http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/485ea8790100063v
On “the freedom to do pseudoscience”
2006-12-07 07:42:42
Sima Nan said on TOM: “The real intention behind these people’s demand to delete those three characters from the Science Popularization Law is actually that they want to strive for the freedom to falsify things, the freedom to do pseudoscience.” (December 6, 2006, TOM Technology)
Sima Nan’s wording is “the freedom to do pseudoscience”; we can change it a bit and make it “the freedom to do pseudoscience” for discussion, because we know that any freedom is also subject to constraints, and there is no freedom of freedom.
What Sima Nan said touches on a very crucial question: do the masses have the right, the freedom, to engage in pseudoscientific research?
“Have” or “have not”? (Does Sima Nan have the freedom to talk nonsense? I think he does.)
Now, I, as an anti-scientismist, think that citizens have the freedom to do pseudoscience. In the past, I, as a scientismist, did not think carefully about this question, or, by “default configuration,” simply assumed that there was no such freedom.
Still, Tian Song put it best: “If the people no longer have the right to be ignorant, then they will only have the right to be made ignorant.” (There are multiple versions; here I am following Brother Song’s latest formulation, see below.) Here we do not yet need to discuss the complicated problem of drawing the line between science/non-science, science/pseudoscience.
Do the “science and technology fakes-busters” intentionally ignore such a serious question, or do they think it is not a question?
It should be noted that acknowledging this kind of freedom does not contradict the fact that some people doing pseudoscience have violated the law and must be punished. Violating the law by doing pseudoscience, and violating the law by doing science, are the same in nature: both are illegal. It should not be stipulated that violating the law by doing pseudoscience ought to bring a harsher penalty, while violating the law by doing science should receive the preferential treatment of the laws of the People’s Republic of China.
In fact, there are even more illegal incidents, and more harmful ones, involving the doing of certain scientific activities, or using scientific methods to carry out certain activities.
Also, imagine this: one day, some Mr. So-and-so becomes dean and declares: all the science produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences is pseudoscience, or at least the overwhelming majority of it is pseudoscience.
Comments(9)┆Quote┆Read(82)┆Circle┆Print┆Rewarded report
src=”http://hits.blog.sina.com.cn/hits?act=1&aid=485ea8790100063v”> Article comments
The following readers’ comments only represent their personal views, and do not represent the views or position of Sina.com
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Lao Jiang
2006-12-07 13:36:28
Why can’t I see the two articles below? Are they going to be submitted to that print medium, and then posted after publication?
[Anonymous] １１１
2006-12-07 15:09:15
Actually, there is no freedom at all!
[Anonymous] Guchu
2006-12-07 18:17:33
On the whole, I definitely support Teacher Liu.
But the issue of “freedom” is really hard to say… and besides, there is also a very big difference between rights and freedom.
When asserting whether the masses have the freedom to do XX, first of all it is very important to ask at what level one is talking about “freedom.” Since there is no absolute freedom, freedom is always discussed in some relative situation. If we say the masses have the freedom to do pseudoscience and the freedom to talk nonsense, then do the masses have the freedom to falsify things? Further, do the masses have the freedom to violate the law? The freedom to rebel? If one says the masses have the freedom to violate the law, then there is no point in talking about whether they have the freedom to do pseudoscience; you may freely do pseudoscience, and in any case you can also be judged to have violated the law.
I always feel that discussing questions with “freedom” easily leads to entanglement and confusion. Perhaps it is better to speak of “rights.”
Should there be a right to falsify things?
People certainly should have the right to talk nonsense, but do they have the right to deliberately deceive, spread rumors, or defame? Rights probably cannot be granted without limit. I think that if we recognize too many messy and rotten rights, it instead makes those more important and more precious rights seem insignificant.
If pseudoscience is understood literally: falsification, forgery, then I think such a right really should not be granted. For example, I have the right to make a replica antique to enjoy, and also the right to sell it, but I should not have the right to deliberately pass it off and sell it as a genuine antique. Going further, some things are too important or too dangerous—such as handguns and currency. For the sake of social stability, even making fakes for fun should not be allowed; that is also understandable.
However one looks at it, science really is a dangerous thing. In today’s Chinese society it has an extremely high capacity to incite. If an organization possesses a few scientific research achievements, it is just like possessing a few boxes of banknotes: its influence increases dramatically, and its deterrent power increases dramatically. If those research achievements are fake, perhaps that is even worse than those few boxes of counterfeit banknotes, because science is often scarier than a realistic toy handgun. Under these conditions, since the authorities can monopolize the production of weapons and should monopolize the printing of banknotes, why should they not monopolize science?
Of course, I still think the masses have the freedom to do pseudoscience. But I think the key problem is still anti-scientism: if science is no longer supreme like banknotes, no longer frightening like a handgun, then what is wrong with doing a bit of pseudoscience?
2006-12-08 02:09:19
Huajie, regarding the people having the right to ignorance, I have revised it as follows:
The people have the right to be ignorant;
If the people no longer have the right to be ignorant, then they will only have the right to be made ignorant.
The key issue is, who is qualified to draw the line between civilization and ignorance (haha, the pinyin of this word is the same as your name!)?
Little Guchu upstairs thinks clearly, but expresses it somewhat muddily. What rights should people be given? That is a matter for the law to define. Thought is free, behavior is restricted.
Tang Sanzang said: Sister Guanyin, right now Wukong is only an idea; if he actually carries it out, it won’t be too late to catch him red-handed then.
If a person takes something called “pseudoscience” and swindles a sum of money with it, then the law should not punish his “pseudoscience” crime, but only the specific crimes corresponding to that behavior: for example, fraud, illegal fundraising, breach of contract…………
[Anonymous] ME
2006-12-08 08:34:20
For example, I develop some kind of anti-gravity theory and device, but in the scientific world this thing is considered pseudoscience. Do I have the freedom to develop them?
Yes.
If the things I do infringe the rights and interests of some A, and such “infringement” has a basis in the current law or in moral norms, then my freedom will have to be restricted.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Lao Jiang
2006-12-08 09:40:40
Little Guchu’s line of thought is even more profound, and deserves attention.
Actually, what is needed here is a knowledge background in political science and jurisprudence, which we comparatively lack.
I agree with Little Guchu’s view: “science is a dangerous thing,” so a certain degree of control and “monopoly sale” is acceptable. However, such control and monopoly should be entrusted to the scientific community, not political authority. China’s problem is that scientists’ autonomy has never been respected, which has led to the strange phenomenon that the same group of people both persecutes scientists in the name of political power and suppresses non-scientific culture in the name of science. My “One Word Is Hard to Explain Pseudoscience” locates the problem of Chinese pseudoscience in the autonomy of the scientific community.
On the problem of scientism, one should draw an inviolable “Qin Hui bottom line.” China’s problem is essentially different from the Western science wars.
2006-12-08 11:31:29
Hehe, handing it over to the scientific community probably won’t do either.
Because the scientific community has vested interests.
[Anonymous] ME
2006-12-08 17:45:51
Then that is the content of SSK analysis. The scientific community, as I have said, has its mystique, and is related to academic demons and the like. The so-called scientific community is sometimes 10,000 people, sometimes 1,000 people, sometimes 50 people, sometimes 3 people, and sometimes even represented by just one person. Usually it is on the scale of 3–15 people. Wiles proved Fermat’s theorem, and only a few people could understand his paper. The referees for a good scientific journal on some field and some specialized issue are usually not many either. It is precisely these few people who determine what counts as science, as good science, as very good science, and so on. The scientific world generally does not directly call something pseudoscience, but instead divides papers into categories such as priority for publication, publishable, not recommended for publication, and rejected for publication.
Why do scientists believe those few people? This is built on a long-term basis of trust. Scientific operation is based on trust. If trust does not exist, if it is not credible, then big science becomes very hard to run.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Lao Jiang
2006-12-08 20:20:13
to Tian Song:
The scientific community has its interest factors, and ideological interference is not wrong, but as long as the scientific community exists, as long as scientific interaction exists, distinguishing science from pseudoscience is still necessary, and can only be decided through the scientific community. That is certain.
Of course, the outside world can criticize the scientific community.
It’s just like this: whether Ms. Wu should be expelled from the Party should be decided by the minjin Party. Others must not cook the books on her behalf, but outsiders can criticize.
I basically agree with what Huajie said in the comments above.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply