A Review of Two Translations of 'The Scientific Revolution'

A Review of Two Translations of 'The Scientific Revolution' by Yaser Khoshnevis

(1) Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Nickles, Phoenix Publications (1395)

(2) The Scientific Revolution, Steven Shapin, Kargadan Publishing (1396)

Author of the review: Saeed Alipour (PhD student in Science Studies)

This article consists of two general parts: the first part concerns the review of the first book, and the second part concerns the review of the second book. The second point is that in some cases, to the best of my meager knowledge, I have tried to offer my own suggested translation. It is obvious that my suggested translations are merely one of the correct meanings of the English sentences in the book, not their final translation. That is, it is clear that better and more expressive translations of them could also be provided.

Part One: The Book "Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Nickles, Phoenix Publications

The first flaw of this book, which probably goes back to the publisher and is noticeable in the very first line of the book, relates to a typographical error: throughout the entire book, the name Thomas Kuhn is written with a kasra under the 'h': Kuhen! The reader does not know who is meant: Kuhn or Cohen, whose name, incidentally, appears several times in this very book. But the second mistake:

On page 21, the translator's pen has slipped badly:

Originally a term applying to rotating wheels and including the revolution of the celestial bodies (as in Copernicus’ title: De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium)

The translator's translation: The term "revolution" was originally applied to rotating wheels and also encompassed the revolution of celestial bodies (as seen in the title of Copernicus's book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres). (p. 21)

If you pay attention, the translator completely ignores the beginning of the sentence where the author is talking about the root of the word (revolution) and then gives an example for it. For this reason, they have translated the title of Copernicus's book completely wrong: "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres"! If they had even searched the internet, they would not have made this glaring mistake: the correct form is: "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres." A few lines later, the same mistake is repeated:

Previously it had been an astronomical and astrological term limited to the revolution of the heavens, or to any complete circular motion.

The translator's translation: Previously, this term was an astronomical and astrological term and was limited to the revolution of the heavens or any completely circular motion. (p. 22)

Firstly, "revolution of the heavens"! is wrong and makes no sense. Its correct meaning is "revolution of the spheres." Secondly, even if we assume that "heavens" is correct here (which it never is), translating (heavens) as "heavens" is still wrong, and it should be translated as "heaven." The (s) here should not be mistaken for a plural 's'. This same mistake is repeatedly made in the second book (The Scientific Revolution, Steven Shapin) as well.

However, there is considerable disagreement about their import.

The translator's translation: However, there is considerable disagreement about the consequences of these [scientific] developments. (p. 11)

The translator has mistakenly translated the word (import) as "consequences." The original author of the book is talking about disagreement over the "meaning and significance" of the Scientific Revolution, not disagreement over its "consequences." This same mistake is repeated again on page 40.

Continuity theorists such as Pierre Duhem…

The translator's translation: Theorists such as Pierre Duhem ... (p. 29)

You can see that the adjective (continuity) has been omitted from the translation.

On page 27, the translator has rendered the phrase (frame of reference) as "intellectual framework"! instead of "frame of reference, criterion of judgment."

On page 45, the translator has rendered the phrase (key scientific practices) as «شیوه‌های عمل علمی کلیدی». I do not think this is an expressive equivalent. They could have translated it as «علم‌ورزی‌های مهم». The same issue recurs in several places in the book. For example, on page 52: «تأکید کوهِن بر شیوه‌های عمل علمی، در مقایسه با ...».

On page 49, the translator has rendered the phrase (theory of confirmation or corroboration) as «نظریۀ تأیید یا اثبات». None of these words means «اثبات». Rather, the first means «تأیید (تجربی)» and the second «تقویت (تجربی)» (especially in Popper's works).

On the same page 49, the translator has not written a correct equivalent for the phrase (urgent problem):

To explain how and why it had been so successful became an urgent problem for him.

The translator's translation: تبیین این امر که علم چگونه و چرا این چنین موفق بوده است به مسئله‌ای عاجل برای کوهن تبدیل شد. (p.49)

«مسئله‌ای عاجل»! This is meaningless. The meaning of the adjective (urgent) is clear: «مبرم، ضروری»

On page 51, the translator has rendered the phrase (research context) as «سیاق تحقیقاتی»: «دانشمندان در سیاق تحقیقاتی ... چگونه به ایده‌ها ... دست می‌یابند». This is not a meaningful equivalent. It would have been better to write: زمینه‌ی پژوهشی

On page 51, the translator has confused the word (perquisite) with (prerequisite) and translated it as «پیش‌نیاز».

On page 52,

For Kuhn the internalist, the technical goals of science are endogenously generated.

The translator's translation: به نظر کوهن، اهداف درون‌گرایانه و تکنیکی علم به نحوی درون‌زا شکل می‌گیرد. (p.52)

According to the sentence above, the adjective (internalist) relates to (Kuhn), not (goals). At the very beginning of this book, the author also points this out: (In this respect Kuhn remained an internalist.)

On page 79, the translator has rendered the phrase (The French Discontinuity Theorists) as «نظریه‌پردازان فرانسوی گسست». I do not think this is an expressive equivalent. They could have written instead «نظریه‌پردازان فرانسوی قائل به گسست».

And on page 81, it would have been better if the translator had written «علوم طبیعی» for the translation of «علوم فیزیکی» (physical science).

On page 82,

Here we find context sensitivities and heuristic resources difficult to capture in terms of a context- and content-neutral logic of science such as the logical empiricists espoused.

The translator's translation: در این‌جا حساسیت‌هایی به سیاق و منابعی راهنمونی را می‌یابیم که جای دادن آن‌ها در منطق علمیِ مستقل از سیاق و محتوا مانند آنچه تجربه‌گرایان منطقی از آن دفاع می‌کردند دشوار است. (p.82)

Here, the translator has not grasped the structure (find sth hard/easy/difficult to do). For this reason, they have presented an incorrect translation of the sentence. I also doubt they have correctly written the meaning of (capture).

As you can see, the errors in this short book are not very numerous. But the second book encompasses a wider range of errors, and its translation is not at all comparable to the translation of the first book. It is as if two different translators rendered them. In fact, the first book is more fluent and reliable, but the second book is never so. Below, I will point out some of them.

Part Two: The Book «انقلاب علمی», by Steven Shapin

1. 1. Inadequate/Incorrect Equivalents

Some “natural philosophers,” for example, advocated rational theorizing while others pushed a program of relatively atheoretical fact collecting and experimentation. Mathematical physics was, for example, a very different sort of practice from botany. (p.6)

The translator's rendering: Some "natural philosophers" supported traditional theorizing, while others pursued a relatively non-theoretical program of fact collecting and experimentation. For example, mathematical physics has a very different approach from botany. (p. 21)

As you can see, the translator has rendered the phrase (rational theorizing) as "traditional theorizing"! instead of rational/reason-based theorizing. It is clear that the author is contrasting two different approaches: one theoretical (rational) and the other non-theoretical (based on experience and experiment). They have also used the most commonplace equivalent for (fact collecting). But "collecting facts"! is meaningless. The translator should have used "collecting empirical data (or findings)" instead. Furthermore, the adjective "atheoretical" pertains to "fact," not "program." Moreover, it would have been better if, instead of the equivalent "natural philosophers"!, the translator had used "nature-investigating philosophers, or philosophers who study nature." [Of course, such superficial equivalents are very numerous in the book. We will point out some of them later. For example, the translator has rendered the meaning of (abstracted philosopher) as "abstract philosopher"! (p. 152). It would have been better to write: a philosopher solely engaged in abstract matters]. Besides this, there is no reason to change the tense of the last sentence's verb (was) to the present tense (is). The author is talking about the past, not the present.

A traditional construal of “social factors” … has focused on considerations taken to be “external” to science proper− for example, the use of metaphors from the economy in the development of scientific knowledge or the ideological uses of science in justifying certain sorts of political arrangements. (p. 9)

The translator's rendering: In the traditional interpretation of "social factors" ..., emphasis has been placed on considerations considered "external" to proper science, for example, the use of metaphors from the economy in the development of scientific knowledge or the ideological uses of science for the development of certain types of political arrangements. (p. 25)

The translator has rendered the equivalent of (science proper) completely incorrectly and meaninglessly: "proper science"! As you know, the word (proper) when placed after a noun has a meaning other than "suitable, correct, fitting": it means "itself; in the true sense of the word." This same mistake is repeated on p. 215 of the book. Later in the same sentence, due to using completely incorrect equivalents for (justifying: development!) and (political arrangements: political arrangements!), the translator has provided a meaningless translation: "the ideological uses of science for the development of certain types of political arrangements"!

Galileo’s view on sunspots, along with a body of other observations and theorizing, profoundly questioned a fundamental Aristotelian distinction between the physics of the heavens and that of the earth. (p.17)

The translator's rendering: Galileo's views on sunspots, along with a collection of other observations and theorizing, profoundly questioned the fundamental Aristotelian distinction between the heavens and the earth. (p. 34)

Here, it would have been more precise for the translator to render (observations) as "(astronomical) observations" rather than the commonplace meaning of "observations"! Therefore, at the beginning of p. 34 where "Galileo's observations" appears, they should have written: "Galileo's observations." Secondly, the translation of (the physics of) and the subsequent (that of) has been omitted from the translation. [Of course, such omissions are very abundant in the book. For example: on p. 27, the adjective "cultural" has been omitted from (cultural heterogeneity). Or on p. 21, the parenthetical clause (however it has been construed) has not been translated. Or on p. 125, instead of ("errors of reason" p.94), only "reason" has been written. Or on p. 157, in translating (academic dissent/ p.121), the adjective has not been translated, or on p. 232, in translating the phrase (postponed chemical revolution/ p.181), the word (chemical) has not been translated and they have only written "delayed revolution"! and so on.] Furthermore, throughout the entire book, the translator has rendered (heavens) as "heavens"! They have mistakenly taken the (s) here as a plural 's'.

Who could confidently say what did and did not exist in the world when tomorrow might reveal as yet undreamed-of inhabitants in the domains of the very distant and the very small? (p.20)

The translator's translation: Who could say with certainty what exists and what does not exist in the world, when tomorrow it might be revealed that there are beings in the far distances and in the domain of the very small that have not yet even been dreamed of? (p.38)

It would have been good if the translator had explained what they meant by the inadequate equivalent "domain of the very small"! Or at least written its English equivalent in a footnote for this newly coined term.

Corpuscularianism was advanced as a philosophically plausible way of making sense of the behavior of visible bodies. (p.50)

The translator's translation: Corpuscularianism was put forward as a philosophically acceptable way of giving meaning to the behavior of visible bodies. (p.74)

As far as I know, the new and strange equivalent "Corpuscularianism"! (Corpuscularianism) is not a common or suitable equivalent. Wouldn't the conventional equivalent "atomism" convey the meaning of the English word better? Furthermore, the phrase (make sense of sth) means "to understand and comprehend," not "to give meaning"!

In the footnote on p.136 of the book, this sentence appears:

The rhetorical character of such stipulations needs to be stressed…(P.103)

The translator has confused the word stipulation with speculation and mistakenly translated it as "speculations"!.

Right in the footnote on the next page, the translator has also translated the phrase (mechanical explanation/ P.104) as "causal explanation"! (p. 137)

Again on the next page, they commit another mistake:

(but( our controversy is nor what God can do, but about what can be done by natural agents not elevated above the sphere of nature …(p.105)

The translator's translation: but our controversy is not over what God can do, but about this, that natural agents that do not go beyond the sphere of nature ... (p.138)

Translating (sphere of nature) as "the sphere of nature"! is completely meaningless. They should have translated it as "the circle/realm of nature."

It is traditional to trace the contours of the Scientific Revolution through the texts of individual practitioners. (p.106)

The translator's translation: It is traditionally customary to trace the course of the Scientific Revolution through the texts of individual practitioners. (p. 139)

Firstly, the word "traditionally" is redundant. As you know, (it is traditional to…) means "it is customary, it is usual to." Secondly, the translator has confused (contours) with (course). Thirdly, the phrase "individual practitioners"! is meaningless. They should have translated it as "individual practitioners or one by one scholars/practitioners of science." This superficial equivalent is repeated in several other places in the book: (e.g., p. 156).

A program of systematic fact collection could form a register of natural and artificial effects. (p.111)

The translator's translation: A program for collecting facts could form a list of natural and artificial effects. (p.144)

An imprecise and incomprehensible sentence. Firstly, the word systematic has not been translated. Secondly, the translation of fact is incorrect for the reasons stated. Thirdly, "natural effects"! is a mistake. As you know, one of the meanings of effect is "phenomenon." This incorrect equivalent appears in other places in the book as well. For example: "... explanations that considered the purpose of natural effects as their cause."(p.198) The phrase "natural effects"! is meaningless. The correct equivalent of this phrase is (... the purpose of natural phenomena ...).

it now appears unlikely that the “high theory” of the Scientific Revolution had any substantial direct effect on economically useful technology in either the seventeenth century or the eighteenth. (p.140)

The translator's translation: It now seems unlikely that the Scientific Revolution, as described by its “high theory,” had any serious direct effect on economically efficient technology in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. (p.180)

An erroneous translation. I really don't know if the translator themselves understood the meaning of the sentence! I wish they had provided an explanation about “high theory”!

as far as their bodies are concerned, they are matter in motion, but they also have minds, and the phenomena of mind are not ultimately to be accounted for by matter in motion. (p.159)

The translator's translation: As far as bodies are concerned, they are materials in motion, but bodies also have minds, and mental phenomena are not ultimately explained on the basis of matter in motion. (p. 202)

The equivalents “materials in motion” and “matter in motion”! lack much sophistication. It would have been better if the translator had used “matter in motion” instead. Also, the translation of the second sentence lacks the necessary precision: “... mental phenomena should not ultimately be explained on the basis of matter in motion.”

while the possibility of such a radical distinction between scientific “is-knowledge” and moral “ought-knowledge” itself depends on separating the objects of natural knowledge from the objects of moral discourse. (p.162)

The translator's translation: At the same time, the possibility of such a distinction between scientific “knowledge of being” and moral “knowledge of ought” itself depends on separating the subjects of natural knowledge from the objects of moral discourse. (p.205)

Firstly, the adjective radical has been omitted from the translation. Secondly, the equivalents “scientific knowledge of being and moral knowledge of ought”! are very inadequate and incomprehensible. If the translator had included the original English in a footnote, the reader might have grasped something. But unfortunately, they wrote no footnotes at all. The translator could have translated them as “scientific knowledge of is’s (or existing things)” and “moral knowledge of oughts”—though expert translators certainly know better equivalents for these two phrases—and for better understanding, they could have included an explanation in a footnote about the is-ought distinction.

we still need a more vivid picture of what a range of modern natural philosophers actually did when they set about securing a piece of knowledge. Modern natural philosophers did not just believe things about the natural world. (p.95)

The translator's translation: We still need a more vivid picture of what modern natural philosophers actually did when they set about constructing a small piece of knowledge. (p.127)

In addition to mistakenly translating the verb securing (obtaining, acquiring) as “constructing”! here (which is why “constructing ... knowledge”! has turned out meaningless), there is no trace in the book of the translation of the last sentence: (Modern natural philosophers did not just believe things about the natural world.).

Continuing with this same sentence, the translator has also translated the phrase (abstract methodological formulas) as “formal methodological formulas”!, instead of: “abstract methodological rules.”

For Aristotle and many of his followers, natural phenomena were taken as givens. (p.81)

The translator's translation: According to Aristotle and many of his followers, natural phenomena were considered as given matters. (p.110)

Here, the translation of (givens) as “given matters”! makes no sense at all. The translator should have translated it as “axioms, self-evident truths, first principles.”

In addition to the above, many crude and incorrect equivalents can be found in this book. For example: on p. 182, the equivalent for (practice of science) is given as: «رویۀ علم»! Or on p. 99, the equivalent for (practice of observation) is «رویۀ مشاهده»! Or the equivalent for (philosophical practice) is given as: «رویۀ فلسفی»! In these cases, practice means «ورزیدن» not «رویه»: فلسفه‌ورزی (تفلسف), علم‌ورزی, مشاهده‌گری (or in the case of astronomical observations: رصدورزی, رصدگری). Or on p. 201, the translator has mistakenly rendered the term (strictly speaking) as: «به بیانی اکید»! The correct meaning of this term is something else: به عبارت دقیق‌تر; به معنی دقیق کلمه. Or for instance, on p. 24 of the book, it states: «آیا علم به سیاق‌های تاریخی و اجتماعیش مرتبط است؟» (p.24) «سیاق تاریخی و اجتماعی» (historical and social context) makes no sense! Instead, they should have used: «بستر تاریخی و اجتماعی». Or for example, the title of one of the book's subsections is: The Mechanics of Fact Making (p.89) and the translator has rendered it as «مکانیک واقعیت‌سازی (ص120)»! This equivalent is completely meaningless! The translator has mistranslated all three words (Mechanics, Fact, Making). They pay no attention to the other meanings of Mechanics (سازوکار, مکانیسم, شیوه, فن و فوت). A similar mistake is repeated on p. 96 of the original book regarding the title How to Make an Experimental Fact: «چگونگی ساختنِ یک واقعیت آزمایشی»! (p.127) This translation is also wrong and utterly meaningless for the reasons stated: «نحوه‌ی بدست آوردن داده‌های آزمایشگاهی/ مبتنی بر آزمایش». Because of these errors, the translation of the sentence that follows in the text has turned out completely meaningless:

It (= air pump) was the Scientific Revolution’s greatest fact-making machine. (p.96)

The translator's translation: این پمپ بزرگترین ماشین واقعیت‌سازی در انقلاب علمی قرن بیستم بود. (p.128)

Truly, does «ماشین واقعیت‌ساز»! have any meaning?

2. 2. Incorrect/Meaningless Sentences

… “most people” −even most educated people− in the seventeenth century did not believe what expert scientific practitioner believed, and the sense in which “people’s” thought about the world was revolutionized at that time is very limited. (p.6)

The translator's translation: «بیشتر افراد»، حتی تحصیل‌کرده‌ترینِ آنها، در قرن هفدهم به آنچه علم‌ورزان خبره باور داشتند معتقد نبودند، و بنابراین، طرز فکر «مردم» دربارۀ جهان در آن زمان در معنایی بسیار محدود دچار دگرگونی انقلابی شده بود. (p.22)

The translation of the second sentence is completely wrong.

Suggested translation: ... و این تلقی که تفکر مردم در آن دوران (یعنی در قرن هفدهم) بنیاناً متحول شده بود، تلقیِ چندان شایعی نبود.

The pride of place accorded in some traditional stories to mathematical physics and astronomy has tended to give an impression that these practices solely constituted the Scientific Revolution, or even that an account of them counts as what deserves telling about important novelty in early modern science. (p.11)

The translator's translation: اهمیت والایی که در برخی داستان‌های سنتی به فیزیک ریاضیاتی و ستاره‌شناسی داده می‌شود، این حس را به وجود آورده است که رویه‌های مذکور به‌تنهایی انقلاب علمی را به وجود آورده‌اند، یا حتی اینکه ارائۀ تبیینی از آنها همان چیزی است که دربارۀ تازگیِ بااهمیت در علم مدرن آغازین ارزش گفتن دارد. (p.28)

Once again, the choice of incorrect equivalents has rendered the second sentence completely meaningless. Does the sentence (... یا حتی اینکه ارائۀ تبیینی از آنها همان چیزی است که دربارۀ تازگیِ بااهمیت در علم مدرن آغازین ارزش گفتن دارد)! have any meaning? According to the sentence above, the pronoun (them) refers back to (practices). Furthermore, «تازگیِ بااهمیت» lacks meaning. Here, the translator should have translated (novelty) as «ابداعات، ابتکارات، نوآوری‌ها، دستاوردهای بدیع». It would also have been appropriate to render the phrase (early modern science) as «علم مدرن در دوران اولیه‌ی خود».

…, but this book will intermittently draw attention to the significance of reformed practices of making observation and constituting experience in a wider range of sciences. (p.12)

The translator's translation: But the present book intermittently draws attention to the importance of reformed procedures of observing and constructing experience in a wide range of sciences. (p.28)

A completely meaningless translation! If only the translator had explained in a footnote what they meant by this sentence.

Travelers from the New Worlds to east and west brought back plants animals and minerals that had no counterparts in European experience, and tales of still more. (p.19)

The translator's translation: Travelers from the New Worlds of East and West brought back plants, animals, and minerals that had no equivalent in European experience, and also reported the existence of more beings. (p.37)

The original sentence is not complex. But it is truly unclear what the beginning of the translation says. The translator apparently pays no attention to the structure (from… to…). They are also inattentive to the idiomatic meaning of (the New World). Furthermore, they have provided an incorrect meaning for (tales of still more).

The renovation of natural knowledge followed the enlargement of the natural world yet to be known. (p.20)

The translator's translation: The renovation of natural knowledge came about following the expansion of the natural world, a world that had to be known. (p.39)

The translator has mistranslated the last part of the sentence (yet to be known): "the world that was as yet unknown."

In the 1660s the English mechanical philosopher Robert Boyle (1627-91) wrote that the natural world was “as it were a great piece of clock-work.” (p.34)

The translator's translation: In 1660, the English mechanical philosopher, Robert Boyle (1627-1691), wrote that the natural world "is as if a very large clock." (p.54)

The meaning of all the words in the last sentence is clear. But the translator has provided another, imprecise meaning for it!

Bacon and his followers made much of so-called crucial instances. (p.92)

The translator's translation: Bacon and his followers, in many cases, provided things that are called decisive instances. (p.123)

Due to inattention to the meaning of (make much of: to value something greatly), the translator has provided a completely wrong translation of the sentence.

Philosophy, Newton complained, was an “impertinently litigious Lady.” (p.120)

The translator's translation: Newton complained that philosophy is a lady over whom everyone impudently quarrels. (p. 157)

A completely wrong translation. You can see Newton's full sentence in the book "Newton the Philosopher, Andrew Janiak, translated by Saeed Jafari, p.13":

Philosophy is such an “impertinently litigious lady” that a man had as good be engaged in law suits as have to do with her.

Philosophy resembles an impertinently litigious lady with whom, as long as her husband has dealings, he will constantly be dragged into court.

When systems of institutional control are working without significant challenge the authority of the knowledge embodied in the institutions seems similarly potent. (p.124)

The translator's translation: When systems of institutional control are working without serious challenge, the authority of knowledge is embodied in institutions that seem equally capable. (p.161)

A completely wrong and meaningless translation.

Suggested translation: When the apparatuses of institutional control continue to function without facing any significant challenge, the epistemic authority/credibility embedded in these institutions also appears robust.

When science is being done, society is kept at bay. (p.162)

The translator's translation: When science is accomplished, society also reaches the shores of tranquility. (p.206)

A completely incorrect and meaningless translation! As you know, (doing science) means "engaging in science," and the meaning of the idiom (keep sth/sb at bay) has nothing to do with "reaching the shores of tranquility"! Rather, it has a completely different meaning: "to stop, to block, to repel, to keep something/someone away, to hold something/someone off."

I think mentioning these points is sufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of this translation. This translation requires a fundamental revision. It is highly unlikely that Dr. Hossein Masoumi Hamedani, as stated in the translator's note, has studied this book!

The esteemed master Mojtaba Minovi, in his introduction to Kalila and Dimna, states a very important sentence: "Before undertaking the printing of this book, I have tried to understand the meaning of every line of it, and then I have set out to make it understood." If only all our translators would take this sentence as the motto of their work.