1.it is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope.
2.nor,if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect,is management to be blamed for discriminating against the odd balls among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who work well with the team.
3.the grand mediocrity of today——everyone being the same in survival and number of off-spring——means that natural selection has lost 80% of its power in upper-middle-class india compared to the tribe.
4. when a new movement in art attains a certain fashion,it is advisable to find out what its advocates are aiming at,for,however farfetched and unreasonable their principles may seem today,it is possible that in years to come they may be regarded as normal.
5.with regard to futurist poetry,however,the case is rather difficult,for whatever futurist poetry may be even admitting that the theory on which it is based may be right——it can hardly be classed as literature.
翻译
1.审查者完全有理由相信，知道自己准备做什么、怎么做的科学家不应该因为必须一只眼盯着收银机，一只眼盯着显微镜而分散了注意力。
2.如果科学家对标准式样的整齐划一的要求就像他论文的写作所反映的一样，那么管理层就不该因歧视研究者中的“思维与众不同的人”，喜欢其中较为传统的“善于团队合作”的思想者而受到指责了。
3.当今人与人在很大程度上的平等——即面对自然淘汰法则人人机会均等，并且连子嗣的数目都一样——意味着和在印度土著部落中的情况相比，印度中上层阶级中已丧失了80%的自然选择中的优势。
4.当艺术领域的一个新运动发展成某种流行时尚时，最好应该弄清这场运动倡导者的真正意图，因为，不管他们的原则在今天看来多么牵强无理，很可能多年以后他们的理论会被视为正常。
5.然而就未来主义诗歌来说，情况则不这么简单了，因为不管未来主义诗歌是什么——就算承认它赖以存在的理论基础都是正确的——这种形式也很难被归入文学。
