汉语使我们无缘诺贝尔奖吗？

飞狐

题记： 看了下面的报道，联想到最近美国同事送来的一首关于英语的诗歌。这首诗歌很幽默，提到了英语，作为语言，很非理性，很Crazy的一面。

下面是这篇报道：

    真的如这个教育心理学专家所说的：汉语使我们逻辑低下，而错失了诺贝尔奖？

    这位教育心理学专家提出的列子，“定金”和“订金”，“吃食堂”，“救火”的例子，我承认其中语言的不合理之处，但是下面的诗歌会指出英语很多的不合理之处，尤其是下面几句：

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which
your house can burn up as it burns down;
in which you fill in a form by filling it out
and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

全文如下：

English Language 

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes;
but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice;
yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,
and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,
yet hat in the plural would never be hose, and the plural of cat
is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
but though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
but imagine the feminine, she, shis and shim.

Let's face it,
English is a crazy language.

There is no egg in eggplant,
nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.

We take English for granted.
But if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea, nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends,
but not one amend?

If you have a bunch of odds and ends
and get rid of all but one of them,
what do you call it?

If teachers taught,
why didn't preachers praught?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables,
what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes, I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

In what other language do people recite at a play
and play at a recital?

Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?

Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which
your house can burn up as it burns down;
in which you fill in a form by filling it out
and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

Author Unknown 

那么，这些荒诞的英语并没有阻碍西方人士频频获诺贝尔奖。也没用理由相信汉语的一些非理性是妨碍我们获得诺贝尔奖的原因了。

那么，到底是什么使我们没用获得诺贝尔奖？获得诺贝尔奖是结果，让我们关住一下过程或手段：缺少逻辑思维训练。

这是这位教育心理学家的逻辑方法：

因为汉语的非合理性 ——————》所以中国人缺少逻辑思维——————》所以没有获得诺贝尔奖。

说传统中国文化中，缺少逻辑思维， 我到是承认这一点。在传统的中国文化里，尤其是很多“谋士”，“术士”，“纵横家”的思维中，逻辑不充分，论理不清楚，很多都停留在类比之类的修辞上，不能细细推敲。

一个例子是：

“子非鱼，安知鱼之乐也？”

和对这句话的回答：

“子非我，安知我不知鱼之乐也?”

只能作为诡辩，不能也不值得细细推敲。

中国的很多传统文化，只所以没有很多的影响和提高，大多归结到逻辑的缺乏。包括很多著名的传统理论，哲学。

在科学史中，大家公认的最大发明发现不是发明发现本身，而是发现了科学发现的方法：科学的发现方法，如实验，逻辑的推理。是这些方法，将现代的文明推到前所未有的高度。

英国的李约瑟曾问道：“为什么，五千年的中国文明没有产生科学？”缺乏逻辑，而没有发现科学发现的方法是一种可信的解答之一。

可惜，这些科学的发现方法，如实验，逻辑的推理，在中国的传统文化中没有体现。即使在当代的“所谓”科学中，都没有体现出来。

最明显的就是中医。当看到很多所谓的中医“名家”信口开河，随意的发出结论，而这些结论又是似是而非，没有充足的证据，很多时概念混乱时，对中医的信心就愈发低了。

也许中医是好的，但是，没有了科学的态度，只会成为“江湖骗子”骗人的把戏。如果西方以科学的手段来研究它，也许，到末了，中国还得反过来像别的国家学习，借鉴。

另一个缺少逻辑思维的原因：是因为中国人没有理性辩论的习惯。我们也辩论，或是只有“义气”的辩论；或是“官大一级压死人”，谁级别高，谁就有理；或是网上的歇斯底里的谩骂，诸如“方韩”之争。

哎，如果中国历史上的“百家争鸣”能够持续坚持下去，也许这种习惯就会形成了。

还有一个思考：除了科学的发现方法，还有其他的方法来获得到科学的发现吗？也许这个值得讨论，商榷。

我作为炎黄子孙，非常希望其中的很多人能够站在诺贝尔奖的台上，希望炎黄文化广为传播。所以，啰啰嗦嗦的写下这些话。也许，打击面有些大。