This article comes from WeChat public account:Neugeist (id: negeist)Author: Michael D. Gordin, Translator: Wolf Gu, School Division: Maya Blue, Editor: Yang Yinzhu, Original Title: “What is the boundary between science and pseudo -science?》, The question map is from:
What is the boundary between science and pseudo -science?The impact of this issue has exceeded the academic world, and the answers we give will bring consequences.This part is because of“Tolerance and pseudo -science will cause realistic damage”, Just as scholars of health policy Timoshi Corfid(Timothy Caulfield)It was written in “Nature” during the first wave of new crown epidemic in the United States in April 2020.We want to know which disciplines are considered to be true science and which are pseudo -science.
Austria-British philosopher Karl Poper(Karl Popper)Called it to be “the issue of boundary”.This boundary is not obvious.You can’t judge only the correct part of science, because science is gradual:Many scientific theories are temporary, and they are often proven to be wrong later.This does not mean that those scholars who propose the wrong theory are doing “pseudo -science” and even “bad science”, but science is operating.Make a certain theory “science” is not its correctness.
In all candidate answers,Poper himself proven pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -was most often cited by philosophers and scientists.These criticisms have seriously weakened Poper’s proposal, but they still stand still in a century’s debate, which explains the challenges of the “boundary issue”.The importance of this issue today is not as good as Poper’s proposal.
To understand the development of pseudo -pseudo, you must first understand Poper’s background.Poper was born in the birthplace of Vienna, a 20th century, and a PhD in psychology in 1928.In the early 1920s, Popper had been in Alverd Adeler(Alfred Adler)Volunteers in the clinic.Adeler’s former mentor is psychological analysis of Kaishan originator Sigmond Freud(Sigmund Freud), But the two parted ways.Early interests of psychological analysis and later rejection are very important for Poper’s later scientific philosophy.
In Vienna, which is located in Poper, scientific philosophy has attracted much attention.During his student period, a thinker group called “Vienna Circle” flourished. The core members include philosophers Moritz Schlik(Moritz Schlight)And Rudov Calnap(Rudolf Carnap)Physicist Philip Frank(Philipp Frank), Mathematician Hans Harn(Hans Hahn)Sister Olga Hane-Newras, the same as his mathematician(Olga hahn-neuriz)And Orto Newlas, the husband of Orta, a social scientist(OTTO Neural)Essence
The group clarified the mainstream scientific philosophy of the first half of the 20th century:Logic empiricalism.The Vienna Circle and the Berlin school that is the same as they see not only dominate the European scientific philosophy, but also spread its views to the United States -after the rise of German Nazi, many of these groups are Jewish or socialists, or they mayThe leaders with both identities moved to the United States and rebuilt their school.us
You can understand logical empiricalism from its components.Its advocates are empiricals,Because they believe that “sensory data” forms the only reliable source of our understanding of the natural world.Based on the philosophical thoughts of many centuries, the most worth mentioning is the 18th -century Scottish philosopher David Hume, which had an important impact on Poper(David Hume)And Austrian physicist Erh Mach, a Austrian physicist who emphasizes sensory data in the center of natural science(ERNST MACH)Logical empiricals have rejected any claims about the natural structure that cannot be traced back to sensory observation, and believes that they are “metaphysics.”
However, on the empiricalism of Hume and Mach,Logic empiricals also emphasize the importance of logical relationships in the process of combining the real fragment we feel.These logical relationships are not necessarily based on empirical data, but they are the key to determining the truth about nature and the truth of school.
At first, Poper followed the mainstream of logic empiricalism, but he quickly diverted out and developed the framework of his own understanding of science. Just as his two influential books, “Logic of Scientific Discovery”(1934, revised and translated in English in 1959)And “Guess and Cute”(1962)Show in.Poper claims that he had the initial idea of the issue of planning in 1919 when he was only 17 years old.He wrote that he “hopes to distinguish science and pseudo science;I know that science often makes mistakes, and pseudo -science may also happen to discover the truth“” “.
But what do you do?On May 29, 1919, a British -eating detection team provided key opinions.Astronomer Arthur Edinton(Arthur Eddington)And Frank Dyson(Frank dyson)Organize two groups to measure the deflection of the starlight around the sun to test the Albert Einstein(Albert Einstein)The general theory of general relativity is proposed.An important prediction of Einstein is that the path of light will be bent by the strong gravity field, and during the day eclipse, people can measure the precise curvature of the star light behind the sun.According to Eddon and Dyson, the measured curvature is more in line with Einstein’s theory compared to Newton’s prediction of gravity.
The news immediately caused international sensation and made Einstein enter the Hall of Fame.Poper was shocked by Einstein’s prediction.”The risks assumed by such predictions are impressive.” He wrote more than ten years later that if he measured the prediction with Einstein, he had to give up the theory of relativity.Poper established the boundary standards around the refutation bets: “It can be said,The standard of a theoretical scientific status is its evidence of pseudo -pseudo, or refute and testability.“
This standard is the most widely known in Popper’s philosophical contribution, although some are simplified.Poper first proposed this standard at a lecture sponsored by the British Cultural Commission at the University of Cambridge at Peter Hust, and later published it in “Conjecture and Cute”.Although Poper emphasized the historical origins of the boundary standards and the Vienna thought circle after the World War II, this origin was often covered by the explanation of it after World War II.
All boundary standards are designed to eliminate something.What Poper really wants to do is to show the psychological analysis of why it is widely regarded as “scientific” in the Vienna circle and Marxism is unscientific.Their “science” is based(VERIFICATIONISM)Logical empirical theory: If a theory can be verified by empirical data, then it is scientific.
But this is not enough for Poper.He said that there were obviously a large amount of data confirmed psychoanalysis.Each personality data can be confirmed to confirm Freud’s theory, just like all political or economic events seem to further confirm Marxism, such as the historical center status of class conflict or the surplus value of labor.
But this means to Poper that the way logical empiricals are wrong.If your expression of theory is flexible enough, anything may be explained as evidence; so the key is not whether a theory can be confirmed, but whether it is possibly possibly.Can we imagine a kind of observation evidence that can make Flored or Marxist supporters admit that their theory is wrong?If the answer is no, this shows that they are not science.
The attractiveness of fakeism is obvious.It provides a bright line to return the courage we expect to see in science.What is its effect?
simply speaking,The effect is not good.Scientific philosophers almost immediately realized this. There are two main reasons: First of all, it is difficult to determine whether you really falsify a theory. This is actually a reason why Perper himself refutes confirmation.How to determine that a discovery is evidence that confirms a theory?You can explain it in the theoretical framework, and this sometimes produces the sad and distorted condemnation.But the same is true for a pseudo -pseudo theory.Suppose you do an experiment to test the theory. The theoretical prediction value is 32.8, and the value you get is 5.63. What do you do?Hurry up to the journal to announce that the theory is dead?
Don’t worry first.How do you know that your experimental results are accurate?Maybe you do not get the reason for 32.8 to fail the instrument, or do not perform experiments under the correct conditions that fully meet the requirements.In practice, there are few real/pseudo results as clearly as clear as the 1919 days of eclipse observation and inspection.(In fact, the results of the investigation were more ambitious than the described by Endon, and the decisive results of supporting the general theory of relativity were observed by the Observatory of California a few years later.).)
If any uncertain result can fail the theory, all the credo of modern science have been faked by middle school students, because they cannot copy without controversial standard experiments.This is obviously nonsense.Although it sounds good to insist on observing the results, it is difficult to confirm whether this method is successful, which violates the original intention of dividing the bright line.
The second problem of Poper is related to the actual line.We expect the line standards to accurately distinguish science and pseudo -sciences accurately.We expect that this standard can acknowledge that the theories that are generally accepted by contemporary science are scientific, such as quantum physics, natural selection, and plate structure, and at the same time exclude the doctrine such as astrology and Taoism.However, Poper’s falsification standards are not very useful.
first,It is difficult to use proven pseudo -evaluation of “historical” natural sciences that cannot be reproduced in the laboratory in the laboratory.These sciences explain nature through the overall chain composed of causality, rather than a series of authentic judgments of experience.Therefore, Poper accidentally ruled out important areas of contemporary science.
The tolerance of proven pseudo is too broad.Scientific philosopher Larry Laudan(Larry Laudan)In 1983, an influential article pointed out sharply:
(Poper’s standard)The claims that make a clear wrong judgment are counted as “science”.In this way, as long as the supporters can put forward some observation evidence, once they appear, they can change their views. No matter how impossible they evidence, then horizontal theory, Bible creation theory, bitter almondoside or Augen energy box, Wuri, Wuri, Uli, Wuri, Uli energy box, Wuri, Uli, Wuri, Uli, Wuri, and Wuri· Gaeller*(Uri Geller), Bermuda Triangle, Yuanfang theory, Li Senko, God’s chariot, permanent motivation, big foot monster, Lake Nice Water Monster, belief therapy, polymerization water, rose cross club, doomsses of the world, primitive screaming therapy, water probe, magic, magic, magic, magicHyoscopy, according to Poper’s standards, can be regarded as “science”.
*Editor’s Note: Uli Geller is an Israeli magician, who is good at performing aspirations of bending soup spoons, mental minds, etc.
Laudan’s criticism is further:Any semantics standard that depends on a bright line, that is, depend on the expression of Poper -style linguistic test -it will inevitably fail.He then described the issue of boundaries as a “pseudo -question”, which angered many philosophers who insisted on the importance of its importance in scientific philosophy.Although Lau Dan’s wording is a bit aggressive, this has not invalidated his point: Poper’s standards have not expelled many doctrine as we are willing to expel many doctrine. On the contrary, the creation theoretical and UFO scholars often quote Poper’s words to assertHis “scientific” position and criticize the opponent’s position is pseudo -science.
If you study Poper’s thoughts carefully, he will find that his expression needs to agree with some positions, and this may not be recognized by most proven pseudo supporters.In his original articles and books “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, Poper made it clear that his framework requires us to give up to obtain about nature(Or anything else)The possibility of truth.
According to Poper’s point of view, it is impossible for any scientific theory to be true.Scientists can only say that one theory is not fake for the time being.The existence of atoms, relativity, natural selection, the cell structure of life, and gravity are all temporary theories to be faked.This consistent picture is contrary to the intuition of many scientists and philosophers in practice, let alone the general public.
If Poper’s boundary standards can separate science and pseudo -science cleanly, it will undoubtedly be very popular, but the social observation of logical analysis and social observation of scientists and ordinary people’s bordering practice indicates that it does not work.This brings another question: Why is it still popular?
The popularity of pseudo -standard standards is part of the unexpected result of the United States’ dispute over the law of “creation science”.“Creation Science” refers to “The scientific interpretation of the Jewish-Christian creation theory described in “.
In the 20th century, the theory of professor evolution in public schools in the United States has been controversial, and occasionally conflicts occasionally. The first and most infamous one is the “American Monkey Case” in July 1925 in July 1925.(Scopes Monkey TRIAL)EssenceIn the spring of that year, Tennessee passed the Pattler Act, stipulating that teaching in public schools that “the evolution of human beings from the ancestors of the spirit” was a criminal act.
Tennessee Biological Teacher Scorpus, recruited by the American Citizen Freedom Alliance(John Thomas Scopes)The law challenged the law and argued in the court that it was forbidden to teach it because the evolutionary theory violated the creation story of a religion. The Bartler Act violated the provisions of the establishment of state religions in the first amendment of the US Constitution.Sclergs was judged illegal and fined $ 100.
He appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The court put forward fines through legally technical operations, but insisted that the Batler Act was constitutional.Therefore, it has not benefited any specific religious.This is the key to the problem.By 1927, 14 states had made similar measures on similar measures, but only Mississippi and Arkansi State were implemented.
There are two things happen to make people re -evaluate this case.The first is that the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite “Spritnick” on October 4, 1957.This success has triggered a widespread discussion on whether American science education has lagged behind, and has brewed reform proposals in many different fields.
After that, Darwin’s “Origin of Species”(1859)In the 100th anniversary of the publication, biologists shouted, “It’s enough to make Darwin’s theory absent for 100 years!”Darwinism(Human evolution)Put in the center.
The evolutionary theoretical and Christian original facultators were broken.In the 1960s, religious groups used a series of laws as a counterattack, insisting on “equal time”*: If the school needs to teach Darwin theory(Or “evolution science”)Then the opposite theory “Creation Science” should also have a place.To this end, in the early 1980s, several related cases in Arkansas and Louisiana were in the appeal court.
The first one is “McChine’s Education Commission of the State of the State of the State”(McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education), many expert witnesses have argued whether the Darwin theory is scientific, whether “creation science” is in line with the definition of science and the constitutional constitutional restrictions.A key witness of the evolutionist school, Michael Ruse, a scientific philosopher at Guilff University, Ontario, proposed several different boundary standards, and believed that the human origin theory based on “Genesis” could not satisfy them.One of them is Poper’s standard.
*Translator Note: Equality time means that after the Radio or television station in the United States, after allowing a party to publish a political opinion, it will give the opposition to the same long time to publish political opinions on another day.
William Overnon, who is in charge of this case(William overton)The judge cited the testimony of Rus in the final judgment in January 1982, thinking that the pseudo -pseudo -proven is determining whether a theory is a scientific standard, and the creation theory is not in line with(Ten years later, Rus took back his testimony)Essence
Averton’s decision was sued the Agiraid case by the U.S. Supreme Court in Edward, Louisiana(Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)Middle releases have entered high school biological textbooks as proven pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -pseudo -as -the -world standard.This standard is not optimistic in philosophy, but is regarded as a Gui in the legal community.
In 2005, the Case of the Buddhist District of Chuzmelle(Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School district)Whether to teach a doctrine called “Smart Design” is a successor theory developed to avoid the case of the original Edward case.John E. Jones III in the judgment of this case(John E. Jones III)When reviewing, the judge amended the legal boundary standards, abandoned Poper, and used several less sharp but more appropriate standards.
However, abandonment of proven pseudo -pseudo -solving our original problems: the problem of dividing the world is inevitable.Scientists have limited time, so it is necessary to choose a topic worth studying, which means that it is necessary to divide it.In fact, despite the gray areas, the scientific community seems to have a wide consensus on which doctrine is counted as marginal doctrine.
Other ways to register may be more promising.For example, philosopher and predecessor of biology Masimo Piich(Massimo Pigliucci)propose,The problem of fakeism is not that it tries to build a clear standard, but that it is too single.Maybe we can add more judgment dimensions to meet the heterogeneity of scientific practice.
He pointed out that some scientific doctrine focuses on expanding experience and knowledge, while others focus on deepening our understanding of theory, and some both are ready.But if a doctrine cannot satisfy any of the above points, it should not be regarded as science.This evaluation method is not perfect, but it avoids some traps that trapped Poper.
Like Poper and Perchi, trying to formulate a standard covering all scientific requirements, it is better to put the vision on the “partial” planning standard:The overall characteristics of the edge theory, instead of claiming to provide a universal ultimate solution for the issue of the boundary.
For example, we can divide the edge doctrine into different “families” for analysis.There are currently at least four such families.
The first is the residual science. The foundation is the science that has been “legal” in the past and is now outdated.(Such as astrology)Essence
The second category is a super -political science linked to ideology(Such as Stalinism against genetics)Essence
The third category is anti -building science that copy the mainstream scientific social structure(Genesis is a typical example)Essence
The last group is the doctrine of spiritual superpower(Such as the bending spoon of ECG and the intention)Essence
These “families” often overlap each other, you may find that some doctrine can be classified as more than one family, such as hypnosis(Mesmerism).These four classifications are definitely far from comprehensive: marginal doctrine reflects the heterogeneity of science itself.Reflecting the diversity of marginal doctrine helps understand how mainstream science works, and contribute to the inevitable and incompetent standards for the incompetence.
Original: http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-Philosophy-rigion/michael-D-GORDIST-TELL-SCIENCE-PSEUDOSCISCIENCE