http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/485ea879010006su
It’s Not So Easy to Set Definitions: A Critique of Fang Zhouzi’s Definition of Pseudoscience
2007-02-06 21:34:33
It’s Not So Easy to Set Definitions: A Critique of Fang Zhouzi’s Definition of Pseudoscience
Liu Huajie
Fang Zhouzi rails against pseudoscience with great certitude, as if the matter of pseudoscience were easy to explain clearly. In “Pseudoscience in the Age of Science (Part II)” (see http://www.shunz.net/2005/11/321.html), Mr. Fang Zhouzi quite confidently defined “pseudoscience.” A few days ago, Teacher Jin Wulun of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences had already commented on this definition in the Science Times, and today I will say a few words as well.
Mr. Fang put it this way: “It is very difficult to give an exact definition of ‘science,’ but it is very easy to give an exact definition of ‘pseudoscience,’ and it is very simple: non-science that is said to be science.”
Fang Zhouzi wants to adopt a “second-order definition” to avoid the trouble of drawing boundaries directly, but he does not understand the basic logical relations. Therefore, I do not want to comment on the first half, and will only talk about the second half, “non-science that is said to be science.” This kind of definition is highly problematic; without any detailed argument, I can give just one counterexample:
Fang Zhouzi once said the following sentence (source as in the same article above):
F1: “Why are there so many people, and people who are well educated at that, who believe in mysterious phenomena?”
We would probably all agree that F1 is merely a normal question, a rhetorical question. This sentence by itself cannot count as science; that is to say, F1 is non-science. But suppose Fang Zhouzi’s “fans” or “non-fans” X, after seeing this sentence, claim (this is only a supposition; if one insists on denying this possibility, then one may just pick anyone at random and say it jokingly once):
F2: “Fang Zhouzi’s rhetorical question F1 is science.”
At this point, F1 is non-science, and F1 has again been said to be science. According to Fang Zhouzi’s definition of pseudoscience, “non-science that is said to be science,” we will then necessarily reach the conclusion:
C: “F1 is pseudoscience.”
This is the conclusion arrived at by Fang Zhouzi’s own “exact” definition. By the same reasoning, what Fang Zhouzi says in ordinary life could all be pseudoscience, so long as someone says of it, “That’s science” (people may object, thinking no one would say such a thing, but then I may as well pretend to be foolish once and say it). This is of course ridiculous. Even if Fang Zhouzi is very capable, it is hardly possible that everything he says is pseudoscience (of course, if he always talks about science, that too is not credible).
Let me give another example: suppose Zhang San writes a purely literary novel entitled *Take a Look at Little Fang*, and Li Si says, “*Take a Look at Little Fang* is science.” According to Fang Zhouzi’s definition, *Take a Look at Little Fang* itself would already be pseudoscience! How amusing.
The sort of examples I have given may not actually occur in reality; I use them only to show that Fang Zhouzi’s definition is absurd.
Then can Fang Zhouzi’s definition be revised to make it more precise? Yes. In 2004, in *Chinese Pseudo-Science*, I had already given a logically clear second-order definition. However, I also clearly know that my second-order definition has its own shortcomings: it is not a substantive definition; it does not bear the task of drawing boundaries; and sometimes it is too broad. If one uses it as a measure, there is so much pseudoscience in China that I would not even dare to speak of some of it.
Comments(36)┆Citation┆Read(603)┆Circle┆Print┆Rewarded Report
The following messages from netizens represent only their personal views and do not represent the views or stance of Sina.com.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-07 12:14:47
It is sometimes too broad; if used as a yardstick, there is too much pseudoscience in China, some of which I even dare not mention.
—————————
Teacher Liu, according to the second-order “claim” definition you gave, and based on my own personal experience, I can very rigorously claim: “academicians” are the largest group of pseudoscientists in China today.
From the very first glance at your definition, I have greatly admired your courage.
[Anonymous] looo
2007-02-07 12:23:22
Heavenly secrets must not be revealed!
[Anonymous] hehehe
2007-02-07 14:55:09
Making it so academic, Xiao Fang may not necessarily understand.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-02-07 15:53:10
Huajie, before clearing up the definition, had already drawn the line on many pseudosciences, written a thick book, and so far has not been seen to have drawn the line wrongly. This shows that how to define pseudoscience is really a rather pointless matter. It is like the definition of “antique” being unclear; antique appraisers still manage to distinguish genuine antiques from fake ones. (Even though a fake antique placed in a shop and labeled “imitation” is no longer a “fake antique.”)
If you want to defeat Little Fang, it’s simple: just find a pseudoscience he has misjudged. If you cannot find one, then however it is defined, you cannot deny that Little Fang, like Huajie, is an excellent appraiser of pseudoscience.
For example, can Huajie have the courage of Song Zhenghai and commit an offense on behalf of Zhang Yingqing? Or dare to say that the Eight-Trigram Cosmology is true science?
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-07 16:54:19
One issue regarding Fang Zhouzi’s definition:
In the examples Teacher Liu gave, the act of completing “non-science” and the claim that something is “science” are both made by two different subjects, and with such an example it is hard to say that anyone would object. Fang Zhouzi presumably at the time took it for granted that such behavior should be completed by the same subject.
Fang Zhouzi’s mistake is a logical one (a subject error), but if one insists on forcibly adding the limitation of the same subject, then in practice non-science, claims of pseudoscience, and people who claim something is pseudoscience will be very difficult to distinguish.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-07 18:43:57
TO Lao Zhao:
What Teacher Zhao says is right. In the philosophy of science community, people almost all agree that astrology is pseudoscience, but to argue why it is pseudoscience is not easy. Scholarship, especially philosophy of science, is about trying as much as possible to explain things clearly. There is a saying in analytic philosophy about “beggar gangs” (playing with concepts); this is what it means.
The pseudoscience I determine in my own heart of course has certain reasons, but those reasons cannot be brought out onto the table for argument—that is, they cannot withstand rebuttal. I know this clearly. Others are roughly the same. Only the ignorant dare to brazenly claim that he has understood everything.
I never believed in the things Zhang Yingqing was doing; I can still repeat it now: I think it is pseudoscience. But because I am not a biologist, my opinion is not important.
The case of the Eight-Trigram Cosmology is a bit more complicated. I have not read his original works, so I do not know what he said. There is a possibility: at the time it may have been a kind of marginal science, but of course now it is completely not worth believing.
TO Someone:
Fang Zhouzi claims that his definition is an “exact definition,” which is why I am nitpicking. If the flaws I point out do in fact exist, then his definition has to be revised, whether in a substantive sense or in a rhetorical sense.
What the phenomenon of pseudoscience often involves is not the same subject, for example “yin-yang and the five phases,” “Eight-Trigram Cosmology,” “the phlogiston theory,” and “Ptolemaic astronomy.” One subject is its inventor; another class of subjects are later citers and supporters. These are obviously different.
[Anonymous] hehehe
2007-02-07 19:40:46
Since one cannot strictly prove that xx is pseudoscience, then one has no right to say xx is pseudoscience. Even if many people think it is pseudoscience, that is only “thinking” so. People “think” all sorts of things; many are merely temporary fashionable mistakes. Newton thought space-time was absolute, but it could not be demonstrated—what happened later?
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-07 20:53:07
The phenomenon of pseudoscience often involves not the same subject, for example “yin-yang and the five phases,” “Eight-Trigram Cosmology,” “the phlogiston theory,” and “Ptolemaic astronomy.” One subject is its inventor; another class of subjects are later citers and supporters. These are obviously different.
—————————
I do not quite agree with taking phlogiston theory and Ptolemaic astronomy as examples of pseudoscience.
Before the phenomenon of metal combustion was observed, phlogiston theory could reasonably explain other combustion phenomena; Copernicus’s heliocentrism was merely a simplified model of Ptolemaic geocentrism. Because the planets in the solar system have nearly circular orbits, after changing the frame of reference, the Ptolemaic model can still be regarded as approximately correct. More of the shift arose from changes in astronomical/cosmological conceptions.
The relation of phlogiston theory and Ptolemy to later science is more like the paradigm shift Kuhn spoke of.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-07 21:09:13
Another thought:
In the first two examples, “yin-yang and the five phases” and “Eight-Trigram Cosmology,” the subject is one person; in the latter two examples, because multiple people participate, it seems that some sort of “agreement” has been reached among these people.
This seems already to involve a first-order definition of science, but that has nothing to do with Fang Zhouzi’s mistake.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-02-07 22:09:44
hehehe
2007-02-07 19:40:46
Since one cannot strictly prove that xx is pseudoscience, then one has no right to say xx is pseudoscience. Even if many people think it is pseudoscience, that is only “thinking” so. People “think” all sorts of things; many are merely temporary fashionable mistakes. Newton thought space-time was absolute, but it could not be demonstrated—what happened later?
=======================================
Who says “one cannot strictly prove that xx is pseudoscience”? It’s just that such proof does not need to rely on a “definition.”
Judging what is pseudoscience is not difficult; Huajie is a very good practitioner, otherwise how was that thick book written?
The beggar-gang game is fun; it is not suitable for guiding practice.
Newton’s view is still used by us now, after all because situations requiring consideration of relativity are not that many.
Each of us has the right to express what we “think.” Including pseudoscience, whether or not it is “strictly proven.”
[Anonymous] www
2007-02-07 22:47:42
Little Fang is a scoundrel and a rascal, what the hell does he know about scholarship. If you make such a fuss that he becomes ashamed and angry, he will go to the police station and accuse you of “threatening” him.
[Anonymous] hehehe
2007-02-07 23:00:29
Lao Zhao is using the word “proof” differently.
Newtonian mechanics is still often used in many contexts, that is true.
But that is a different matter from the issue of my view of space-time.
Everyone can “think,” no problem.
2007-02-08 07:34:32
Hehe, admirable
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-02-08 10:59:31
hehehe
2007-02-07 23:00:29
Lao Zhao is using the word “proof” differently.
Newtonian mechanics is still often used in many contexts, that is true.
But that is a different matter from the issue of my view of space-time.
Everyone can “think,” no problem.
=====================
Actually, besides mathematics, using the word “proof” is not rigorous.
“View of space-time” depends on where it is used; in places where it is not necessary, must one insist on making it “relative”? Wouldn’t that be inviting trouble?
That’s right: “Everyone can ‘think,’ no problem.”
[Anonymous] Gu Fu
2007-02-08 11:04:31
“Since one cannot strictly prove that xx is pseudoscience, then one has no right to say xx is pseudoscience” — if one insists that only “strict proof” gives one the right to say anything, then not only will we be unable to say what is pseudoscience, we will almost be unable to say anything at all. According to hehehe’s usage, not only is the judgment of pseudoscience merely people’s “thinking,” are scientific theories themselves not all also merely “thinkings”? Only tautologies can be “strictly proven.” Judgments of science and pseudoscience are originally popular “thinkings,” and are related to the times—in the Middle Ages, phlogiston theory was science, but if someone still practices phlogiston theory now and claims it is science, then that is pseudoscience.
I think the demarcation of science is not a scientific question—that is to say, we can say that “relativity” is science, but “‘relativity’ is science” is not science (not only because saying that any independent declarative sentence is science is meaningless, but also because such a judgment is not completely based on reasons internal to science). But the demarcation of science is also necessary, and in practice and in specific cases it can also be carried out very clearly. For example, ethical judgments: no one can easily make a definitional division between good and not-good, but that does not mean that distinguishing good from evil is completely impossible. In specific contexts, distinguishing good from evil is possible and necessary. Many people influenced by relativism like to use the excuse that there is no standard for good and evil to evade any ethical norms and moral condemnation; this is similar to many people who, on the grounds that there is no standard for demarcating science, lump science together indiscriminately with all kinds of activities. Relativism and nihilism are common symptoms of the postmodern era. To my mind, such a relativism that evades norms and is lawless is also a close relative of scientism and absolutism, because this trend first arose out of scientism—only things that can be strictly demonstrated are things that should be accepted; everything normative must be scientific; if you do not prove it to me, I will not acknowledge any judgment. Under this line of thought, one group of people always firmly believes in the power of science and believes that all judgments can ultimately be reduced to science; that is absolutist scientism. Another group recognizes the limited power of science, discovers that there are pitifully few things that can be strictly demonstrated, and then they doubt everything and deny everything; that is relativist or nihilist scientism. In the final analysis, however, it is still based on the worship of “strict proof.”
[Anonymous] hehehe
2007-02-08 12:59:01
Old Zhao’s reply was too weak. The problem of the “view of time and space” wasn’t really answered; I guess Zhao didn’t understand my question.
Brother Gu’s reply was more forceful. It seems my wording was not very rigorous. Actually, what I wanted to say was no more than this: where one cannot come up with particularly good reasons, there is a huge hidden danger, as in Newton’s view of absolute space and time.
I think that even before Einstein, it was reasonable for someone to insist on a relative view of space and time.
Of course, at that time it was also reasonable that there were more people who “believed” space and time to be absolute than people who “believed” them to be relative.
2007-02-08 15:48:32
I wonder whether Mr. Liu Huajie was one of the advocates in the Sina debate with Academician He Zuoxiu on <
In that debate, you had the Heaven-leaning Sword and the Dragon-Slaying Saber, yet didn’t know how to wield them! It should have been a once-and-for-all chance to make a name for yourself as the Chinese Einstein, astonishing and startling the world, delighting the Chinese people in a most gratifying way, but you were unable to use your strength! You failed to work with Academician He Zuoxiu to let Eastern thought, like the surging waters of the Yangtze, slam into the anti-pseudoscience fighter’s intercepting Gezhouba Dam and unleash huge electric power of scientific innovation. You don’t do great things; instead you play with
Einstein No. 2 — the whole world is searching for him!
But Eastern thought will surely save the world from the bottleneck of science and free it from its predicament! Needless to mention anyone else.
Science flourishes; I have a responsibility! Let us encourage each other.
After the New Year, watch for my <
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-08 18:04:26
TO Little Gu:
As an individual, one has the right to talk nonsense, as long as one does not violate the law. One also has a greater right to believe that such-and-such is pseudoscience or that such-and-such is science, and strict proof is not necessarily required. There are far too few things that can be strictly proved.
TO someone:
I did not say that phlogiston theory or Ptolemaic astronomy were pseudoscience; on the contrary, I think they were science, the science of that era. In that example of mine, I was merely saying that matters of this sort are involved; perhaps you are being too sensitive. If you don’t believe me, reread it again.
TO Bu Yi Wangxiong:
I do not have such a grand ambition. I am merely making an effort to argue that yin-yang and the five phases really were science in that era, that’s all. I can’t accomplish major things; I only want to be a bit more concrete and discuss little things bit by bit. Let the major issues be discussed by others.
——HJ
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-08 18:07:05
One more point:
If someone still thinks yin-yang and the five phases are profound science today, then I absolutely disagree. My viewpoint has not been made clear, has it? In short, science must be viewed historically, because there is no immutable thing called science. Precisely for this reason, our discussion today may influence the development of future science. That’s giving us too much importance, isn’t it?!
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-02-08 21:15:19
ME
2007-02-08 18:07:05
One more point:
If someone still thinks yin-yang and the five phases are profound science today, then I absolutely disagree. My viewpoint has not been made clear, has it? In short, science must be viewed historically, because there is no immutable thing called science. Precisely for this reason, our discussion today may influence the development of future science. That’s giving us too much importance, isn’t it?!
===================================
I seem to remember Chen Pingyuan saying something like this: science is a speeding train, whereas the humanities are a group of people dancing around a fire.
However, our arguments today will not have any influence on the development of future science.
[Anonymous] gxyzd
2007-02-09 05:36:12
I read it over several times. Above, Teacher Liu Huajie was using “phlogiston theory” and “Ptolemaic astronomy” as examples of pseudoscience.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-09 17:44:45
TO GXYZD:
Here is what I actually said:
》What the phenomenon of pseudoscience often involves is not the same subject,
》for example “yin-yang and the five phases,” “the cosmology of the Eight Trigrams,”
》for example “phlogiston theory,” for example “Ptolemaic astronomy”; one subject is
》their inventor, while another category of subjects is the later citers and supporters.
》This is obviously different.
I didn’t mean that. What I meant, precisely, is that when people talk about the problem of pseudoscience, different subjects are often involved. In “the phenomenon of pseudoscience often involves not the same subject,” the “pseudoscience” refers to a term used in everyone’s discussion, and “everyone” includes not only myself.
Of course, if my wording led you to read it that way, that shows there really was room for misunderstanding. Then let the original wording be void; I’ll restate it now:
When people talk about the phenomenon of pseudoscience, especially when those who devote themselves most energetically to criticizing pseudoscience talk about pseudoscience, what is often involved is not the same subject. For example, when discussing “yin-yang and the five phases,” “the cosmology of the Eight Trigrams,” “phlogiston theory,” or “Ptolemaic astronomy,” one subject is their inventor, while another category of subjects is the later citers and supporters. This is obviously different.
I myself do not regard yin-yang and the five phases, phlogiston theory, Ptolemaic astronomy, and the like as pseudoscience; on the contrary, I regard them as all being quite good science in their time. I am not clear about the situation of the cosmology of the Eight Trigrams.
－－HJ
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-09 17:48:14
TO Teacher Zhao:
Since Teacher Zhao believes that today’s public arguments over science “will not have any influence on the development of future science,” does Teacher Zhao then believe that some people’s statements are that harmful?
Are the charges leveled at “anti-science cultural people,” “pseudoscience” activists, and so on still valid?
－－HJ
[Anonymous] G2
2007-02-09 19:05:17
When was phlogiston theory proposed?
I saw someone upstairs say: “In the Middle Ages, phlogiston theory was science.”
I think that before directing the discussion into philosophical depths, it is necessary to get some basic historical facts straight. Or perhaps merely describing things and doing nothing else is itself a stance. If a paragraph contains more than three “-isms,” my head starts to spin.
[Anonymous] Gu Bo
2007-02-09 19:19:19
Ah, the phlogiston theory clearly was not proposed in the Middle Ages; that sentence of mine was a rookie mistake. In fact, what I had originally written was “In the Middle Ages, Ptolemaic astronomy was science,” and after finishing, I replaced every instance of Ptolemaic astronomy in the whole text with phlogiston theory, without noticing the time-period error.
However, this rookie mistake does not affect the expression of my overall meaning. The discussion here was all written extemporaneously, at a keyboard, without much checking.
[Anonymous] Gu Bo
2007-02-09 19:45:06
After I finished writing, I thought of replacing Ptolemaic astronomy with phlogiston theory mainly because I became somewhat hesitant. Ptolemaic astronomy and phlogiston theory had somewhat different fates. Ptolemaic astronomy was replaced by a new system without having been falsified; at the birth of the new system it was still useful science, whereas phlogiston theory had already met with many refutations before the birth of oxygen theory (though only after the new theory took shape did those refutations truly become falsifications). What I hesitated about was whether even now, according to geocentrism, one could still establish a self-consistent scientific system (albeit with extremely complex mathematical construction, but perhaps still able to conform to observation under its own conceptual system and standards of measurement). And for such an alternative scientific system that can still make itself coherent, such as traditional Chinese medicine, I do not want to call it pseudoscience. But phlogiston theory, faced with more and more chemical phenomena, had long since become unable to make itself coherent; so in the end I chose to be more conservative and switched to phlogiston theory. As for phlogiston theory itself, it was also a matter of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, only a little earlier than Lavoisier; in the Middle Ages there was alchemy, but no phlogiston theory. I obviously know these common facts, otherwise the course in the general history of science would have been for nothing, and I would have had no face to see Teacher Wu…
[Anonymous] Gu Bo
2007-02-09 19:53:16
To avoid being identified again as making a common-fact mistake, let me add one more point: Ptolemaic astronomy became Europe’s orthodox scientific system not much earlier than Copernicus either; in European intellectual history, Ptolemy and Copernicus were almost contemporaries. So saying that Ptolemaic astronomy was science in the Middle Ages really can only mean the late Middle Ages at most.
[Anonymous] Yishan Yishan Liang
2007-02-09 20:47:43
I heard that Fang Zhouzi’s definition of pseudoscience was learned from Teacher Zhao. Could Teacher Zhao clarify this?
[Anonymous] Yishan Yishan Liang
2007-02-09 20:50:22
Gu Bo, please tell us: in your view, is there pseudoscience at all? Could you give a few examples?
[Anonymous] Gu Bo
2007-02-10 10:25:36
Good heavens! Why is Sina so disgusting now! Yesterday my reply to Yishan Yishan Liang merely included a link to Teacher Jiang’s article “A Pseudoscience That’s Hard to Speak About in One Breath,” and it got deleted too!? Could it be that any comment on Sina blogs containing any link will be deleted? If so, why not remind people when they submit the comment? I worked so hard typing so many words and they just vanished without even saying a word! I’m furious!
What I probably said yesterday was, first, that I basically agree with Teacher Jiang’s position. The classification of pseudoscience in specific issues is possible and necessary.
The designation of pseudoscience can be overturned later. The classification of pseudoscience has subjectivity and an element of its time, but unlike an individual’s subjective judgment, the scientific community’s designation of pseudoscience also has a certain fairness. It is just like legislation and court trials: even the fairest trial still has to be based on the subjective judgment of judges and juries, but one cannot, because trials cannot be completely objective, law cannot be absolutely airtight, and verdicts cannot always be correct, therefore reject all trials and deny the meaning of the existence of law. Even though we know that our conception of law is always of its time and relative, we should still strive continuously to improve the law; even though we know that trials can always be manipulated, we should still treat every trial seriously. Law and courts are necessary for maintaining order and the healthy stability of society; they cannot be too strict, and they cannot be too loose. The designation of pseudoscience is similar.
As for specific examples, I agree with the pseudosciences that the scientific community generally recognizes, such as most astrology on the market. In addition, I would like to give another case that is semantically contradictory and cannot possibly become science from the outset: I believe that anything that brands itself as “supernatural” is pseudoscience. The concept of “supernatural,” as an object of scientific study, is itself illegitimate. Science can study “paranormal abilities” and “unknown phenomena,” but it cannot study the “supernatural.” The basis that makes scientific research possible includes a naturalist presupposition, namely the belief that all phenomena under investigation can be explained as natural behavior, and that nature is lawful and knowable. Even quantum mechanics, which shakes the foundations of science, merely changes the understanding of what nature is, what law is, or what knowledge is; the naturalist perspective does not change. Scientific research into supernatural phenomena would be self-contradictory. Even if there really were supernatural forces, they still could not become the object of scientific research; all science can do is classify certain phenomena as natural phenomena that are not yet understood, and it can never determine certain phenomena to be supernatural phenomena. I bring up this example in reference to the various books on “mysterious phenomena” that fill the so-called “popular science” shelves of bookstores like Xinhua Bookstore today. If they merely present themselves as natural history, then that’s not much of a problem; but if they pose as ordinary scientific research while at the same time promoting supernatural phenomena in order to curry favor with the masses, then they are certainly pseudoscience, and they can never be vindicated!
2007-02-10 10:41:00
Sina is just like that.
I suggest that Little Gu should save his long posts in the future; it’s impossible to tell why Sina’s scissors suddenly come out.
But I’m a bit puzzled by the concept of “supernatural”; it seems there’s some circular definition here, as if something fishy is hidden inside.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-10 11:27:24
Let me paraphrase Teacher Liu’s definition:
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Definition A: To describe something non-scientific as science, then this kind of “claim” is pseudoscience.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Please note that the subject here is “claim,” meaning that “pseudoscience” is the claim, not the thing being claimed.
Discussing the thing being claimed, such as whether phlogiston theory or Ptolemy-whatever is pseudoscience, under this definitional premise, is discussing the boundary problem, not the definition of pseudoscience. I hope everyone won’t mix these up.
What I want to say is that there is a guy called Kuhn who offered such a boundary criterion:
Science is a “paradigm” followed by a community.
Since it is a community, there are at least two people; that is to say, for something proposed by one person, someone else besides him also “claims” that thing is science. (There may be even more people making the “claim.”)
When there are two or more subjects, Teacher Liu’s definition also has some problems.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-02-10 13:19:15
To: Teacher Jiang
Supernatural is nothing much; the strange thing is conducting “scientific” research on the supernatural.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-10 15:53:24
In
If my view makes sense, then the so-called scientific research conducted in China from 1979 to 1999 around paranormal abilities clearly has a logical problem.
[matheux
2007-02-12 14:23:09
In China, scientific thought has no market,
so non-scientific, anti-scientific, and pseudoscientific ideas
can comprehensively defeat scientific thought in all kinds of media.
[ME
2007-02-12 16:37:01
The mainstream media like that sort of thing; whoever doesn’t buy it is instead denounced as anti-science, counterrevolutionary, and so on. So the struggle over truth and falsehood is today mainly not an academic issue, but an issue of discursive power. Science is merely a signboard, an empty shell available for arguing anything. Inside and outside the scientific world, there has never been a shortage of enforcers borrowing science’s signboard. Before the arrival of the scientific age, there were equivalents in function too; they just weren’t called science.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply