A model cannot be proven, but it can gain credibility through evidence. Suppose that a model is successful in predicting the behavior of natural events. Would that prove the model to be true? Not exactly. It would prove the model to be useful. For example, Einstein predicted that the gravity of the earth would create a warp in the space-time continuum around the earth, and therefore the light of the sun would bend when it passed near to the earth. In 1919, during a total eclipse of the sun, the scientific community proved that sunlight bends as it passes the earth. This validation of Einstein's prediction gave prestige to him and his Theory of Relativity. Einstein's theory has proven useful to the space program.

一个模型不能被证明，但它可以通过证据赢得信誉。 假设一个模型成功地预测某些自然事件的行为。这是否 证明该模型是真实的？ 不完全是。 这将证明该模型是有用的。 举例来说，爱因斯坦曾预言地球的引力造成时空连续体环绕地球的弯曲，并因此导致太阳光通过接近地球时发生弯曲。 1919 年，在一次日全食期间，科学界（ scientific community ）证明，阳光经过地球时确实发生弯曲。对 爱因斯坦该项预言的这项验证提高了爱因斯坦及其相对论的威信。爱因斯坦的理论已经证明有益于太空计划。

Did Einstein prove that the reason light bends when it passes the earth is a warp in the space-time continuum? Not necessarily. The light might bend due to other causes. As a ray of light passes near the earth, it must cut through the atmosphere, which might bend the ray through the refraction of light. If light consists of sub-atomic particles that have mass, the gravity of the earth can bend a ray of light. If light has electromagnetic characteristics, the magnetic fields of the earth might attract it. Some maverick scientists believe that both gravity and light are electromagnetic forces.
但是， 爱因斯坦是否证明太阳光经过地球时确实存在着太空时空连续的弯曲？ 不一定。 太阳光可能由于其他原因造成弯曲。 作为光辐射通过接近地球时，它必须穿过大气层，它可能通过折射光而导致光线弯曲。 如果光线由有质量的亚原子粒子构成，地球的重力可能导致光线的弯曲。 如果光有电磁特性，地球的磁场也可能吸引光线。 某些独立研究科学家们认为，重力和光都是电磁力。

The nature of gravity and light is paradoxical and mysterious. Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who revolutionized the physics of gravity, insisted that he did not understand anything about gravity but its most superficial qualities. He wrote in his diary:

重力与光的性质具有严重的矛盾和神秘性。艾萨克 ·牛顿爵士（ 1642 年至1727 年），对重力的物理学发挥了革命性作用，他坚持说，除了对重力最肤浅的素质外，他并不明白什么。 他在日记中写道：

"I do not know what I appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a pebble or a smoother shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered all around me."

我不知道我的出现对世界意味着什么；但心想我似乎像一个在海岸边玩耍的男孩，以不时找到一个卵石或者比一般贝壳更平滑一些的一个贝壳为乐，而在此同时，我的周围躺着处处尚未被发现的伟大真理的海洋 ”。

The scientists of the early twentieth century were in no mood for such scrupulous diffidence. They hastily overgeneralized from the experiments during the eclipse of 1919, and concluded that Einstein had discovered a law of nature and had overthrown Newton's physics. Bacon must have turned over in his grave at this fallacy of the sweeping generality.

20世纪初的科学家们对牛顿这样缺乏信心小心谨慎态度毫无情绪。 他们对 1919年日食期间的实验过于轻率地概括，得出结论认为，爱因斯坦发现了自然的一个规律并且推翻了牛顿的物理学。 对于这种大刀阔斧的通用性， 培根必定在他的坟墓里对此惊愕的翻了一个身。

The gap between a model and the secrets of nature has vexed the history of science as models have risen and fallen. Nevertheless, every school child is taught the myth that scientists discover the "laws of nature"--which is one thing scientists cannot do with models. The process of human reason in creating models is one thing, and the nature of the created world is another.

模型与自然界秘密之间的这种差异对科学史造成了长期困扰，因为许多模型有上又有下。 尽管如此，在每所学校里向孩子教神话，即科学家发现了 “自然法则 ”—而科学家不能同时发现模型。 人类理性创造模型过程是一回事，大自然创造的世界又是另一回事。

牛顿爵士

The assumption that reason and the realities of nature can be exactly the same is a fallacy of rationalism, which was exposed by philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason (1781) that we can empirically review the "phenomena" (outward appearance) of nature and use innate reason to draw useful conclusions. However, we can know nothing through this process about the "numina" (inward realities) of nature. Kant's conclusion is in perfect accord with Newton's diffident awareness about the limits of his knowledge, and Bacon's warning against sweeping generalizations.

哲学家康德（1724-1804 ）揭示，假设原因和自然的现实可以完全一样，这是一种理性主义的谬论。在纯粹理性批判 （ 1781 年）康德写道，我们可以实证性地检视自然 “现象 ”（外表）的性质，并使用先天原因得出有益的结论。 但是，在这一过程中，我们对自然界的 “numina”（内在现实）依然毫无所知。 康德的结论，完美地符合于牛顿对自己知识限界的认识，同时与培根对大刀阔斧通用性的警告一致。

However, I object to Kant's strict insistence that because we cannot know about the inner realities of nature through the process of rational empiricism, we cannot know anything about these realities by any means. Kant has no grounds for being that specific and exclusive about what we can know. Here, once again, is the specificity fallacy by which modern scientists, with the sanction of Kant, restrict to themselves the power of knowing all of what man can know with any certainty. They claim a monopoly on authentic knowledge through the scientific method. This resembles the gnostic fallacy, a claim that only an initiated elite has access to a higher esoteric knowledge. The epistemological imperialism of modern science is a far cry from the cautious empiricism of Bacon and the diffident wisdom of Newton.

但是，我反对把康德严格坚持的原则，即他认为：由于我们通过理性实证主义过程不能了解自然的内在实际情况，因而我们以任何手段都不能了解这些现实情况。 康德没有理由对于我们具体能够了解什么。 在这里，再次是一种特异的谬误，现代科学家，在康德的制裁下，限制自己对人们能够认识事物到任何确定的程度的能力。 他们声称对通过科学方法获得正宗知识实施垄断。 这复现了诺斯替教派的谬论（注：相信神秘直觉说的早期基督教派），声称只有神授的精英才能进入到更高的深奥的知识。现代科学的 认识论的帝国主义，与谨慎的实证主义的培根和缺乏自信的智慧的牛顿相距甚远。