己观察到结果的时候, 尤西姆借用了斯诺的第三文化概念来指代这些生活在异国并受到异国文化影响的孩子[2]。

Unit 12 the two cultures

Unit 12 the  two cultures

The Two CulturesC. P. Snow(查尔斯·珀西·斯诺Charles Percy Snow)作者:斯诺最值得人们注意的是他关于他“两种文化”这一概念的讲演与书籍。

这一概念在他的《两种文化与科学变革》(The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,1959年出版)。

在这本书中,斯诺注意到科学与人文中联系的中断对解决世界上的问题是一个主要障碍。

斯诺特别提到如今世界上教育的质量正在逐步地降低。

比如说,很多科学家从未读过查尔斯·狄更斯的作品,同样,艺术工作者对科学也同样的不熟悉。

他写道:斯诺的演讲在发表之时引起了很多的骚动,一部分原因是他在陈述观点时不愿妥协的态度。

他被文学评论家F·R·利维斯(F. R. Leavis)强烈地抨击。

这一激烈的争辩甚至使夫兰达斯与史旺创作了一首主题是热力学第一与第二定律的喜剧歌曲,并起名为《第一与第二定律》(First and Second Law)。

斯诺写到:斯诺同时注意到了另一个分化,即富国与穷国之间的分化。

1 “It’s rather odd,” said G. H. Ha rdy, one afternoon in the early Thirties, “but when we hear about intellectuals nowadays, it doesn’t include people like me and J. J. Thomson and Rutherford.” Hardy was the first mathematician of his generation, J. J. Thomson the first physicist of his; as for Rutherford, he was one of the greatest scientists who have ever lived. Some bright young literary person (I forget the exact context) putting them outside the enclosure reserved for intellectuals seemed to Hardy the best joke for some time. It does not seem quite such a good joke now. The separation between the two cultures has been getting deeper under our eyes;there is now precious little communication between them, little but different kinds of incomprehension1 and dislike.2 The traditional culture, which is, of course, mainly literary, is behaving like a state whose power is rapidly declining—standing on its precarious2 dignity, spending far too much energy on Alexandrian intricacies, [1] occasionally letting fly in fits of aggressive pique3 quite beyond its means, [2] too much on the defensive4 to show any generous imagination to the forces, which must inevitably reshape it. Whereas the scientific culture is expansive, not restrictive, confident at the roots, the more confident after its bout5 of Oppenheimerian self-criticism, certain that history is on its side, impatient, intolerant, and creative rather than critical, good-natured and brash6. Neither culture knows the virtues of the other; often it seems they deliberately do not want to know. [3] The resentment, which the traditional culture feels for the scientific, is shaded with fear; from the other side, the resentment is not shaded so much as brimming7 with irritation. When scientists are faced with an expression of the traditional culture, it tends (to borrow Mr. William Cooper’s eloquent phrase) to make their feet ache.3 It does not need saying that [4]generalizations of this kind are bound to look silly at the edges. There are a good many scientists indistinguishable from literary persons, and vice versa. Even the stereotype generalizations about scientists are misleading without some sort of detail—e.g., the generalization that scientists as a group stand on the political Left. This is only partly true. A very high proportion of engineers is almost as conservative as doctors; of pure scientists; the same would apply to chemists. It is only among physicists and biologists that one finds the Left in strength. If one compared the whole body of scientists with their opposite numbers of the traditional culture (writers, academics, and so on), the total result might be a few per cent, more towards the Left wing, but not more than that. [5]Nevertheless, as a first approximation, the scientific culture is real enough, and so is its difference from the traditional. For anyone like myself, by education a scientist, by calling a writer, at one time moving between groups of scientists and writers in the same evening, the difference has seemed dramatic.4 The first thing, impossible to miss, is that scientists are on the up and up; they have the strength of a social force behind them. If theyare English, they share the experience common to us all—of being in a country sliding economically downhill—but in addition (and to many of them it seems psychologically more important) they belong to something more than a profession, to something more like a directing class of a new society. [6]In a sense oddly divorced from politics, they are the new men. Even the steadiest and most politically conservative of scientific veterans, [7] lurking8 in dignity in their colleges, has some kind of link with the world to come. They do not hate it as their colleagues do; part of their mind is open to it;[8]almost against their will, there is a residual glimmer of kinship there. The young English scientists may and do curse their luck; increasingly they fret9 about the rigidities of their universities, about the ossification10 of the traditional culture which, to the scientists, makes the universities cold and dead; they violently envy their Russian counterparts who have money and equipment without discernible11 limit, who have the whole field wide open. But still they stay pretty resilient12: the same social force sweeps them on. Harwell and Winscale have just as much spirit as Los Alamos and Chalk River: the neat petty bourgeois houses, the tough and clever young, the crowds of children: they are symbols, frontier towns.5 There is a touch of the frontier qualities, in fact, about the whole scientific culture. Its tone is, for example, steadily heterosexual. The difference in social manners between Harwell and Hampstead or as far as that goes between Los Alamos and Greenwich Village, would make an anthropologist blink. [9]About the whole scientific culture, there is an absence—surprising to outsiders—of the feline13 and oblique14. Sometimes it seems that scientists relish15 speaking the truth, especially when it is unpleasant. The climate of personal relations is singularly bracing16, not to say harsh: it strikes bleaklyo n those unused to it, who suddenly find that [10] the scientists’ way of deciding on action is by a full-dress argument, with no regard for sensibilities and no holds barred17. No body of people ever believed more in dialectic as the primary method of attaining sense; [11]and if you want a picture of scientists in their off-moments, it could be just one of a knock-about18 argument. Under the argument there glitter egotisms as rapacious19 as any of ours: but, unlike ours, the egotisms are driven by a common purpose.6 How much of the traditional culture gets through to them? The answer is not simple. A good many scientists, including some of the most gifted, have the tastes of literary persons, read the same things,and lead as much. Broadly, though, [12] the infiltration20 is much less . History gets across to a certain extent, in particular social history: the sheer mechanics21 of living, how men ate, built, traveled, worked, touches a good many scientific imaginations, and so they have fastened on22 such works as Trevelyan’s Social History, and Professor Gordon Childe’s books. Philosophy, the scientific culture view with indifference, especially metaphysics. As Rutherford said cheerfully to Samuel Alexander: “When you think of all the years you’ve been tal king about those things, Alexander, and what does it all add up to? Hot air, nothing but hot air.” A bit less exuberantly23, that is what contemporary scientists would say. They regard it as a major intellectual virtue, to know what not to think about. [13]They might touch their hats to24 linguistic analysis, as a relatively honorable way of wasting time; not so to existentialism25.7 The arts? The only one which is cultivated among scientists is music. It goes both wide and deep; there may possibly be a greater density of musical appreciation than in the traditional culture. In comparison, the graphic arts (except architecture) score little, and poetry not at all. [14]Some novels work their way through, but not as a rule the novels which literary persons set most value on. [15]Thetwo cultures have so few points of contact that the diffusion26 of novels shows the same sort of delay, and exhibits the same oddities, as though they were getting into translation in a foreign country. It is only fairly recently, for instance, that Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh has become more than names. And, just as it is rather startling to find that in Italy Bruce Marshall is by a long shot the best-known British novelist, so it jolts27 one to hear scientists talking with attention of the works of Nevil Shute. In fact, there is a good reason for that: Mr. Shute was himself a high-class engineer, and a book like No Highway is packed with technical stuff that is not only accurate but often original. Incidentally, there are benefits to be gained from listening to intelligent men, [16]utterly removed from the literary scene and unconcerned as to who’s in and who’s out. One can pick up such a comment as a scientist once made, that it looked to him as though the current preoccupations28 of the New Criticism, the extreme concentration on a tiny passage, had made us curiously insensitive to the total flavor of a work, to itscumulative29 effects, to the epic qualities in literature. But, on the other side of the coin, one is just as likely to listen to three of the most massive intellects in Europe happily discussing the merits of The Wallet of Kai-Lung.8 When you meet the younger rank-and-file30 of scientists, it often seems that they do not read at all. The prestige of the traditional culture is high enough for some of them to make a gallant31 shot at it. [17]Oddly enough, the novelist whose name to them has become a token of esoteric32 literary excellence is that difficult highbrow33 Dickens. [18]They approach him in a grim and dutiful spirit as though tackling Finnegan’s Wake, and feel a sense of achievement if they manage to read a book through. But most young techniciansdo not fly so high when you ask them what they read—“As a married man,” one says, “I prefer the garden.” Another says: “I always like just to use my books as tools.” (Difficult to resist speculating what kind of tool a book would make. A sort of hammer?A crude digging instrument?)9 That, or something like it, is a measure of the incommunicabilityof the two cultures. On their side the scientists are losing a great deal. Some of that loss is inevitable: it must and would happen in any society at our technical level. [19]But in this country we make it quite unnecessarily worse by our educational patterns. On the other side, how much does the traditional culture lose by the separation?10 I am inclined to think, even more. Not only practically—we are familiar with those arguments by now—but also intellectually and morally. The intellectual loss is a little difficult to appraise34. Most scientists would claim that you couldn’t comprehend the world unless you know the structure of science, in particular of physical science. In a sense, and a perfectly genuine sense, that is true. Not to have read War and Peace and La Cousine Bette and La Chartreuse de Parme is not to be educated; but so is not to have a glimmer of the Second Law of Thermodynamics35. Yet that case ought not to be pressed too far. It is more justifiable to say that those without any scientific understanding miss a whole body of experience: they are rather like the tone deaf, from whom all musical experience is cut off and who have to get on without it. The intellectual invasions of science are, however, penetrating deeper. Psycho-analysis once looked like a deep invasion, but that was a false alarm; cybernetics may turn out to be the real thing, driving down into the problems of will and cause and motive. If so, those who do not understand the method will not understand the depths of their own cultures.11 But the greatest enrichment the scientific culture could give us is—though it does not originate like that—a moral one. Among scientists, deep-natured men know, as starkly36 as any men have known, that the individual human condition is tragic; [20]for all its triumphs and joys, the essence of it is loneliness and the end death. But what they will not admit is that, because the individual condition is tragic, therefore the social condition must be tragic, too.[21]Because a man must die, that is no excuse for his dying before his time and after a servile37 life. The impulse behind the scientists drives them to limit the area of tragedy, to take nothing as tragic that can conceivably38 lie within men’s will. [22] They have nothing but contempt for those representatives of the traditional culture who use a deep insight into man’s fate to obscure39 the truth, justto hang on to a few perks40. Dostoevski sucking up to the Chancellor Pobedonostsev, who thought the only thing wrong with slavery was that there was not enough of it; the political decadence of the avant-garde41 of 1914, with Ezra Pound finishing up broadcasting for the fascists; Claudel agreeing sanctimoniously42 with the Marshal about the virtue in others’ suffering; Faulkner giving sentimental reasons for treating Negroes as a different species. They are all symptoms of the deepest temptation of the clerks—which is to say: “[23]Because man’s condition is tragic,everyone ought to stay in their place, with mine as it happens somewhere near the top.” From that particular temptation, made up of defeat, self-indulgence, and moral vanity, the scientific culture is almost totally immune. It is that kind of moral health of the scientists, which, in the last few years, the rest of us have needed most; and of which, because the two cultures scarcely touch, we have been most deprived.。

卞毓麟天文科普作品的特征及其教育价值发微

卞毓麟天文科普作品的特征及其教育价值发微

卞毓麟天文科普作品的特征及其教育价值发微作者:曹勇军来源:《科普创作》2020年第04期[编者按]加强科普作品评论,总结创作经验,是繁荣科普原创的必由之路。

对科普名家作品的鉴赏,更是评论活动的应有之义。

近年来,科普创作界开展了一系列对科普名家的研讨活动。

中国科普作家协会、中国科普研究所、上海市科学技术协会于2016年12月主办的“加强评论,繁荣原创——卞毓麟科普作品研讨会”就是其中影响颇广的一次活动。

卞毓麟先生是天文学家,也是著名的科普作家和科普理论家。

他1965年毕业于南京大学天文学系,在中国科学院北京天文台从事科研30余年,1998年赴上海科技教育出版社专事科技出版事业。

著译《星星离我们有多远》等图书30余种,科普类文章约700篇,作品屡获国家级和省部级奖,文章多次入选中小学语文课本。

研讨会是对卞毓麟先生科普创作历程和作品的回顾与总结,也是将研讨创新繁荣科普创作落到实处、推动科普原创再上新台阶的契机。

中国科协党组副书记、副主席、书记处书记徐延豪在研讨会上强调,特别希望借此契机,在总结科普传播、科普创作成功经验的基础上,进一步加大对科普原创作品、科普创作队伍建设等方面的支持力度,做出更大的业绩,为我国科普事业多作贡献。

中国工程院院士、华东师范大学校长、上海市科普作家协会理事长钱旭红会上指出,当下科普创作不易、科普名家难寻,社会的科普文化氛围亟待增强,针对此现状,十分有必要加强对已有科普作品的关注与评论。

承办单位上海市科普作家协会,决议在研讨成果的基础上,进一步开展论文征集活动,正式出版卞毓麟《挚爱与使命——卞毓麟科普作品评论文集》(上海科技教育出版社,2019年5月,见本期封底书讯)。

该书有助于我们理解卞毓麟作品的写作特色、风格,用寄语篇、思想篇、风格篇、影响篇、档案篇五个部分,全方位展示了卞毓麟的科普工作。

中国科学院院士、中国科普作家协会理事长周忠和在代后记中表示,以卞毓麟为代表的一代投身科普创作的科技工作者,内心具有厚重的社会使命感,这将激励更多后辈在科普的道路上耕耘、前行。

  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Charles Percy Snow斯诺简介1905-1980 Strangers and Brothers陌生人与兄弟们;The Light and the Dark光明与黑暗;Time of Hope希望的时刻;The Masters院长们;The New Men新人;Homecoings归家;The Conscience of the Rich富人的良心;The Affairs事件;Corridors of Power权力走廊;The Sleep of Reason理智沉眠;Last Things结局in full Charles Percy Snow, Baron Snow Of The City Of Leicesterborn Oct. 15, 1905, Leicester, Leicestershire, Eng.died July 1, 1980, LondonC.P. SnowBritish novelist, scientist, and government administrator.Snow was graduated from Leicester University and earned a doctorate in physics at the University of Cambridge, where, at the age of 25, he became a fellow of Christ's College. After working at Cambridge in molecular physics for some 20 years, he became a university administrator, and, with the outbreak of World War II, he became a scientific adviser to the British government. He was knighted in 1957 and made a life peer in 1964. In 1950 he married the British novelist Pamela Hansford Johnson.In the 1930s Snow began the 11-volume novel sequence collectively called “Strangers and Brothers” (published 1940–70), about the academic, public, and private life of an Englishman named Lewis Eliot. The novels are a quiet (though not dull) and meticulous analysis of bureaucratic man and the corrupting influence of power. Several of Snow's novels wereadapted for the stage. Later novels include In Their Wisdom (1974) and Coat of Varnish (1979).As both a literary man and a scientist, Snow was particularly well equipped to write a book about science and literature; The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959) and its sequel, Second Look (1964), constitute Snow's most widely known—and widely attacked—position. He argued that practitioners of either of the two disciplines know little, if anything, about the other and that communication is difficult, if not impossible, between them. Snow thus called attention to a breach in two of the major branches of Western culture, a breach long noted but rarely enunciated by a figure respected in both fields. Snow acknowledged the emergence of a third “culture” as well, the social sciences and arts concerned with “how human beings are living or have lived.” Many of Snow's writings on science and culture are found in Public Affairs(1971). Trollope: His Life and Art (1975) exemplifies Snow's powers in literary criticism, as does The Realists: Eight Portraits (1979).LifeBorn in Leicester, Snow was educated at the Leicestershire and Rutland College, now the University of Leicester, and the University of Cambridge, where he became a Fellow of Christ's College in 1930.He served several senior positions in the government of the United Kingdom: as technical director of the Ministry of Labour from 1940 to 1944; as civil service commissioner from 1945 to 1960; and as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Technology from 1964 to 1966.[1] He was knighted in 1957 and made a life peer, as Baron Snow of the City of Leicester, in 1964.[1]Snow married the novelist Pamela Hansford Johnson in 1950. They had one son. Friends included the mathematician G. H. Hardy, for whom he would write a brief biographical foreword in A Mathematician's Apology, the physicist P. M. S. Blackett, the X-ray crystallographer J. D. Bernal and the cultural historian Jacques Barzun. In 1960, he gave the Godkin Lectures at Harvard University, about the clashes between Henry Tizard and F. Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell), both scientific advisors to British governments around the time of World War II. The lectures were subsequently published as Science and Government. For the academic year 1961 to 1962, Lord and Lady Snow served as Fellows on the faculty in the Center for Advanced Studies at Wesleyan University.Literary workSnow's first novel was a whodunit, Death under Sail (1932). In 1975 he wrote a biography of Anthony Trollope. But he is better known as the author of a sequence of novels entitled Strangers and Brothers depicting intellectuals in academic and government settings in the modern era. The Masters is the best-known novel of the sequence. It deals with the internal politics of a Cambridge college as it prepares to elect a new master, and has all the appeal of being an insider’s view. The novel depicts concerns other than the strictly academic influencing the decisions of supposedly objective scholars. The Masters and The New Men were jointly awarded the James Tait BlackMemorial Prize in 1954. Corridors of Power added a phrase to the language of the day.In The Realists, an examination of the work of eight novelists — Stendhal, Honoréde Balzac, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Benito Pérez Galdós, Henry James and Marcel Proust — Snow makes a robust defence of the realistic novel.The storyline of his novel, The Search, is referenced in Dorothy L. Sayers' Gaudy Night, and is used to help elicit the murderer's motive.The Two CulturesMain article: The Two CulturesOn 7 May 1959, Snow delivered an influential Rede Lecture called The Two Cultures, which provoked "widespread and heated debate". Subsequently published as The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, the lecture argued that the breakdown of communication between the "two cultures" of modern society —the sciences and the humanities —was a major hindrance to solving the world's problems. In particular, Snow argues that the quality of education in the world is on the decline. For example, many scientists have never read Charles Dickens, but artistic intellectuals are equally non-conversant with science. He wrote:A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy. The response was cold: it was also negative. Y et I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?'I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question — such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, 'Can you read?' — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.The satirists Flanders and Swann utilised the first part of this quotation as the basis for their short monologue and song "First and Second Law".WorksFictionStrangers and Brothers SequenceTime of Hope, 1949George Passant (first published as Strangers and Brothers), 1940The Conscience of the Rich, 1958The Light and the Dark, 1947The Masters, 1951The New Men, 1954 Homecomings, 1956The Affair, 1959Corridors of Power, 1963The Sleep of Reason, 1968Last Things, 1970Other FictionDeath Under Sail, 1932The Search, 1934The Malcontents, 1972In Their Wisdom, 1974A Coat of V arnish, 1979Non-fictionScience and Government, 1961The two cultures and a second look, 1963 V ariety of men, 1967The State of Siege, 1968Public Affairs, 1971Trollope: His Life and Art, 1975The Realists, 1978The Physicists, 1981。

相关文档
最新文档