The disciplines are the same.
There are two important differences between the natural sciences and the humanities:
1. Scientific papers must be innovative. Scientific papers have a set format; in the first chapter after the abstract, they explain what innovations the paper contains. A paper with no innovation is utterly worthless and cannot be accepted by academic journals. The humanities are different: even peddling some foreign trash can become a paper.
2. The natural sciences do not permit nonsense; the humanities do. No matter how innovative your idea may be, if it lacks evidence and is merely subjective conjecture, scientific academic journals will not publish it.
For example, Jianyi’s theory that “the Earth is like a piece of popcorn” can only be published in journals that fool middle school students; it cannot enter scientific academic journals. The reason is simple: cut open popcorn and look at it under a microscope or a high-powered magnifying glass, and you will see there are many small cavities inside. If the Earth really were popcorn, then you would find many structures in rocks that look like steamed cake or bread. Unfortunately, such cavities have not been observed to this day. So Jianyi’s innovation has not gone beyond the level of sheer nonsense.
[Anonymous] Gucha
2007-01-23 17:40:43
To Jianyi: Then believe in history. Since you believe that truth and falsehood will ultimately be verified by history, why insist on being recognized by the mainstream scientific community?
You say, “on the basis of respecting science…” What is it that you respect? What does science refer to? If it merely refers to the spirit of criticism and skepticism, then there is no real difference between science and philosophy; science, as science, cannot be summed up by the word innovation alone.
Kuhn was right to place the emphasis of demarcating science on “normal science.”
Science requires norms. Normal science not only incubates revolutions, but revolutions ultimately have to be accomplished within normal science as well. In history there has never been a scientific revolution that simply revolved once and that was the end of it; every scientific revolution is a new beginning. In the early stages of a revolution, new theories are often very immature, and their precision, rigor, and completeness often cannot compare with the old system. Thus new theories also need to be constantly adjusted, corrected, and perfected in a new “normal stage”—of course, these local refinements and deepening are also carried out in the spirit of innovation, but that does not mean launching revolutions every day. Without the calm and solid work of normal science, the significance of scientific revolutions would not become visible.
If you feel that today’s normal science has reached its end and want to launch a new revolution, that is certainly commendable in spirit. But it would be best to get your mentality straight. Even if you really are going to be a revolutionary, even if you are Copernicus or Darwin, it is reasonable that your views will initially be rejected by the mainstream academic world. Criticism and innovation are certainly part of the scientific spirit, but calmness and rigor are equally important scientific virtues.
Scientific revolutionaries are all founders of a new era, and in this new era, their successors will continue the research ideas and methods of the pioneers, further enriching and perfecting the theoretical system. If no later generation follows up, then it does not count as a revolution. Since you want to strive for “exploration and innovation,” you cannot stop at merely proposing a seemingly novel explanation; you should open up territory for those who come after you and point the way, telling others how to carry out further research along your line of thought. You should propose new hypotheses and the methods for verifying them. Only when your hypotheses are continuously verified, and your theory is continuously refined, systematized, and made more rigorous, will others naturally recognize your value; self-promotion alone can never lead to genuine recognition. Even if mainstream journals and magazines publish your articles now, if your articles cannot indicate directions and methods for further development and cannot provide any hypotheses, then your work will ultimately be forgotten by history.
2007-01-23 22:07:09
Many scientific theories are founded with a predictive quality; when objective reality cannot yet be visualized, one can absolutely rely on imagination to guide the discovery of natural laws through practice, ultimately giving rise to earth-shaking scientific revolutions. Pythagoras’ first basis for proposing that the Earth is a sphere was only that he believed the sphere to be the most perfect shape; when Copernicus proposed the “heliocentric theory,” the telescope had not yet been invented; 130 years ago, when Huxley pointed out that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs, he had never seen a fossil animal that was half bird and half dragon… The path of scientific innovation has always been difficult and tortuous; worldly prejudice is farther from truth than ignorance. To make scientific principles that ought to be simple more complicated, and to drape plain theories in ornate clothing, is the scare tactic that those “official sciences” are forced to resort to.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-01-23 22:36:59
To make scientific principles that ought to be simple more complicated, and to drape plain theories in ornate clothing, is the scare tactic that those “official sciences” are forced to resort to.
======================================
If “official science” Zhang San invents a complicated scientific principle, then “official science” Li Si will also simplify it into the simplest form, using Occam’s razor to scrape away every last bit of the “ornate clothing” and “scare tactics.” Because the value system of science forces people to do so.
Making simple things complicated is the monopoly of philosophy and other humanities.
2007-01-24 09:06:31
“The sequence of planetary evolution”:
Like all things in nature, planets also have a developmental process from birth to death. Stars evolve from “black holes,” and planets in turn evolve from stars. Every planet in the universe must go through several stages of evolution—“black hole”—nebula—star—red giant—white dwarf—planet—comet—asteroid—just that simple.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-01-24 15:27:34
Talking nonsense is just that simple.
[Anonymous] Gucha
2007-01-24 16:10:25
In a sense I very much admire the enthusiasm of folk scientists and folk philosophers, and I am not qualified to evaluate or deny their bizarre and ridiculous theories. As a pluralist I also support the survival of alternative science. But out of sincerity I would still suggest that folk scientists devote more of their enthusiasm to solid research.
Whether it was Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, or any other scientifically outstanding revolutionary, none of them, while overthrowing old theories, was not thoroughly familiar with the theories prevailing at the time. Copernicus knew the Ptolemaic system well, Einstein was familiar with classical mechanics, and even Darwin had systematically studied creation theology. If you really are a great revolutionary, I believe you are equally sufficiently acquainted with the theoretical system you are about to overthrow. In that case, you need not rush to publish sensational conclusions; you should give others time to prepare psychologically. Just as when you are informing someone that they are about to die, it is best to break it to them little by little, otherwise they certainly won’t be able to take it. The same goes for announcing the death of old science: revealing it little by little makes it easier for people to accept. Do not rush to put the final conclusion on display.
Why not first follow the old theory’s patterns and write some properly disciplined papers—for example,整理 and clarifying the key points or essentials of the old theory? This is not to say that you must flatter the old theory. Rather, through such writing, you can demonstrate to others your mastery of the old theory, just like revolutionaries in history. If you can write these solid, foundational, excellent papers, naturally you will be able to publish in mainstream journals, and in this way you will gradually obtain and establish your academic right to speak. Afterwards, you can reveal your brand-new ideas step by step, and others will of course find it easier to accept you. If you cannot write some foundational, solid papers under the old theory, then it is only natural for others to suspect that you do not have the qualifications of a great revolutionary, is it not?
Writing foundational scientific papers is not difficult; a university student with three to five years of training can do it, let alone a great revolutionary. Which revolutionary in history had no command of the old doctrines whatsoever? If you claim that you can lift a one-ton stone, but refuse to demonstrate by lifting a 50-kilogram barbell, how can you expect others to be convinced? Even if you really did lift a one-ton stone in front of people, others might still think you were playing tricks and doing magic; that is just how people’s psychology works. First lift 50 kilograms, then 100 kilograms, and reveal your abilities little by little—others will naturally find it easier to believe you. Perhaps you think pandering to the old theory’s way of thinking is unnecessary. Indeed, for the development of science that may be pointless, but for being recognized by others it is important. We believe that a figure who will make major scientific breakthroughs absolutely cannot fail to reach even the level of an ordinary university student; after all, the former appears once every few centuries, whereas the latter appears by the tens of thousands every year.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-24 16:50:25
If “official science” Zhang San invents a complicated scientific principle, then “official science” Li Si will also simplify it into the simplest form, using Occam’s razor to scrape away every last bit of the “ornate clothing” and “scare tactics.” Because the value system of science forces people to do so.
Making simple things complicated is the monopoly of philosophy and other humanities.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Impossible
If Academician Zhang San invents a complicated scientific principle, then no matter whether you, Li Si, are official science or folk science, as long as you dare to entertain the thought of starting up the razor, Academician Zhang San will jump out and accuse you of violating “scientific” norms, of being “pseudoscience,” and he will also tell you that this is not just his personal opinion, but the view of the “community.”
Given the current situation, as long as you, Li Si, are not an academician, the outcome will be exactly as described above. You will be unable to obtain any academic resources whatsoever, including funding, instruments, and so on.
Lao Zhao, your heart is in the right place, but don’t be too naive. Science is not what you imagine it to be.
Li Si under a community
[Anonymous] Gucha
2007-01-24 19:23:32
The actual practice of science may always fail to satisfy, but science as a whole, ideally speaking, is always supposed to strive for simplification. Power may control things for a while, but it cannot control them forever; in the final analysis, the ornate things still cannot escape Occam’s razor. In this respect, Teacher Zhao’s line of thought is correct.
I think the issue Teacher Zhao emphasizes is not merely that the “heart is good,” but more crucially the emphasis on the “normativity” of science. Perhaps reality inevitably involves one kind or another of “unwritten rules,” but unwritten rules are after all hidden rules; they can never come onto the stage. By contrast, Occam’s razor is a plain, clear, and perfectly respectable scientific rule that has stood firm for hundreds of years. Teacher Zhao says, “The value system of science forces people to do this,” and that is well said. Even if unwritten rules exist in reality, they are by no means the value system of science; the ideal rules are. The positions of these two kinds of rules must not be reversed, otherwise one commits the “naturalistic fallacy”—thinking that what is, is reasonable, that “is” entails “ought.” Since the unwritten rules by which power affects research do in fact exist, then they are reasonable—this line of thinking, from the perspective of ethics, is actually the more naive one. In fact, of course they are unreasonable and need to be eliminated through effort. This is different from those ideal demands that cannot be perfectly implemented in reality but must still be striven to realize.
In addition, there is an issue of wording: we like to call the opposite of “folk science” “official science,” and that is somewhat problematic. Although it is true that in present-day China politics has indeed intruded too much into scientific research, official science by no means represents the whole opposite of folk science. This is even more obvious in philosophy: we now have the camp of “folk philosophy” and the camp of “official philosophy,” but in fact the academic philosophical world is not only averse to folk philosophers, it is even more averse to official philosophers. The concept opposite to “folk philosophy” should more appropriately be “academic philosophy”; the boundaries among these three are clear, just as clear as the boundary between Peking University’s Department of Philosophy and Peking University’s School of Marxism. In science, perhaps the boundary between the academic community and “the official” is not so clear yet, but these two concepts are still vastly different. Discussing the problem of abuse of power within the academic community is different from discussing the problem of power coming from “the official.” Scholars’ resistance to interference from “the official” may be even stronger than their resistance to interference from “the folk” (the latter is more a matter of dismissiveness, whereas the former has to be dealt with); at least as far as I know, there is such a trend in philosophy.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-01-24 19:52:53
Someone
2007-01-24 16:50:25
If “official science” Zhang San invents a complicated scientific principle, then “official science” Li Si will also simplify it into the simplest form, using Occam’s razor to scrape away every last bit of the “ornate clothing” and “scare tactics.” Because the value system of science forces people to do so.
Making simple things complicated is the monopoly of philosophy and other humanities.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Impossible
If Academician Zhang San invents a complicated scientific principle, then no matter whether you, Li Si, are official science or folk science, as long as you dare to entertain the thought of starting up the razor, Academician Zhang San will jump out and accuse you of violating “scientific” norms, of being “pseudoscience,” and he will also tell you that this is not just his personal opinion, but the view of the “community.”
Given the current situation, as long as you, Li Si, are not an academician, the outcome will be exactly as described above. You will be unable to obtain any academic resources whatsoever, including funding, instruments, and so on.
Lao Zhao, your heart is in the right place, but don’t be too naive. Science is not what you imagine it to be.
Li Si under a community
==========================
Really? I’ve shaved quite a few academicians’ heads with the razor, and they didn’t dare say a word.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-25 03:15:30
Lao Zhao, after all, you are a professor in Tsinghua’s Department of Automation. China is so big, and Tsinghua is the only one of its kind. Don’t underestimate your place in the “community.”
I won’t say much about theoretical matters. Xiao Gu said it quite well. To put it more realistically, in the current unwritten rules, the issue is not whether the razor should be used, but whose hand the razor is in.
[KEOLI
2007-01-25 08:42:13
Xiao Gu speaks well, but one point needs correcting. Xiao Gu is too optimistic; the philosophy world does not consciously resist official philosophy. On the contrary, as far as I know, many people are all too eager to follow it, and in the Chinese philosophy world, dependence on a bad system is extremely severe.
[Anonymous] Gucha
2007-01-25 11:11:18
This is not a matter of optimism or pessimism. When I say that scholars’ resistance to influence from the official sphere is stronger than their resistance to influence from the folk sphere, it is precisely because the academic world can dismiss folk absurdities and wild claims, but cannot completely sever ties with the official sphere. Because the entanglement is so unclear, the contradiction is all the greater.
The key issue is that when everyone argues, they should make their stance explicit and be clear about who they are arguing with. We must admit that scientists who actively resist pseudoscience, such as Teacher Zhao, are absolutely serious, responsible, and honest scholars. They may hope to speak for science, but they are by no means spokesmen for “the official.” To regard them as “official science” is probably to mistake the opponent.
This is a very important issue. Quite a few folk scientists think that they are being suppressed by the officialdom, that they are fighting against the official. There is always some tragic and heroic complex of “the official oppresses the people, and the people resist” in the background. But in fact, although the official sphere certainly often suppresses folk science, more often in present-day China folk science tends to receive support from officials. This danger is precisely why many serious scholars oppose folk science so actively: they are not really resisting folk science—because if folk science were always limited to folk self-entertainment, it would not pose much influence on the mainstream academic world, and one could simply dismiss it. Why bother expending such effort? It is precisely because folk science always has the danger of becoming “official science,” and always has the tendency to mislead the official sphere, that serious scientists are so vigilant.
2007-01-25 13:12:59
Some people place human beings’ position in the universe in too important a light. In fact, human beings, like other earthly creatures, are nothing more than one material mode of existence among the innumerable material forms of existence in nature—namely, compounds of elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus under suitable temperatures. Humanity’s period of existence on the planets is only a very brief instant in the process of planetary evolution, while planets themselves are only a brief stage in the evolution of celestial bodies. Insignificant human beings in the vast universe always think their actions are so momentous. In reality, no matter how great your abilities, you cannot change the fact that life disappears along with the evolution of the planets. Earth cannot be seen from other galaxies, and it is also hard to see from other stars; even from an artificial satellite, the Great Wall cannot be seen with the naked eye. And yet it is precisely such tiny creatures, living day after day for the sake of survival over a short stretch of time, who are forever arguing over petty matters—what revolution and counterrevolution, what science and pseudoscience, what is true and false, what is right and wrong. In the end, natural law will show no mercy as it turns the Earth into Mars—moon—comet—asteroid—gas and dust; those eternal ideas too will go up in smoke, and only those mindless atoms, molecules, and even smaller microscopic particles will gain eternity.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-01-25 14:29:54
Someone
2007-01-25 03:15:30
Lao Zhao, after all you are a professor in Tsinghua’s Department of Automation. China is so big, and Tsinghua is only one Tsinghua; don’t underestimate your position in the “community.”
I won’t say much about theory. What Xiao Gu said is quite good. To put it more concretely, the present-day unwritten rules are not about whether the razor should be used, but whose hands it is in.
===================================
People like me are truly insignificant in the “community.”
Everyone has a razor in hand; the key is to sharpen your own. If your razor isn’t sharp and you end up drawing blood when shaving someone, then of course people will protest. If it is sharpened enough and you shave off only what should be shaved off, then people naturally will have nothing to say.
Jian Yi
2007-01-25 13:12:59
Some people place human beings’ position in the universe in too important a light. In fact, human beings, like other earthly creatures, are nothing more than one material mode of existence among the innumerable material forms of existence in nature—namely, compounds of elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus under suitable temperatures. Humanity’s period of existence on the planets is only a very brief instant in the process of planetary evolution, while planets themselves are only a brief stage in the evolution of celestial bodies. Insignificant human beings in the vast universe always think their actions are so momentous. In reality, no matter how great your abilities, you cannot change the fact that life disappears along with the evolution of the planets. Earth cannot be seen from other galaxies, and it is also hard to see from other stars; even from an artificial satellite, the Great Wall cannot be seen with the naked eye. And yet it is precisely such tiny creatures, living day after day for the sake of survival over a short stretch of time, who are forever arguing over petty matters—what revolution and counterrevolution, what science and pseudoscience, what is true and false, what is right and wrong. In the end, natural law will show no mercy as it turns the Earth into Mars—moon—comet—asteroid—gas and dust; those eternal ideas too will go up in smoke, and only those mindless atoms, molecules, and even smaller microscopic particles will gain eternity.
==============================
Hehe, I never expect my words to be remembered after I die, let alone anything “eternal.”
“Drifting like mayflies between heaven and earth, I am but a speck of dust in the boundless sea”; life is short—why not say what one wants to say to one’s heart’s content?
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-25 20:02:47
People like me are truly insignificant in the “community.”
Everyone has a razor in hand; the key is to sharpen your own. If your razor isn’t sharp and you end up drawing blood when shaving someone, then of course people will protest. If it is sharpened enough and you shave off only what should be shaved off, then people naturally will have nothing to say.
Hehe, I never expect my words to be remembered after I die, let alone anything “eternal.”
“Drifting like mayflies between heaven and earth, I am but a speck of dust in the boundless sea”; life is short—why not say what one wants to say to one’s heart’s content?
============================
Haha, Professor Zhao, that’s refreshing! Say what you want to say, do what you want to do, sharpen the knife you want to sharpen!
When will I ever be able to wield a razor like you, slicing all pseudoscience into fine bits? How satisfying that would be!
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-25 20:53:45
Fang Zhouzi has estimated that in the United States, publishing one article costs on average about 100,000 US dollars; in China, my own estimate is about 100,000 RMB per SCI article. (Take the 973 Program as an example: one project costs several million, and in the end several hundred papers are handed in.) Looked at from another angle, every time you get a chance to swing the razor, you can bring in 100,000 yuan.
At this point, the issue is no longer whether your razor is sharp enough. The sharper your blade is, the more capable you are of seizing that 100,000 yuan. If no one is backing you, and you kick over someone else’s turf and still want to live to come back, then that is not what they call a “community.” If you possess weapons of mass destruction, then just look at Saddam Hussein’s fate.
[Anonymous] Lao Zhao
2007-01-26 09:43:55
Someone
2007-01-25 20:53:45
Fang Zhouzi has estimated that in the United States, publishing one article costs on average about 100,000 US dollars; in China, my own estimate is about 100,000 RMB per SCI article. (Take the 973 Program as an example: one project costs several million, and in the end several hundred papers are handed in.) Looked at from another angle, every time you get a chance to swing the razor, you can bring in 100,000 yuan.
At this point, the issue is no longer whether your razor is sharp enough. The sharper your blade is, the more capable you are of seizing that 100,000 yuan. If no one is backing you, and you kick over someone else’s turf and still want to live to come back, then that is not what they call a “community.” If you possess weapons of mass destruction, then just look at Saddam Hussein’s fate.
======================================
I can’t manage the internal affairs of the scientific world; after all, each trade has its own specialized field. The scientific popularization campaign against pseudoscience is aimed at publicity to the public, at statements in the newspapers. These are all unrelated to money.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-26 11:12:55
Lao Zhao, this is where you are wrong. If you don’t care about internal affairs, then what is the purpose of doing publicity outward? To maintain a quiet and harmonious money-grabbing environment inside the scientific community?
[Anonymous] Gu Bia
2007-01-26 15:55:57
This matter is this matter, that matter is that matter. Teacher Zhao is right; Someone is indeed shifting the topic. Of course the problems within the scientific community also need discussion, but that is another question. Publicity outward fundamentally has little effect on internal problems. If folk science does not receive support from officials, it will have no real impact on the academic environment of science at all. Ordinary scientists need only treat it with disdain. The quality of folk-science materials can generally be distinguished even by ordinary undergraduates, even high school students, and they simply cannot interfere with scientists’ work. I believe that the main motive for Teacher Zhao and other scientists doing science popularization is responsibility.
Most objections to folk science can be judged by high school or university students. The basis for such judgment is not how bizarre the folk-science claims are, but rather the basic issues of attitude, language, and norms; this point Teacher Zhao does not seem to have emphasized. For example, saying “the Earth is a piece of popcorn” is certainly odd, but Hawking also said the universe is a “nut shell.” What is objectionable is not merely that one strange proposition itself, but that the discourse style and problem-awareness of much folk science are completely off the point—like writing a lyric poem about “the geometry of life” under a problem in solid geometry proof. Even if I myself can’t solve that problem, I would still be able to judge that the person who wrote the poem is talking nonsense; that is the characteristic of ordinary Chinese folk science today. Opposing those things does not require bringing in interests, power, or anything like that. University students with no power, no influence, and no vested interests can distinguish them. It is just that scientists have more say in front of the public. Of course, in the West there are also some more advanced quasi-scientific activities that can attract many well-trained scientists to participate, but unfortunately Chinese folk science (unless backed by officials) is still far from reaching that level.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-26 18:14:41
Domestic affairs and foreign affairs are originally one and the same, and moreover, they “should” be one and the same.
Science is the way humans explore the world; “scientific research” is an activity funded by taxpayers. When someone else’s money is given to “you” to explore the world, you can’t just take it and run; the two sides have to set up a contract, don’t they.
Xiao Gu, don’t casually shift the topic. What is called official science and folk science is nothing more than a question of who should get the money. That question cannot obscure the question of whether the money should be taken at all.
This is where the strength of scientism lies: all this money belongs to “science”; not only to seize it by stealth, but to grab it outright. Kant’s split between pure reason and practical reason is simply irrelevant here; what remains is scientific reason.
Governments that cannot sort out domestic and foreign affairs are usually very problematic governments, such as Japan’s government during World War II, which shifted contradictions through war and the like. If science were to become like that too, then humanity would be better off getting rid of it sooner rather than later.
[Anonymous] Gu Bia
2007-01-26 18:49:02
I really have been trying to shift the topic, but I haven’t succeeded…
I agree that “scientific research” is an activity funded by taxpayers, and scientists cannot completely ignore public opinion. Therefore, one important meaning of science popularization lies precisely here: letting the public know what scientists are doing.
However, even if we were to adopt, contrary to my own preference, a completely one-person-one-vote democratic resolution to decide who gets the money—what folk sciences in China today are qualified to receive money? One must know that folk scientists are not only unrecognized by scientists and not recognized by university students; they also do not recognize one another. The “research” of one folk scientist is probably supported only by himself. What is trusted by the broadest masses of people (even if that trust arises from scientism) is of course still the mainstream scientific community, so it is only proper that taxpayers’ money go to them. If folk scientists can win the support of a small segment of people, then they can also entirely adopt a sponsorship model: whoever supports them gives them money, without needing the government as intermediary. Government investment should be based on the will of the majority of taxpayers.
I support plural science, but not every strange theory is qualified to become one of the plural. Plural science is to a large extent only an ideal anyway. In reality, the only one I see as genuinely qualified to stand as “alternative science” and worthy of government support is Chinese medicine as one example—it has a theoretical system and research rules incompatible with mainstream science, its own traditions and institutions, broad popular support, and considerable practical significance. Beyond that, all the various odd, unstructured, non-systematic bits of folk science have no right to have all taxpayers pay for them.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-01-26 19:28:42
Science is the way humans explore the world; “scientific research” is an activity funded by taxpayers. When someone else’s money is given to “you” to explore the world, you can’t just take it and run; the two sides have to set up a contract, don’t they.
===========================
Xiao Gu, have you ever signed a contract?
It is not that money cannot be given, nor that it cannot be taken. But in business, what is the most important foundation of a contract?
It is integrity.
Without integrity, business society cannot function. Scientists take the money because people trust you, believing that you can come up with something. As for exactly how the money is spent and exactly how the work is done, taxpayers do not have much interest in paying attention. Giving you the money means letting you do this job.
The current folk-science crowd, as you yourself say, is far behind official science in the degree to which it can get others to “believe” it. What you emphasize is indeed correct. But don’t think that putting on the hat of official science means it will suddenly be any better. The government occasionally uses folk science to jolt official science a bit; that is not causing trouble, but reminding official science not to assume that we trust you so much.
Official science absolutely has the ability to play dirtier than folk science.
Just like the dynastic changes in Chinese history, official science can also end up playing things too far. The birth of modern Western science counts as one major dynastic change; the present dynasty is still continuing, but there have already been who knows how many small coups within it, and there has been blood and wind and rain in there too.
I too advocate pluralism, but I believe pluralism is one whole; they should have a common foundation of trust, otherwise they are just a bunch of swindlers.
[Anonymous] Gu Bia
2007-01-26 20:44:55
Putting on the hat of official science indeed does not make things any better, which is why I mentioned earlier that it is best to distinguish between “official science” and the “academic world.” If the current situation in China is that the two are tangled up and indistinct, then I would say we should strive to separate them clearly!
Does receiving government support necessarily mean serving the government? You are right to say that the basis of a contract is integrity, not interest. Entering into a contract does not necessarily mean a promise regarding results. I spend all the money you gave me on the things I said I would spend it on—that is integrity. Science should by no means promise to serve the interests of the government.
Take money and you must do the work for them; do the work for them and you must produce actual results—these are all ideas of the technical age, commercialism, and utilitarianism, and what I oppose most is precisely this whole set. Applied science and engineering technology may perhaps value results, but basic sciences such as mathematics and theoretical physics cannot be treated this way, and the humanities absolutely cannot either. It is terribly wrong to run scientific research with the same method used for engineering projects—starting projects, applying for grants, and going through acceptance checks.
I believe free science is supra-utilitarian. The scientific community I imagine is, if not Plato’s Academy, at least the Mouseion of Alexandria. The hidden intentions of government investment in schools may include enhancing prestige, producing technological成果, and so on, but the scholars within the Mouseion all regarded themselves as Greeks. No matter how outsiders view them, or how their own results are used by outsiders, scholars themselves always regard science in an idealistic way.
Rather than saying I oppose folk science, I would say what I emphasize is opposition to official science. As you said, “the government occasionally uses folk science to stimulate official science a bit” — folk science itself poses no threat to scientists; the real threat is the power of the government.
However, criticism of the modern academic system is unrelated, or not very related, to the issue of folk science. My thought is that if, because of opposition to the existing scientific system, one goes off to ally oneself with folk science, then the significance of my criticisms will instead be weakened. For if I am regarded as standing on the same side as those folk scientists with their bizarre theories, it will only deepen scientists’ and scholars’ contempt and hostility toward me, and it will also make my own position ambiguous. My greatest concern is reflection on and criticism of modern science—including the current scientific research system, scientism, utilitarianism, and technicism, and so on—rather than opposing folk science. But precisely for that reason I find it necessary to draw a clear line from folk science, and I should also remain friendly with scientists—especially those scientists with an idealistic temperament, whom I admire most. I hope that these idealistic scientists can truly stay away from the sway of utilitarianism and power, and enjoy a freer academic environment.
[Anonymous] Some
2007-01-26 21:14:44
Once you’ve taken the money, you must do things for them; and if you do things for them, you must produce tangible results—those are all ways of thinking proper to the age of technology, commercialism, and utilitarianism. What I oppose most strongly is precisely this whole set of ideas.
==================================
Correct!
Rather than saying that I oppose popular pseudoscience, it would be better to say that what I emphasize is opposition to official science.
———————————————-
Because if I am seen as standing on the same side as those popular pseudoscience oddballs and crank theories, it will only deepen scientists’ and scholars’ contempt and hostility toward me, and at the same time make my own position ambiguous.
===================================
Liu laoshi has already said this much: “scientific cultural people” have themselves already become a distinct pole; Jiang Jinsong laoshi even turned it into “five poles,” plus the official taiji and the grassroots wuji.
You do not need to stand on the same side as the strange popular pseudoscience crowd, nor do you need to abandon your own position because of scientists’ contempt and hostility—you are just yourself.
What I care about most is reflection on and criticism of modern science (including the current research system, scientism, utilitarianism, or technologism, and so on)
====================================
“Once you’ve taken the money, you must do things for them” is actually not false, but “and if you do things for them, you must produce tangible results” is not necessarily so. If “research” activity can be carved out separately from other activities, then it must have its special character.
If you do not “do things for them and must produce tangible results,” then why should this thing be done? Why should public resources be used to do such a thing that may not even yield results?
In Newton’s day, Newton was the director of the British Mint (chairman of the Federal Reserve Committee of Great Britain), and Lavoisier belonged to the “parasitic” nobility (for which he lost his head in the French Revolution); early scientists were all somewhat filthy rich, and they funded their own research. How did the transition to today’s model of research come about? Why is it that today, whenever research is mentioned, the first instinct is to think of government investment?
[Anonymous] Mou
2007-01-26 21:25:20
The contradiction in the current research system lies in the contradiction between the non-utilitarian nature of science and the utilitarian use of public resources.
Under a market economy system, the government is just a big enterprise, and the government’s investment must also pay attention to return on investment. We have already tried the bitter lesson of asking the government to do things for an ideal purpose; now we are being forced to start eating the bitter lesson of asking science to do things for utilitarian goals. How long we will have to keep eating it, heaven knows.
The contradiction in the research system is systemic; it cannot be solved by reconciliation.
[Anonymous] Mou
2007-01-26 21:34:41
If you receive government funding, must you necessarily serve the government? The basis of a contract being sincerity is correct, not interest. Signing a contract does not necessarily mean a promise of results. I spend all the money you gave me on the things I said I would spend it on—that is sincerity. Science should absolutely not promise to serve the government’s interests.
=================================
If scientific activity cannot bring benefits to the government, then why should the government provide support?
As a business enterprise, the government has no consumption activities at all; everything is investment. What can be sponsored by the government can only be “scientific activity,” not science itself, even though there is no way to distinguish “science” from “scientific activity.”
[Anonymous] Gu Chi
2007-01-26 21:37:29
“Once you’ve taken the money, you must do things for them” is not necessarily so! “Investment” is a commercialist way of thinking; but giving money does not necessarily mean “investment.” At the very least, “sponsorship” is different from investment: sponsorship means that I appreciate your work, think your work is meaningful, and therefore fund your work. This can entirely be a kind of help that asks for no return. Even after you’ve taken my money, you can still do only your own work and be responsible only to yourself. I give you money not in order for you to act according to my way of thinking, but because I fully trust your judgment and entrust the money to you for free use. Your obligation is, at most, simply to explain honestly where the money went. This too is a form of agreement truly based on sincerity.
[Anonymous] Mou
2007-01-26 22:26:08
Sorry, Xiaogu, I had to step away just now because of a phone call; let’s have a good chat another time when we get the chance!
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply