不幸的是,一些科学新闻也会过度简化、概括他们的主题材料,以至于模糊了所传达的基本信息,或者最糟糕的是,传达明显错误的信息。
Unfortunately, pieces of science journalism can also oversimplify and generalize their subject material to the point that the basic information conveyed is obscured or at worst, obviously wrong.
他称其为“机长综合症”,他说是因为“当机长做出一个明显错误的决定时,有多个飞行员的飞机上的机组人员有时会表现出致命的被动性”。
He calls it captainitis because, he says, "crew members of multi-pilot aircraft exhibit a sometimes deadly passivity when the flight captain makes a clearly wrong-headed decision".
不管使用什么方法,实际上只有一个方法是明显错误的:大桶方法,即将一切抛到一个目录中。
Whatever approach you take, there's really only one patently wrong one: the big bucket approach, where you throw everything into one directory.
I've read through the same thing twenty times and I've missed something obvious. Someone who's never seen it before looks at and says, did you really mean to do this?
但是它们有一双旁观者之眼,我把同一段代码读上20遍,都会漏掉一些很明显的错误,从没看过这段代码的人会告诉我?
More generally, Chomsky suggests that the law of effect when applied to humans is either trivially true, trivially or uninterestingly true, or scientifically robust and obviously false.
更一般的来讲,乔姆斯基认为应用在人类身上的效果律,要么是无效且毫无意义的正确假说,要么就是稳定且明显的错误假说。
By the way, your text has a glaring error.
顺便说一下,教科书上有个很明显的错误。
应用推荐