这种观点归咎于反城市化的偏见,也归功于清醒冷静的分析。
This view owes as much to anti-urban bias as it does to sober analysis.
我们必须诚实并且毫无偏见地来分析它。
We must be honest and unprejudiced as we attempt to analyze it.
伯克利分校地球研究小组的论文表明他们的分析能够容纳这些偏见。
The Berkeley Earth papers suggest their analysis is able to accommodate these biases.That is a notable, though not original, achievement.
They are simply analytical tools. They're not inherently biased. They can be applied fairly to the text, and they're extraordinarily useful. It's just that some of the earlier practitioners of these methods did have ideological axes to grind, and we need to be aware of that.
所以它们只是分析工具,本身并不带有偏见,它们是十分有用的,完全可以运用于文本,但一些早期实施者并没有将其,融会贯通,我们必须意识到这一点。
The historical critical method, and the documentary hypothesis in particular, are not inherently biased, I want to make that point very strongly. They are simply analytical tools: look at the text and its features and draw some conclusions based on what you're finding.
这里我想要特别强调的是,历史的批判性研究方法,尤其是底本学说,本身是不带偏见的,它们只是分析工具,对文本及其特征进行评判,然后根据你的发现作出结论。
应用推荐