Perhaps it is the result of years of challenging students in Oxford tutorials, but my friends sometimes describe me as counter-suggestible – too inclined to point out weaknesses even in well presented arguments for motherhood and apple pie. So it is an unusual experience for me to leave a debate persuaded by both sides.

或许是多年来在牛津大学(Oxford)课堂上挑战学生的结果，我的朋友有时说我是“耳根硬”的人——即便是对有板有眼的关于母性和苹果派的论点，我也总喜欢指出其中的弱点。所以，要我在离开一场辩论时觉得双方的观点都有点道理，是一件不寻常的事。

But that was my reaction last week to a discussion at Columbia University’s Center on Capitalism and Society. Both protagonists are professors at Northwestern University in Illinois. In one corner was Robert Gordon, famous for his pessimistic view of the technological future. In the other was Joel Mokyr, the pre-eminent modern economic historian of technology.

但这是上周我对在哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)资本主义与社会中心(Center on Capitalism and Society)举行的一场讨论的反应。两位主角都是伊利诺斯州西北大学(Northwestern University)的教授。一位是以对科技未来持悲观态度著称的罗伯特·戈登(Robert Gordon)。另一位是知名的现代科技经济历史学家乔尔·莫凯尔(Joel Mokyr)。

Prof Gordon argued that in the century from 1870 to 1970, technological progress advanced at a pace that is unprecedented and probably unrepeatable. Several transformational technologies were implemented simultaneously – electricity, motorised transport, plumbing and sanitation.

戈登教授辩称，从1870年到1970年的一个世纪，科技进步的步伐前所未有，可能再也不会重现。几项变革性技术同时出现：电力、机动化运输、水管和下水道设施。

Try to imagine a world in which the only power available outside large factories is provided by the physical effort of humans or animals. A world in which artificial light is costly and of poor quality. A world in which most people spend their whole lives within a few miles of where they were born, and most goods must be consumed within a few miles of where they are made. Women must spend almost all their time on mundane domestic tasks – fetching and carrying water, creating heat for the home and for cooking, making, repairing and washing clothes. That was how most people lived before the scientific and industrial revolution. In many parts of the globe, it is still how they live.

想象这样一个世界：大型工厂之外的唯一动力是由人力和畜力提供的。在这个世界中，人造灯光成本高，质量差。在这个世界里，多数人的一生都在出生地周围几英里的范围内度过。妇女大部分时间不得不用在繁琐的家务活上：挑水担水，给家里烧火取暖做饭，裁衣缝补浣洗。这便是科技和工业革命之前多数人的生活方式。如今在地球的很多角落，人们仍这样生活。

We will never see such a transformation again, Prof Gordon argued. Since 1970, there has been dramatic progress in one group of technologies – computers, electronics and IT. But in most other areas of industrially applied science – materials, pharmacology, fuel and power, transport – game-changing innovation has given way to incremental improvement. The 747 in which I crossed the Atlantic was still recognisably the same aircraft as the one in which I first made the trip 40 years ago. Forty years before that, commercial aviation barely existed; 40 years earlier still, Lord Kelvin, the great scientist, said manned flight was impossible.

戈登教授辩称，我们将再也看不到这样的变革了。自1970年以来，一类技术取得了戏剧化进步——计算机、电子技术和IT。但在其他多数工业应用科学领域——材料、药理学、燃料和电力、运输——翻天覆地的创新已让位于渐进式改进。我飞越大西洋时乘坐的747飞机，仍能看出来与我40年前首次飞越大西洋时所乘坐的飞机没什么不同。而再把时钟倒拨40年的话，商业飞行几乎不存在。再往前40年，伟大的科学家开尔文勋爵(Lord Kelvin)声称，载人飞行是不可能的。

On the other side of the debate Prof Mokyr emphasised the limitations of our knowledge of the future. It is the nature of radical new technologies that to anticipate them is to be a long way along the road to inventing them. Citing historians Derek Price and Nathan Rosenberg, Prof Mokyr pointed out that the rise of industrial science was, in large part, the result of new instruments of discovery: notably the telescope, which enabled us to see on a large scale; and the microscope, which enabled us to see on a small scale. No one could have anticipated the breadth and depth of knowledge that would result.

辩论的另一方莫凯尔教授强调了人类未来知识的局限。全新科技的本质意味着，预见到这种科技，就等于在发明它们的道路上走了很长一段路。莫凯尔教授引用历史学家德里克·普莱斯(Derek Price)和内森·罗森堡(Nathan Rosenberg)的话指出，工业科学的崛起在很大程度上是新颖发现工具的结果：尤其是望远镜和显微镜。望远镜让我们能够看到宏观尺度；显微镜则可以看到微观尺度。谁都没有预料到这种能力所带来的知识的广度和深度。

The addition of data processing capability to our instruments of discovery, Prof Mokyr argued, presaged a revolution of comparable significance in our capacity to see and hence begin to understand the universe. The CAT scanner and the cruise missile are simple examples of how a computer linked to sensing devices can find and achieve things far beyond the scope of either alone.

莫凯尔教授表示，在我们的发现工具之上增添数据处理能力，预示着我们的观察能力出现了同样重大的革命，从而能够开始理解宇宙。CAT扫描仪和巡航导弹这样简单的例子表明，电脑与传感装置结合起来，发现和执行能力远远超出这两种技术单独的能力范围。

Knowledge is more than additive. What we learn when we bring two bodies of knowledge together may be much more than the sum of each alone. That is why the technological improvements that make it easier to gain access to that knowledge are so important. We do not know what we will discover, only that there is a lot still to be discovered

知识不只是点缀。当我们把两套知识结合在一起，我们能够了解的东西也许远远超过两套知识简单相加之和。这就是为什么让人们能够更容易获取这种知识的科技进步是如此重要。我们不知道我们将发现什么，只知道仍有大量知识有待发现。

The conflicting positions are both persuasive. Yet both sides were able to agree on one proposition. The innovations that cause so much excitement among current technophiles, such as big data and small robots, are by historical standards modest. The car is transformational, the driverless car incremental. Substituting a wire or a radio wave for a physical messenger is revolutionary; in comparison, email and fibre optic cable represent a modest further step.

这两种对立的立场都颇有说服力。但双方都同意一个命题：让当今科技爱好者兴奋不已的创新，例如大数据和微型机器人，按历史标准看都很普通。汽车是变革性的，但无人驾驶汽车只是改进而已。用电线和无线电取代人力信使是革命性的，相比之下，电子邮件和光缆只代表了一小步进步。

Prof Mokyr noted the eloquent disappointment of tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel: “We wanted flying cars, and they gave us 140 characters.” A preliminary to understanding the future is to recognise how little we do – or can hope to – know.

莫凯尔教授谈到了企业家彼得·蒂尔(Peter Thiel)颇为雄辩的失望之词：“我们想要能飞行的汽车，结果他们给了我们140个字符的输入框。”要理解未来，首先要明白我们实际掌握的知识是多么浅薄，或者说我们所期望了解的知识是多么浅保