In the idealized version of how science is done,
在科学研究的理想状态下，
facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work.
关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。
But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route.
但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。
We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience.
我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。
Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take.
之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所经历的，会影响我们对于经验意义的思考，以及我们会采取的随后的行动。
Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
这里充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。
Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience.
所以，对于发现的申明应该被当做是科学的原型。
Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential.
这与新近开发的采矿资源比较类似，他们都充满着可能性。
But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery.
但是将发现的申明变为一个成熟的发现是需要集体的审查和集体的接受。
This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher's me, here,
这个过程就配称之为"信用的过程"，通过这个过程一个单个研究者的"我"
now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime.
在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何时间。
Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
客观的知识不应该是起点而是目标。
Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit.
一旦一个科学发现变成公开的，那么发现者就获得了知识的认可。
But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next.
但是和采矿权不一样的是，科学协会将控制接下来会发生的事情。
Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries;
在复杂的科研机构的社会结构中，研究者去做出发现；
editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process;
编辑和审稿者通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色；
other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes;
其他的科学家使用新的发现来满足他们自己的目标；
and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology.
最后，公众（也包括其他科学家）接受到新的发现和可能相伴随的技术。
As a discovery claim works it through the community,
当一个发现的声明最终通过了机构的审查，
the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved
在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触的信念之间的互动和冲突
transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery.
将把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现
Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.
在整个信任的过程中存在着两个悖论，
First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.
第一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。
Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.
去复制和确认已经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。
The goal is new-search, not re-search.
科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是再次探究。
Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing
不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现
will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers.
将会被后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在的修改甚至驳斥。
Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief.
第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本身就经常会招致怀疑。
Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as
诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾经将发现描述为：
"seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought."
"观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。"
But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views.
但是思考其他人没有想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。
Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。
In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim
最后，一个科学的发现获得了信任，
a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.
这个过程是与哲学家Annette Baier所描述的心灵的共性的观点是一致的。
"We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason."
"我们共同去推理，去质疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。
