[US] Gerald Holton: “Science and Anti-Science,” translated by Fan Dainian and Chen Yanghui, Jiangxi Education Press, January 1999
P128 p. 161
On the other hand, “cyclicists” often imagine science as an activity that is not goal-directed, progressive, or cumulative.………… Cyclicists are more common among social scientists and historians; and, unlike linearists, they believe that science is driven conspicuously or even primarily by social processes. In extreme cases, they think that science is merely the performance of some general spirit of the age, or even chiefly the product of “social construction,” essentially no different from the game of chess.
Generally speaking, for such views that are opposed in their fundamental aims, one cannot expect to decide by means of some simple test whether to support one and oppose the other. In particular, they correspond to, and may derive from, two highly opposed basic views concerning human destiny—for cyclicists, the default assumption is the inevitable decay of the material body; for linearists, the assertion that it is possible to transcend the cycle and “jump out” of it. Here there may be a kind of resonant connection with the different conceptions of time familiar to historians of religion. That is to say, the Christian interpretation of historical time implies linear development, whereas in opposition to this, the conception of time in Eastern religions and myths implies cyclical change. ////——This statement is quite interesting. Indeed, the traditional Christian view of time is precisely “linear” — Creation, original sin, the end of the world, the other shore; whereas Eastern beliefs are different — reincarnation, transmigration, beginningless and endless… Of course, how close the connection really is between linearism and cyclicism and these intellectual backgrounds is something that needs to be considered carefully. I myself do not support social constructionism; I believe that science has “progress” and is getting closer and closer to “truth,” but this is only a matter of “belief” after all. This view, at bottom, is a kind of faith, because I cannot prove, once all irrational factors are set aside, why Newton’s theory is closer to the “truth” of nature than Aristotle’s theory; I simply believe it. Scientists often hold a “linearist” view, because believing that we are step by step approaching “truth” is obviously more motivating for scientists to devote themselves to exploration than thinking that all our efforts, along with those of countless great scientists, are nothing but running in place. As for the influences in science that inevitably involve personal belief, the spirit of the age, and cultural background, pointing them out is beneficial and also helps overcome science’s arrogance, but they should not be overemphasized. Here I will repeat the analogy I made a few days ago — one must not, merely because something is an inevitable factor, inflate that factor or even declare it a key component: what I once used was the metaphor of a vacuum and a white wall; here let me switch to another example. We know that pure water inevitably contains dissolved air and other impurities, but no factory would ever go and add carbon dioxide to the pure water it produces itself. Although there is no such thing as absolutely pure water, everyone understands what “pure water” is and what “soda water” is. Everyone should also understand what science is and what mysticism is; one cannot say that because irrational factors are inevitably mixed into science, science ought to be supplemented with mysticism;
P151~152 p. 190~191
In order to understand in more satisfactory terms what anti-science actually means, and what it implies for the future of our culture, we must begin with the recognition that no culture can truly be anti-scientific in the sense of opposing “scientific” activity itself (for example, the American Heritage Dictionary defines science as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena”). Although certain philosophers of science have had trouble with some aspects of such a definition, I have not even found, among the most fanatic “anti-scientists,” any call to oppose this kind of activity itself.
P160 p. 201 Perhaps the term alternative science would be more appropriate than anti-science, but the word alternative gives the impression that such ideas stand on the same ontological or practical level as “real” science, so one would rather use the term parascience.
P181 p. 226
Alternative science or pseudoscience may in itself be harmless, except as an opiate for the masses; but when it is combined with political movements, it can become a time bomb waiting to explode. ////——Things like horoscopes, fortune-telling, witchcraft, feng shui, and so on are of course pseudoscience, yet under ordinary circumstances they are indeed harmless. Moreover, as a form of entertainment (the so-called opiate of the masses), they can incidentally preserve cultural diversity to some extent, and one might almost say they are something of a good thing. However, once pseudoscience is used for deception or incitement, it becomes hugely harmful; examples need not be given.
February 19, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply