How can we reconcile our experience in everyday endeavors with the basic assumption underlying the scientific method? Perhaps the answer lies in a distinction between two types of knowledge——one which amounts to a mere collection of observations (i.e., facts and information), the other which is deeper and includes a realization of principles and truths underlying those observations. At this deeper level "knowledge" equals "under- standing": how we interpret, make sense of, and find meaning in the information we collect by way of observation.

作者就上一段提出的问题推出自己的解决方法，即认识到“知识”分成两种：纯观察行为所得的信息；萃取之后的经过自己消化后的“理解”。但我觉得这里还有待发挥，估计是时间不够了，仓促间收笔吧。没有很好的说明白。

In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker's assertion requires that we define "knowledge,'which in turn requires that we address complex epistemological issues best left to philosophers and theologians. Yet perhaps this is the speaker's point: that we can never truly know either ourselves or the world, and that by recognizing this limitation we set ourselves free to accomplish what no amount of mere information could ever permit.

最后一句玩了复杂句的构句技巧，想搏ets一笑。但我觉得还是总结的不够好，没有说到点子上。其实，我们平实的写作大可不必如此玩弄文字，因为如果当别人都不知道你在说什么的话，一味专心于难句，无异于“喧宾夺主”了.