有三种科学：（1 ）开发假说的那些先驱首创科学，（ 2）从事综合性工作发展模型的科学，以及（ 3）在流行范式庇护下工作库恩称之为 “正常的科学 ”。

Pioneering scientists who develop hypotheses follow the evidence to see where it leads. The educational and public relations branch of the science establishment often claims that this is the approach of all true scientists. While this is often true of research scientists employed by business, it is rarely true of academic scientists hired by the institutional establishment to work within the prevailing paradigm. Such institutions rarely hire scientists to see where the evidence leads. They mainly hire them to seek support for the prevailing paradigm.

先驱首创的科学家发展假说，跟踪证据看他们引向那里。 “科学共同体 ”的 教育及公共关系分支往往声称这是所有所有真正的科学家途径。尽管这对于 受聘于企业的科研人员而言往往是真实的，对于研究机构聘用的在流行范式内工作的学术研究科学家而言，这却很少是真实。 这类机构很少聘用科学家们去看证据引向哪里。 他们聘请他们的主要目的是寻求对当代流行范式提供支持。

达尔文

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Kuhn described the nature of "normal science." When an accepted scientific theory dominates one of the branches of science, it becomes the "prevailing paradigm." One's entire education in that branch of science is under the tutelage of the prevailing paradigm, and one's employment by the science establishment is spent in the service of the prevailing paradigm.

在“ 科学革命的结构 ”， 库恩描述了 “正常的科学 ”（ "normal science" ）的性质。一旦 一项公认的科学理论在一个分支科学占居主导地位，它就成为 “现行范式 ”（ "prevailing paradigm" ）。 一个人在这门科学分支中的全部教育受到现行范式的监护，一个人受聘于 “科学共同体 ”则将服务于现行范式。

The most important problem faced by the overlords of the prevailing paradigm is "anomalies." An anomaly is a set of facts that seem to contradict the prevailing paradigm. Historically, all scientific models have had anomalies, and that is because there is always a gap between a human model and the secrets of nature. Anomalies typically become more vexing with the passage of time. If a branch of science has a prevailing paradigm, a great deal of the funded research will be devoted to the puzzle-solving work of wrestling with anomalies. This is what Kuhn called "normal science." A scientist who can find a satisfying solution to an anomaly to the prevailing paradigm is highly honored and rewarded by the science establishment. A major part of the toil of institutional scientists is puzzle-solving work in defense of the prevailing paradigm against anomalies.
普遍范式的霸头们所面临的最重要的问题是 “异常状况 ”。 一种异常状况是一套看来违背普遍范式的事实。 从历史上看，所有的科学的模型都有异常情况，这是因为人为建立的模型与自然界的秘密之间始终存在着差距。 异常随着时间的推移通常会变得更加棘手。 如果科学的一个学科分支存在着一个普遍的范例，大量研究资助经费将投入解开相当缠人异常谜团的研究工作。 这就是库恩所谓的 “正常的科学 ”。能够为一项普遍范式找到令人满意解决一种异常方案的 科学家将获得“ 科学共同体 ”的高度嘉奖与奖赏。研究机构科学家相当主要部分 的辛劳，是解开异常谜团的研究工作以防御普遍范式对异常的抵御。

If a maverick opponent of the prevailing paradigm calls public attention to an anomaly, he might soon have a hundred puzzle-solving specialists working against him. However, the endless toil of the puzzle-solvers becomes increasingly futile because of the growing blind spot of those who work within the prevailing paradigm. The puzzle-solvers become increasingly baffled by anomalies, and in extreme cases, are too blinded to recognize an anomaly. Therefore, instead of arguing with the mavericks, the blind puzzle-solvers dismiss them as cranks. "I cannot see it, and therefore, you are imagining things." This is precisely why evolutionists can say with a straight face that there is no evidence contrary to the evolution model.

如果普遍范式的一个独往独来的对手吁请公众对一种异常引起注意，他可能很快有上百个解难工作的专家对付他。 然而，普遍范式的这些解难者无休止的辛劳将变得越来越徒劳，因为对于那些在普遍范式内部工作的人来说，普遍范式的盲点变得越来越增大。普遍范式的这些解难者受到异常越来越强的阻碍，在极端情况下，他们盲目到甚至不认识一种异常。因此，普遍范式的这些盲目的解难者不再与独往独来的对手进行辩论，反而将他们视为怪人而不再理他们。 “我们看不到这些问题，因而，它们（异常）是你们想象出来的。 ”这也正是为什么生物进化论者可以直视你肯定地说，目前并没有与生物进化论模型相反的证据。

托勒密

Kuhn gave an amusing description of the efforts to deal with anomalies by the supporters of the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy that the sun and stars revolve around the earth. The movements of the planets and the stars refused to cooperate with their model. They made many revisions to the model to accommodate the anomalies. The ungainly appendages to the model multiplied until it resembled a hydra-headed monster. These obsessive puzzle-solvers deeply resented the suggestion that their distorted model might be false.

对于亚里士多德（Aristotle ）和托勒密（ Ptolemy）认为太阳和星星围绕地球的理论的支持者对付异常的努力，库恩（ Kuhn ）作了一种有趣的描述。 行星和恒星的运动，拒绝配合他们的模型。 他们对该模型提出了许多修改以容纳异常。对模型的这种 笨拙固执的维护不断增殖，直到他们的模型变成了九头怪蛇似的怪物。这些痴迷的解难高手对于有人认为他们的变态模型可能是错误的怨恨至极。

The puzzle-solving work of normal science in dealing with an anomaly is worlds away from following the evidence wherever it leads. The puzzle-solvers are cherry pickers of data in their war against anomalies. The legions of cherry pickers are not neutral and are not seekers of truth. They are partisan supporters of the prevailing paradigm. Contrary to popular myth, it was the anomaly-obsessed academic scientists of the prevailing paradigm of Aristotle and Ptolemy who were Galileo's fiercest opponents--but that is another story.
对付一种异常的 “正常的科学 ”的谜团解难工作，是远离追踪证据的世界，后者情况下追踪证据，无论证据将他们引向哪里。这些谜团解难工作者，在对付异常的战争中的作为，就像数据樱桃采摘者，抓到什么数据就投出什么数据。他们是维护普遍范式的游击支持者。与普遍的神话相反，亚里士多德（ Aristotle ）和托勒密（Ptolemy ）普遍范式被困惑的学院派科学家成为伽利略（ Galileo ）最尖锐的反对者— 但这是另一回事。

接续篇：-> 10) The nature of a scientific revolution 一场科学革命的性质