五千年(敝帚自珍)

主题:【原创】什么是科学以及我们如何走科学的道路 -- 曾自洲

共:💬34 🌺18
分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 3
下页 末页
  • 家园 【原创】什么是科学以及我们如何走科学的道路

    原来在其他网站里看到很多人对什么是科学争论非常激烈,我很不理解,现在在河里也看到大家的争论,理解为什么如此激烈了。好像科学是一件非常神圣的事情,如果我们说一个学科,一个主张,一种方法是科学的,那么他就是有前途的,代表了正义的力量,必将在未来世界里发扬光大,一统江湖,是一种不可阻挡的力量。如果我们说啥是不科学的,那就对不起了,那就是腐朽的,没落的,带有欺骗性的,不可信的,信这个就是愚昧的,无知的。

    如此一方,那科学还是不科学,就不止是严肃还是不严肃的问题,而是生死问题了。说啥是不科学的,简直就是应该斩立决了。

    以前我理解的科学的概念和这有很大的不同,对于我而言科学还是不科学从来不是生死问题。对我而言,万事万物都可能是科学的,也都可能不是科学的,其中的差别不过是“比较”而以。不如,我家ld洗衣服比我科学,因为她洗的比我干净,比我快,还比我省,但是还是要我洗,因为地位比我高。我的洗衣服方法就很不科学,所以经常受到ld的批评。当然这不是事事都是如此绝对化,我还是有比ld科学的地方的,比如我可以抱小ld走更长的路;比如我在搬家的时候效率是最高的;比如我跑得比较快,回家取个东西效率高;比如…………当然我的优势非常多就不一一列举了。这仅仅是我和我ld之间的比较,如果是不同学科,不同事物的比较,那就要更复杂了,在这个方面,这个学科有优势;在那个方面,那个学科有优势。所有方面都处于劣势,这个比较难;所有方面都处于优势的,这个是真没有。所以如果科学和不科学是两个点的话,其实所有的事物都不过是在科学和不科学之间连线上的过渡产品,没有一个事物是可以完全和科学重和的,也没有一个事物是与不科学完全重合的。其实一个事物只要在实践中有成功的地方,我们都要尊重,都要承认,都要学习。看了河里的介绍,西医把绝大多数它无法解释的,又有效果的其他疗法都归到安慰剂里面,这其实很不好,腰挺得太直了,小心闪了腰。这其实不是科学的态度。

    我们中国人对科学的概念是如此重视是和我们的历史有关系的,中国5000年,从来在文化上都是领先的,至少都是领先我们的邻居的。但是在进入地球村的年代以来,我们却经历对自己文化的最严重的危机。由于西方文明高举科学大旗,满世界乱窜,杀人放火,仁义道德,无“事”不做,所以我们深深地以为,自己的落后和被动是因为不科学造成的,是不科学害了我们,所以我们要与不科学坚决划清界限,绝对不可以与不科学为伍。但是这只是我们的愿望,也只能是我们的愿望,这不可能成为事实,也不是事实。

    因为西方的强大不是因为科学。

    第一 西方其实有很多不科学的地方,而且这些不科学的地方还是他们的主流。无论科学是以什么标准定义的,宗教都不可以被称为科学的,但是宗教对西方的影响,在西方崛起的过程中,起到的正面作用,绝不在科学之下的。

    第二,西方崛起最重要的因素就是尊重和保护了可能性。不管是什么因素,他们没有我们的大一统的政府,没有我们的大一统的儒家理学,他们有各种各样的学派,学科,没有人,没有势力可以完全扼杀被认为是异己的事物。其实我们现在对不科学的扼杀其实是走向了西方崛起时的一个最基本原则的反面。

    第三,西方允许试错。我们知道资本主义的中心是经历了从威尼斯,荷兰,英国,到美国的转移过程,而在这种转移的过程中,存在大量的试错的过程,比如法国大革命,英国革命,德国统一,这些是成功的,有的失败了,奥匈帝国就不见了,波兰三次亡国…………至于科学实验,那更是如此。哪一个成功的实验不是大量的失败的儿子?

    其实所谓科学,就是要尊重其他可能性,要永远牢记科学就是在未知的世界寻找未知的东西,就是所谓已知越多未知越多,就是今天我们可能收获惊喜,明天我们收获惊悲的过程。没有什么绝对的东西,更没有什么绝对的科学。

    至于中国的发展,只要我们尊重可能性,允许试错,当然要控制在一定范围以内,以中国13亿人口,足够的战略空间,中国的复兴谁也挡不住。

    关键词(Tags): #科学
    • 家园 什么是科学?

      现在很多在网上争论所谓科学不科学的人,其实根本不知道什么是科学

      随着时代的发展,科学至少有四种定义方式,第四种是现代得到广泛认可的定义

      Today, in contrast to the seventeenth century, few would deny the central importance of science to our lives, but not many would be able to give a good account of what science is. To most, the word probably brings to mind not science itself, but the fruits of science, the pervasive complex of technology that has transformed all of our lives. However, science might also be thought to include the vast body of knowledge we have accumulated about the natural world. There are still mysteries, and there always will be mysteries, but the fact is that, by and large, we understand how nature works.

      A. Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method

      But science is even more than that. If one asks a scientist the question, What is science?, the answer will almost surely be that science is a process, a way of examining the natural world and discovering important truths about it. In short,

      the essence of science is the scientific method.

      That stirring description suffers from an important shortcoming. We don’t really know what the scientific method is. There have been many attempts at formulating a general theory of how science works, or at least how it ought to work, starting, as we have seen, with Sir Francis Bacon’s. Bacon’s idea, that science proceeds through the collection of observations without prejudice, has

      been rejected by all serious thinkers. Everything about the way we do science—

      the language we use, the instruments we use, the methods we use—depends on

      clear presuppositions about how the world works. Modern science is full of

      things that cannot be observed at all, such as force fields and complex molecules.

      At the most fundamental level, it is impossible to observe nature without having

      some reason to choose what is worth observing and what is not worth observing.

      Once one makes that elementary choice, Bacon has been left behind.

      B. Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory

      In this century, the ideas of the Austrian philosopher Sir Karl Popper have had

      a profound effect on theories of the scientific method.5 In contrast to Bacon,

      Popper believed all science begins with a prejudice, or perhaps more politely, a

      theory or hypothesis. Nobody can say where the theory comes from. Formulating

      the theory is the creative part of science, and it cannot be analyzed within

      the realm of philosophy. However, once the theory is in hand, Popper tells us,

      it is the duty of the scientist to extract from it logical but unexpected predictions

      that, if they are shown by experiment not to be correct, will serve to render the

      theory invalid.

      Popper was deeply influenced by the fact that a theory can never be proved

      right by agreement with observation, but it can be proved wrong by disagreement

      with observation. Because of this asymmetry, science makes progress

      uniquely by proving that good ideas are wrong so that they can be replaced by

      even better ideas. Thus, Bacon’s disinterested observer of nature is replaced by

      Popper’s skeptical theorist. The good Popperian scientist somehow comes up

      with a hypothesis that fits all or most of the known facts, then proceeds to attack

      that hypothesis at its weakest point by extracting from it predictions that can be

      shown to be false. This process is known as falsification.

      Popper’s ideas have been fruitful in weaning the philosophy of science away

      from the Baconian view and some other earlier theories, but they fall short in a

      number of ways in describing correctly how science works. The first of these is

      the observation that, although it may be impossible to prove a theory is true by

      observation or experiment, it is nearly just as impossible to prove one is false by

      these same methods. Almost without exception, in order to extract a falsifiable

      prediction from a theory, it is necessary to make additional assumptions beyond

      the theory itself. Then, when the prediction turns out to be false, it may well be

      one of the other assumptions, rather than the theory itself, that is false. To take

      a simple example, early in the twentieth century it was found that the orbits of

      the outermost planets did not quite obey the predictions of Newton’s laws of

      gravity and mechanics. Rather than take this to be a falsification of Newton’s

      laws, astronomers concluded the orbits were being perturbed by an additional

      unseen body out there. They were right. That is precisely how the planet Pluto

      was discovered.

      The apparent asymmetry between falsification and verification that lies at the

      heart of Popper’s theory thus vanishes. But the difficulties with Popper’s view

      go even beyond that problem. It takes a great deal of hard work to come up

      with a new theory that is consistent with nearly everything that is known in any

      area of science. Popper’s notion that the scientist’s duty is then to attack that

      theory at its most vulnerable point is fundamentally inconsistent with human

      nature. It would be impossible to invest the enormous amount of time and

      energy necessary to develop a new theory in any part of modern science if the

      primary purpose of all that work was to show that the theory was wrong.

      This point is underlined by the fact that the behavior of the scientific community

      is not consistent with Popper’s notion of how it should be. Credit in

      science is most often given for offering correct theories, not wrong ones, or for

      demonstrating the correctness of unexpected predictions, not for falsifying them.

      I know of no example of a Nobel Prize awarded to a scientist for falsifying his or

      her own theory.

      C. Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts

      Another towering figure in the twentieth century theory of science is Thomas

      Kuhn.7 Kuhn was not a philosopher but a historian (more accurately, a physicist

      who retrained himself as a historian). It is Kuhn who popularized the word

      paradigm, which has today come to seem so inescapable.

      experience that it really happens that way. Kuhn’s contribution is important. It

      gives us a new and useful structure (a paradigm, one might say) for organizing

      the entire history of science.

      Nevertheless, Kuhn’s theory does suffer from a number of shortcomings as an

      explanation for how science works. One of them is that it contains no measure

      of how big the change must be in order to count as a revolution or paradigm

      shift. Most scientists will say that there is a paradigm shift in their laboratory

      every six months or so (or at least every time it becomes necessary to write

      another proposal for research support). That isn’t exactly what Kuhn had in

      mind.

      Another difficulty is that even when a paradigm shift is truly profound, the

      paradigms it separates are not necessarily incommensurate. The new sciences of

      quantum mechanics and relativity, for example, did indeed show that Newton’s

      laws of mechanics were not the most fundamental laws of nature. However,

      they did not show that they were wrong. Quite the contrary, they showed why

      Newton’s laws of mechanics were right: Newton’s laws arose out of new laws

      that were even deeper and that covered a wider range of circumstances

      unimagined by Newton and his followers, that is, things as small as atoms, or

      nearly as fast as the speed of light, or as dense as black holes. In more familiar

      realms of experience, Newton’s laws go on working just as well as they always

      did. Thus, there is no ambiguity at all about which paradigm is better. The new

      laws of quantum mechanics and relativity subsume and enhance the older

      Newtonian world.

      • 家园 什么是科学(2)?

        D. An Evolved Theory of Science

        If neither Bacon nor Popper nor Kuhn gives us a perfect description of what

        science is or how it works, nevertheless all three help us to gain a much deeper

        understanding of it all.

        Scientists are not Baconian observers of nature, but all scientists become

        Baconians when it comes to describing their observations. Scientists are rigorously,

        even passionately honest about reporting scientific results and how they

        were obtained, in formal publications. Scientific data are the coin of the realm

        in science, and they are always treated with reverence. Those rare instances in

        which data are found to have been fabricated or altered in some way are always

        traumatic scandals of the first order.

        Scientists are also not Popperian falsifiers of their own theories, but they

        don’t have to be. They don’t work in isolation. If a scientist has a rival with a

        often sent to anonymous experts in the field, in other words, peers of the author,

        for review. Peer review works superbly to separate valid science from

        nonsense, or, in Kuhnian terms, to ensure that the current paradigm has been

        respected. It works less well as a means of choosing between competing valid

        ideas, in part because the peer doing the reviewing is often a competitor for the

        same resources (pages in prestigious journals, funds from government agencies)

        being sought by the authors. It works very poorly in catching cheating or fraud,

        because all scientists are socialized to believe that even their bitterest competitor

        is rigorously honest in the reporting of scientific results, making it easy to fool a

        referee with purposeful dishonesty if one wants to. Despite all of this, peer

        review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice.

        ----Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence


        本帖一共被 1 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)
    • 家园 争论的那么厉害是因为大家都被科学吓坏了
    • 家园 宗教对西方世界提供的正面影响有两个:

      第一个是搞出来一个dark age,给文艺复兴提供了机会;

      第二个是旧教徒迫害了一堆新教徒,让他们逃到了阿麦瑞克大陆上,从此普世价值永放光芒

      • 家园 天主教的组织形式其实是西方现代政治制度的雏形

        教皇的产生过程和现在的选举过程何其相似。

        中国没有教会,更没有这种统一的教会形式,要学会西方的所谓民主的博弈,是非常困难的。

        • 家园 我接受顾准的观点

          西方民主起源于希腊的城邦体制。

          天主教沿袭的这个体制。而且这是适合于当时欧洲的情况。当时欧洲的聚居地松散而弱小,城邦制是合适的方法。

          现代西方政体多少受到这个体制的影响,可以说和希腊还是有渊源的。

        • 家园 狗了一下教皇

          教皇亦称“教宗”,译自拉丁文papa, 源于希腊文pappas,意指“爸爸”,最初本为古代天主教对其神职人员的一般尊称,至今在东派教会中仍有以此称神父者。天主教成为罗马帝国国教后,罗马、君土坦丁堡、亚历山大里亚、安提啊和耶路撒冷五地的主教均用此称谓来表示其宗主教之衔,而罗马主教认为此衔仅指西部教会的领袖。西罗马帝国灭亡后,罗马主教成为西方教会中的最高首领,加之756年法兰克王丕平“献土”后又在意大利形成“教皇国”世俗政权,“papa"这一称谓遂逐渐为罗马主教所独有,开始构成“教皇”之涵义。到11世纪时,罗马主教格列高利七世独占“papa"之称,从而正式形成了西方罗马天主教会的教皇制度。 “papa"一词也就作为“教皇”之专称沿用下来,即今日英语中的“pope”、德语中的“Papst'和法语中的“pape”。

          按照天主教会的传统说法,耶稣基督的第一个门徒伯多禄乃众门徒之首,他于传教过程中去罗马担任了罗马教会的第一任主教。从此,罗马主教均为伯多禄的继位人,其地位因而也在其他主教之上。这便是“教皇制”的由来。所以,“教皇”的全称为“罗马教区主教、罗马教省都主教、西部宗主教;梵蒂冈君主、教皇”,亦称“宗徒伯多禄的继位人”、 “基督在世的代表”等。

          在天主教会的教阶体制中,教皇享有最高的立法权和司法权,能制定或废除教会法规,指定人员组成教廷,创立教区,任命主教,而且“在伦理和信仰上永无谬误 ”。在11世纪前,教皇须经世俗君主或意大利贵族遴选或认可。尼古拉二世登基后于1059年决定教皇由枢机主教选举产生,但须得到法兰克王亨利一世及其继位者的认可。直到1179年第三次拉特兰会议和1274年第二次里昂会议两次确认后,才正式规定教皇可单由枢机主教选举产生,不过仍须承认法、西、奥三国君主对候选人具有否决权。20世纪初,庇护十世废除了这种世俗君主的否决权。1914年,本笃十五世遂成为单由枢机主教选为教皇的第一人。教皇当选后任职终身,不受罢免,但可自行辞职。

          http://ask.koubei.com/question/1406121401916.html

        • 家园 民主政治制度的雏形早就有了,跟天主教的组织形式没关系

          所谓的“民主时代”,是指公元前6世纪到公元前4世纪这段时期。这一时代是古希腊世界的全盛时期,各城邦都得到繁荣的发展,而地处海湾、交通便利的雅典在工商业方面日益发达,并建立了奴隶主民主制。在雅典,国家不设国王,最高权力机构是全体公民大会,大会由公民抽签产生,共同对国家事务进行商议。

          雅典实行民主化程度最高的“直接民主制”。在伯里克利时代,雅典所有的官职向全体公民开放,任何人都可以通过抽签选举方式(十将军除外)担任政府中的各级官职。雅典的政府官员都有任期,通常为一年,而且大多数的官职,不得连选连任,以避免结党营私。雅典还实行委员会制,凡是重大事务均由集体作出决定,由集体负责。而不是由一个人说了算,从而避免了专制独裁和官僚主义。为了保证民主政治不受侵害,从克利斯提尼时代开始,雅典还制定了陶片放逐法,用陶片投票选举出可能对雅典的民主政治构成威胁的人。如果某人得票数超过6000,就会被放逐到国外,10年以后才能返回,从而使政治野心家无机可乘。

          外链出处

          • 家园 这是欧洲人的乱认

            就像中国人发家后重新续家谱一样。

            中世纪的欧洲人在文艺复兴之前,那里知道什么希腊文明,罗马文明,倒是教会的楷模近在眼前。而且希腊的民主,民主有余集权不足,和西方现代国家有本质区别的。其实西方现代国家的组织形式和教会更像。

            而且在文艺复兴初期,教会是起到非常多的正面作用的。

            1 组织十字军东征,使得罗马,希腊文明的重新发现。

            2 组织了文艺复兴的最初的研究。

            • 家园 乱认?

              中世纪的欧洲人在文艺复兴之前,那里知道什么希腊文明,罗马文明,倒是教会的楷模近在眼前。而且希腊的民主,民主有余集权不足,和西方现代国家有本质区别的。其实西方现代国家的组织形式和教会更像。

              假如教会有民主,那恰恰是集权有余民主不足:首先,教皇仅由各个主教当中选出;其次,教皇终身制。跟西方现代国家唯一共同点就是“选出来的”。西方国家的三权分立制度,教会里有么?跟教会组织形式最象的反倒是我党:总书记——教皇,省委书记——各地区主教,总书记也是选出来的

              1 组织十字军东征,使得罗马,希腊文明的重新发现。

              2 组织了文艺复兴的最初的研究。

              1。十字军东征本质上就是一场宗教战争,一场针对异教徒的战争。考古不是它的主要目的。正如日本侵占台湾时期,打下了台湾近现代化基础,但不能说发展台湾是战争的主要目的

              2。举个例子先?看看教会是如何资助人们反对神权肯定人性的

              到底是谁在乱认?

              • 家园 还是更像教皇

                希腊有两大流派,1是雅典,2是斯巴达。我们说的民主通常是指雅典。其实斯巴达也是民主,但是不是民主的主流,大家也不认他。

                有关组织形式,一个是明的,就是写在纸上的制度,这个可以是假的;另一个是暗的,就是做事的方法,但肯定是真的。因为,做出来的事就是泼出去的水,假不了,而且如果组织上不支持事情根本做不出来。

                雅典这种每每别人都打上门来,还要一场全民辩论的,执行力实在是有问题。在他能够利用水路的防守时,还没什么问题,一旦面临的是陆路的进攻就显得可笑了。最后希腊亡于马其顿其实是历史的必然。

                而现代资本主义国家,在战争面前的高效率的一再证明,所谓民主和三权分立,不过就是一个马甲罢了。

                说一点自己的理解:

                雅典的民主政治权和经济权是统一的,就是说无论是政治还是经济都是民主的,权力是分散的,所谓政府在政治和经济两方面都受到极大地制约。而现代西方的民主更多的体现在政治制度上,而经济权却是高度统一的,中央政府的在经济权上拥有绝对力量或是被拥有绝对力量的组织所拥有(这个有些阴谋论的味道),而在组织形式上说就是行政权的高度统一。这是雅典式的民主所不具备的。而这个组织形式其实和教宗非常相似。至于是不是终身制倒是末节了。联想到河里所说的教宗始于罗马,而教宗对西方的影响,这也许可以相互印证吧。

                文艺复兴始于十字军东征,是没有问题的。至于目的嘛,本来历史就是这样曲折的,就像当年英王签下大宪章,只是为了保住自己的位子,谁承想打下了现代法律制度的基础。

                而文艺复兴初期从最重要的希腊文献,最主要的艺术家,甚至是最重要的科学家都是始于教宗,这个可以参考哥白尼和伽利略和教宗之间复杂的关系。而后来伽利略的书可以出版又是和新教在荷兰的发展有不可分割的关系。而新教和天主教之间的关系又是一团乱麻,我中有你你中有我,互为敌人又相互支持,谁知道呢。

                关键词(Tags): #西方政治制度
                • 家园 我也说说我的一点理解吧

                  虽然对老兄这句“而现代资本主义国家,在战争面前的高效率的一再证明,所谓民主和三权分立,不过就是一个马甲罢了”心有戚戚,但还是对老兄把教会组织形式硬套在现代西方国家组织形式上不敢苟同。

                  什么是国家组织形式,这个问题上我们好像是在各说各话。我认同的国家组织形式是一个国家纵向的权力安排方式和各个国家机关之间的关系,比方说

                  点看全图

                  外链图片需谨慎,可能会被源头改

                  点看全图

                  外链图片需谨慎,可能会被源头改

                  这是您说的“明面上”的东西。天主教组织结构网络上资源语焉不详,我能查到的是教皇-红衣主教-大主教-主教,或者您有详细地组织结构图?至于“暗的”,您给说说教廷是怎么做事的?并且除了您文中的雅典,古今中外的历代国家政府都是“中央政府的在经济权上拥有绝对力量或是被拥有绝对力量的组织所拥有(这个有些阴谋论的味道),而在组织形式上说就是行政权的高度统一”,绝非仿照教廷制度。

                  从教皇的产生过程看,直到二十世纪初,世俗君主对教皇人选的否决权才被取消;1914年本笃十五世遂成为单由枢机主教选为教皇的第一人。从这点上看,我是不相信宗教对现代政治制度有任何影响的。

                  文艺复兴的原因很多,十字军东征只是原因之一,东罗马帝国灭亡,大量人才逃往意大利同样促进了文艺复兴的诞生。老兄直接一句文艺复兴始于十字军东征未免有以偏概全,误导观众之嫌。英王签署了大宪章么……是英王打下了现代法律的基础还是大宪章打下了现代法律的基础?

                  至于说文艺复兴时期的文学家科学家都始于教宗,呵呵,不厚道的说,那个时候的人谁敢公开宣称不信教的话,是要上火刑架的。1615年伽利略受到罗马宗教法庭传讯,在法庭上他被迫作出承认自己错误的声明。您的论据还是支撑不了“组织了文艺复兴的最初的研究”。

分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 3
下页 末页


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河