This one was also commissioned, but it seems it was never published. It began because an editor at a newspaper or magazine wanted to put together a special issue on the scientific spirit and hoped to commission some related articles. The various keywords she gave included: tireless effort, fearless before power, daring to question, breaking through old prejudices, indifferent to fame and fortune, content with loneliness, even sacrifice of one’s life…… I disliked every single one of those words, so I proposed that these ideas were too cliché and too naïve. If we were going to talk about “the scientific spirit,” why not turn things around and talk about chasing fame and profit, refusing to be lonely, playing both ends against the middle…… In fact, why not say that these are the real scientific spirit? I am not joking; I truly think so. Whether from the standpoint of actual history or from the standpoint of the values one wishes to promote, these “new scientific spirits” should be advocated. I also put forward “harmony” as a keyword, so that my position would look a bit more in tune with the main melody; the wording was also very restrained. Unfortunately, the newspaper still seems unable to use it.
Here is the main text:
In traditional popular science works, the image of the scientist is often fashioned as that of a “fearless fighter.” Especially for scientists before the twentieth century, they are often portrayed as heroes oppressed by religion and superstition yet persevering stubbornly in the truth—either suffering persecution by religious courts, or enduring widespread prejudice and exclusion, and in the end even dying for their cause, sacrificing their lives for truth.
But with the deepening of history of science research, such an image of the scientist is becoming less and less tenable. People have noticed that many scientists who were fashioned as fearless heroes were in fact often conservative and compromising. Many people find it hard to accept this conclusion, and even knowingly or unknowingly ignore the academic progress made in history of science over the past few decades, persisting in popular science writing in repeating those old, stale myths, because only these stories can express the “scientific spirit” in their minds.
I think this self-deceptive evasiveness is unacceptable. First, “seeking truth from facts” should by rights be a key part of what is called the “scientific spirit”; if one disregards the facts, makes up stories, and promotes the scientific spirit in a way that violates the scientific spirit, how could that possibly have a good effect? Second, the traditional understanding of the scientific spirit is probably biased. The scientific spirit certainly has a combative side, but what should perhaps be emphasized more is its harmonious and accommodating aspect.
Is there an image in the history of science of a fighter who makes enemies everywhere? Yes, there is. Take Bruno, who was burned at the stake: he was indeed a combative figure, but he was not burned because he insisted on scientific truth; rather, he was burned because of his “heretical” views. Bruno opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and thought Jesus was merely a magician. He despised mathematics and could not understand Copernicus’s astronomical system; he merely borrowed some of Copernicus’s formulations to support himself. This aspect had never been the focus of the Inquisition’s attention. Or take Huxley, who was called “Darwin’s bulldog”; but in fact he did not believe in the theory of natural selection. He promoted Darwin’s ideas more because they could support his own ethical and political positions. As for Darwin’s theory of evolution, it certainly dealt a tremendous blow to traditional theological doctrines, but the decline of traditional theology and the rise of evolutionary thought were precisely the trend of the Victorian age. In an atmosphere of opposition to religion and praise of progress, Darwin was by no means lonely or isolated.
If we examine the images of these most famous scientists, it is better to say that they were not fighters battling all by themselves against an entire age, but rather people who were well connected and most in step with the currents of their time.
Moreover, these household-name scientists were in fact only a tiny handful within the scientific community as a whole. Most scientists had no revolutionary theories at all; they were simply doing obscure and painstaking work within some ready-made research framework, such as improving an instrument a little, increasing data precision a little, and so on. They were even less in any sense engaged in struggle. As for criticism and competition among scientists, these too were always carried out on the premise that they first shared a common language and mutually respected one another.
This phenomenon is not accidental. In fact, what is called “science,” especially modern science, is fundamentally characterized by the pursuit of universally valid knowledge. The so-called scientific method, or scientific language, likewise seeks the greatest possible degree of reproducibility or publicity. The openness and sharing of knowledge are features of the modern scientific community. What distinguishes the modern scientific tradition from the mystical tradition is not so much truth versus error as the difference between what is public and shared, and what is private and esoteric.
Popular science enthusiasts may prefer to talk about the combative spirit of scientists, feeling that their own new ideas have not been accepted because they have been suppressed by dogmatism, and so the combative spirit of science becomes a myth of self-comfort and self-motivation for them. But in fact, they have failed to notice the harmonious and accommodating spirit of science. Before scientists put forward their disruptive new theories, they often already had long since become integrated into the community of scientists of their time; they were able to communicate in language recognized by their peers, able to read and make effective use of the work of predecessors or other scholars of the same era, and able to present their own theories in the way most likely to win broad consensus. Scientists are always “standing on the shoulders of giants,” and this “giant” is not any particular great man, but the continually accumulated consensus of the entire scientific community. Within the scientific community, if you want your theory to be accepted by your peers, you must first融入 this mutually compatible platform of communication. If you do not respect other people’s work, how can you expect others to take your words seriously?
So scientists often strive for harmony, are good at building consensus, and only after a certain public understanding has been achieved, after establishing a harmonious atmosphere of mutual respect and a generally shared common language, do they go on to discuss certain deviant new ideas. That is the style of science.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply