加载中…科学、非科学、反科学、伪科学的区分
(2009-03-20 22:58:12)
标签：
科学非科学反科学伪科学杂谈 |
分类： 杂谈 |
科学、非科学、反科学、伪科学
我没有认真看文章，但我说一下我的理解。
我觉得有几个概念要搞清楚：科学（science）、非科学（non-science)、反科学(anti-scinece)、伪科学(pseudo-science)。
前三者刚好组成一个集合（科学、非科学、反科学），就是把这个世界的一切东西按科学的标准来划分。这是一个分类学的知识问题。当然其中隐含了科学的强势及其内在的价值。但至少这是一种事实区分。
但是伪科学不在上述的分类里面，它直接跟科学组成一个集合（科学、伪科学），但这种分类不是事实的分类，而是一种价值的区分。为什么世上有伪科学，那是因为科学太强势了，在大家的眼里，科学代表着正确，而其他的一切东西就是不正确，所以，其他的东西为了获得大家的认可，只有一个办法，那就是伪装成科学的样子，这个时候这种东西就是“伪科学”。
而伪科学按其内容来分是可以分为上面我说的三类（科学、非科学、反科学）。如马哲是哲学（非科学），但在中国却伪装成科学（伪科学），如气功是一种文化，但它也伪装成科学（伪科学），但或许气功本身有其科学的因子。再如水变油，永动机是反科学，但它却伪装成科学的样子（伪科学）。
总之，（科学、伪科学）是一个价值概念，而（科学、非科学、反科学）是一种事实概念。伪科学你一下子是反不了，因为它是科学的倒影。科学越强势，伪科学越厉害。
博主回复：你的看法有一定道理,
认为"(科学、伪科学）是一个价值概念，而（科学、非科学、反科学）是一种事实概念"听起来是不错的。但科学和伪科学区别应该是有一定标准的,
而非简单的价值判断, 就像真货和假货的区别一样.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
里面有若干标准来判别科学和伪科学, 你有空点开往下拉.
但科学和伪科学区别应该是有一定标准的, 而非简单的价值判断, 就像真货和假货的区别一样.
——当然有标准阿，但这个标准是价值标准。任何东西其实都有自己存在的理由和价值，但由于现代科学的强势，导致不符合现在主流科学的其他一切东西为了博得认同，都只好伪装成科学的样子，这个时候它就是“伪科学”。比如说中医，现在中医喜欢说自己是“科学”，它的意思就是说它符合现代科学那一套价值，这个时候其实它就成为了“伪科学”。但你能说中医就不能治病了么？当中医理直气壮地说我就是我，我就是中医，我就是几千年来能治病的中医时，它就不是“伪科学”。从这个意义上来说，伪科学仅仅是一种价值判断。伪科学是科学的孪生弟兄。他们如影相随。
至于你说“就像真货和假货的区别一样”，我是不赞成的，价值领域的东西，最好公权力不要介入。至于很多伪科学的东西打广告变成产品来挣钱，我们现有的法规就能处理（他们是价值中立的），不必再专门搞什么“伪科学法”等处理。一定要把行为和价值区分清楚！
How can you recognize pseudoscience?
science |
pseudoscience |
comment |
| The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world. | Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological,
cultural, or commercial goals.
|
Some examples:
astrology (from ancient Babylonian culture,) UFO-ology
(popular culture and mistrust of government), Creation
Science (attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the
Bible), "structure-altered"
waters (commercial quackery.)
|
| Most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline. | The field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it. | The search for new knowledge is the driving force behind the
evolution of any scientific field. Nearly every new finding raises
new questions that beg exploration. There is little evidence of
this in the pseudosciences.
|
| Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or
findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.
|
In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms. | Sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new
information is obtained.
In science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic. |
| Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies. | Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed. | Have you noticed how self-styled psychics always seem eager to announce their predictions for the new year, but never like to talk about how many of last years' predictions were correct? |
| Science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time. | The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong. | Enthusiasts incorrectly take the logical impossibility of disproving a pseudoscientific priniciple as evidence of its validity. |
| Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence. | Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support. | Have you ever noticed how proponents of pseudoscientific ideas are more likely to list all of the degrees they have? |
| Scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambigous terms. | Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts. | Phrases such as "energy vibrations" or "subtle energy fields" may sound impressive, but they are essentially meaningless. |
喜欢
0
赠金笔