急急急！！！！求翻译

这里的关键点是因果关系。杞人忧天者们说，媒体暴力造成攻击性，已得到证明。但是，他们假设出来作观察的理据须被检讨。当把游戏标记为暴力或非暴力时，那“英雄吃鬼”的游戏当真该被列入暴力类吗？当实验工作者记录游戏玩家从列表中读取“攻击性”或“非攻击性”词汇的时候，我们能确定他们实际测量的是什么吗？新哈佛媒体和儿童健康中心意图收集和标准化媒体暴力研究，以便在方法、假设和结论作比较，这是迈向正确方向的重要一步。
在未更透彻了解之前，各方都应该收敛一下评论。有好些研究人员都对媒体暴力构成的威胁，都肆意地发表了很多著作、言论和声明。当然，那是他们的权利。但是，在他们发表的声明的同时，往往事件已经得到解决，并引来同侪的批评。于是，杞人忧天者就作出反驳，说评论家和新闻记者们是被娱乐业欺骗了。这种冲突对科学和社会毫无裨益。

~~~~~~纯人手翻译，欢迎采纳~~~~~~

原文如下：
The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labelling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event? And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ‘aggressive’or ‘non-aggressive’words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring? The intent of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health, to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions, is an important step in the right direction.
Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society.

百度搜在线翻译，英译中