【推荐3】When the Titanic sank, approximately 1, 509 of its 2214 passengers passed away. A majority of them died because the ship carried lifeboats for only half of the people on board. By all accounts, most died either by drowning or of hypothermia, since the temperature of the water was -2° C (28° F), in which death occurs in about fifteen minutes. The survival rate for men was 19%, for women 72%, and for children, 50%. Most survivors were first class passengers, followed by second class, and finally third class. Six of the seven children in first class survived, and all of the children in second class survived, but only about 31 percent were saved in third class.

In short, the available evidence from the Titanic disaster suggests that we often care for others, even at some cost to ourselves. But why? Do we in fact psychologically tend to be altruistical? Or are we blank slates (白板) on which culture and education draws our character, for better or worse? The survival rates of women and children appear to support the former explanation; but the culturally prejudiced explanations of those facts appear to support the latter. Is there a way to judge between them?

The blank slate theory of human nature is related to the seventeenth-century English philosopher, John Locke. He argued that the mind should be considered as a blank sheet of paper until it is furnished by experience, which varies from person to person. Locke’s theory was a particularly effective way to weaken the influence of the church and of king’s right to rule, both of which were held to be self-evidently true.

The belief of the blank slate has proved to be greatly influential, extending far beyond the field of political theory. The social sciences generally have tried to explain human behavior as a product of the socialization of children by culture and education.

Which group has the highest survival rate in the Titanic accident?

【推荐1】On August 25, an American family’s vacation went terribly wrong. A man, his wife and their three children stopped at a shooting range (靶场) in the southwestern state of Arizona, where people pay to fire guns at targets. Charles Vacca worked for the business, called Bullets and Burgers. He helped the family’s nine-year-old girl shoot a submachine gun called an Uzi. But the girl lost control of the weapon. At least one bullet hit Mr. Vacca in the head. He fell to the ground. Later, he died of his injuries.

No one has been charged with a crime. In fact, the families of both Mr. Vacca and the girl have said they feel very bad for each other. But the event has made Americans talk once again about guns and children. In the United States, federal law bars anyone younger than 18 from owning a handgun. But, many state laws give young people the right to shoot all kinds of guns under certain conditions.

Some Americans say children (like adults) need to learn to shoot a weapon so they can protect themselves. Others say shooting guns is just part of the way they grow up. But “safety” is a word many people use when it comes to children and guns. Last year, the Pew Research Center reported that over one-third of American homes have a gun. So, the argument goes, children could easily see a gun at home, or in the home of a friend or neighbor, and decide to fire it. Indeed, the Nationwide Children’s Hospital says about 1,500 children die every year from a gun accident. Many more are injured.

Laura Cutilletta is a lawyer for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. She said most U. S. states have firm restrictions on keeping children away from guns in the home. But state laws about children hunting or shooting for fun, such as at a shooting range, are much looser.

In general, most states permit children to hunt or use a gun when an adult is with them. But, Laura Cutilletta notes that even a responsible adult cannot protect a child who is too young to shoot a gun safely. And, she says no one needs to shoot the most powerful guns just for fun.

【推荐3】For the past five years, Paula Smith, a historian of science, has devoted herself to re-creating long-forgotten techniques. While doing research for her new book, she came across a 16th-century French manuscript (手稿) consisting of nearly 1,000 sets of instructions, covering subjects from tool making to finding the best sand.

The author’s intention remains as mysterious (神秘) as his name; he may have been simply taking notes for his own records. But Smith was struck mainly by the fact that she didn’t truly grasp any of the skills the author described. “You simply can’t get an understanding of that handwork by reading about it,” she says.

Though Smith did get her hands on the best sand, doing things the old-fashioned way isn’t just about playing around with French mud. Reconstructing the work of the craftsmen (工匠) who lived centuries ago can reveal how they viewed the world, what objects filled their homes, and what went on in the workshops that produced them. It can even help solve present-day problems: In 2015, scientists discovered that a 10th-century English medicine for eve problems could kill a drug-resistant virus.

The work has also brought insights for museums, Smith says. One must know how an object was made in order to preserve it. What’s more, reconstructions might be the only way to know what treasures looked like before time wore them down. Scholars have seen this idea in practice with ancient Greek and Roman statues. These sculptures were painted a rainbow of striking colours. We can’t appreciate these kinds of details without seeing works of art as they originally appeared-something Smith believes you can do only when you have a road map.

Smith has put the manuscript’s ideas into practice. Her final goal is to link the worlds of art and science back together: She believes that bringing the old recipes to life can help develop a kind of learning that highlights experimentation, teamwork, and problem solving.

Back when science — then called “the new philosophy” — took shape, academics looked to craftsmen for help in understanding the natural world. Microscopes and telescopes were invented by way of artistic tinkering (修补), as craftsmen experimented with glass to better bend light.

“If we can rediscover the values of hands-on experience and craftwork,” Smith says, “we can marry the best of our modern insights with the handiness of our ancestors.”

【推荐1】Early fifth-century philosopher St．Augustine famously wrote that he knew what time was unless someone asked him．Albert Einstein added another wrinkle when he theorized that time varies depending on where you measure it．Today’s state-of-the-art atomic(原子的) clocks have proven Einstein right．Even advanced physics can’t decisively tell us what time is, because the answer depends on the question you’re asking．

Forget about time as an absolute．What if，instead of considering time in terms of astronomy,we related time to ecology?What if we allowed environmental conditions to set the tempo(节奏) of human life?We’re increasingly aware of the fact that we can’t control Earth systems with engineering alone，and realizing that we need to moderate(调节)our actions if we hope to live in balance．What if our definition of time reflected that?

Recently，I conceptualized a new approach to timekeeping that’s connected to circumstances on our planet，conditions that might change as a result of global warming．We’re now building a clock at the Anchorage Museum that reflects the total flow of several major Alaskan rivers，which are sensitive to local and global environmental changes．We’ve programmed it to match an atomic clock if the waterways continue to flow at their present rate．If the rivers run faster in the future on average，the clock will get ahead of standard time．If they run slower，you’ll see the opposite effect．

The clock registers both short-term irregularities and long-term trends in river dynamics．It’s a sort of observatory that reveals how the rivers are behaving from their own temporal frame(时间框架)，and allows us to witness those changes on our smartwatches or phones．Anyone who opts to go on Alaska Mean River Time will live in harmony with the planet．Anyone who considers river time in relation to atomic time will encounter a major imbalance and may be motivated to counteract it by consuming less fuel or supporting greener policies．

Even if this method of timekeeping is novel in its particulars，early agricultural societies also connected time to natural phenomena．In pre-Classical Greece，for instance，people“corrected”official calendars by shifting dates forward or backward to reflect the change of season．Temporal connection to the environment was vital to their survival．Likewise，river time and other timekeeping systems we’re developing may encourage environmental awareness．

When St．Augustine admitted his inability to define time， he highlighted one of time ‘s most noticeable qualities：Time becomes meaningful only in a defined context．Any timekeeping system is valid，and each is as praiseworthy as its purpose．

【推荐3】On March 7, I907, the English statistician Francis Galton published a paper which illustrated what has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of estimation he conducted showed that in some cases, the average of a large number of independent estimates could be quite accurate.

This effect capitalizes on the fact that when people make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to overestimate, and some to underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they cancel each other out, resulting in a more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become correlated or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.

But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting twist (转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average obtained from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.

In a follow-up study with I00 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together”. Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain, the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.