Do you think the science is really scientific?
This article responds to the headline issue. “What is the most authoritative and accurate definition of science in the scientific community?”
One netizen responded like this: the scientific community cannot give science definition.The definition of science must be a thinking system that is higher than scientific cognition.
This response is very metaphysical and high.Indeed, today’s disciplines are becoming more and more subdivided. Each scientific research field has always been developing in depth. There are different research ideas and methods in different fields. Each field cannot represent the full picture of science.It is not the scientific community but the philosophy of science. Scientific philosophy can help us answer this question.
So, does scientific philosophy have a precise definition of science?The answer may disappoint you, and there is no most authoritative and precise definition.
Einstein once said such a sentence: If I have an hour to solve a dilemma of life, I will use 55 minutes to determine what kind of problems should be raised.
Ask questions sometimes more important than finding the answer. This question from netizens should be raised like this:How is science and non -science?
We now explore and sort out this problem from the perspective of scientific philosophy. You will find that this is indeed a question that a earth -man should care about, and this problem is much more complicated than we think.
First of all, we need to figure out the differences in science and technology. The scientific expression is intellectual. The purpose is to solve the “what” and “why”, and technology usually manifested as a material form or direct application of software forms.”How to do it”.Science is not synchronized with technology. Almost all ethnic groups in the world will produce such technologies in long -term production and life practice. These technologies will become part of civilization, but only one civilization has produced science since ancient times, that is, ancient Greek civilizationEssence
Ancient Greek’s unique contract culture requires everyone to take responsibility independently, so as to formulate effective contracts and strictly abide by, so everyone must be independent, so freedom becomes the highest ideal of the ancient Greeks.Freedom means that people can choose rationally, and rationality is freedom.The game is therefore free.In the thinking of the ancient Greeks, the useful knowledge is slaves. Liberty must learn useless knowledge. The ancient Greeks, such as freedom, and knowledge, are the root causes of science.
The science of ancient Greece has the characteristics of internal interpretation, and does not start from experience, but starts from concepts.The ancient Greeks surpassed the level of thinking about other nations on things, and entered a thinking structure of the theoretical reason.Modern science.If the ancient Greek science is to seek truth, then modern science is to seek strength, that is, serving natural conquest and power and ability to transform the world.
The first real modern scientist was Galileo. He advocated the combination of mathematics and experiments, thus laid the most fundamental cornerstone of modern science.
From the more than 400 years since the generation of modern science, people’s concepts of science are not unchanged. People’s scientific views have continued to expand their territory and the vertical development of human epistemology with science and technology.Continuously evolved.Below we list the claims of various scientific philosophy factions, compare the different scientific outlook on how the scientific and non -scientific circles are compared.
Inductive-empirical school
It is believed that scientific knowledge is an observation proposition that people observe and experiment and through inductive reasoning. This scientific view believes that the starting point of science is the fact that the starting point of science is the fact that the science follows a cumulative progress law.There are enough quantities. Observation and experiments can be repeatedly operated in many different conditions. The results of observation or experiments are not conflicted with the laws that are inductive derived, and the theory of induction and reasoning is established.Induction-Empirical research model is: observation → classification → induction → foreseeable, science and non-science are drawn by the results of whether they meet the results of observation and experiments.
This faction has encountered huge doubts since the day of birth. First of all, the effectiveness of induction and reasoning. The summary may only be or does not necessarily. Even if all the European swans are observedIt is white conclusion.Carpap even believes that there is no induction or nature. The number of observations and experiments is always limited, and the same phenomenon in nature is unlimited. No matter how large the limited number is divided by infinite, it is 0.
In addition, any observation and experiments cannot be independent of the background theory, such as “I see red”. This simple observation has penetrated my judgment on color. If there is no background theory at all, we can observe everything.The objectivity of the theoretical objectiveness obtained by the theoretical observation and experiments independent of the theory is not established at all.
Destiny-
Based on the contempt of inductiveism, Karpap proposed his principles of verification and pseudo.What science must pursue is a general inevitable law. Since the true value transmission in the inductive reasoning from the premise to the conclusion is not necessarily, we should abandon the inductive thinking and use inevitable interpretation thinking.Multiple observations and experiments do not guarantee the generality of theory, but as long as there is an inverse example, this theory must be denied.
Therefore, Karpopp proposed his verification and pseudo -ismism: any observation and experiments must have purpose and direction, so the theory is the theory. The theory is observed first. The theory is a bold guess.; The higher the theory that can be proven, the better the theory. It can be proved that the degree of pseudo -degree is proportional to the universality, clarity and accuracy. In addition to a stronger theory, it can also propose novel foreseeable foreseeing;No matter how good the theory, it is necessary to be tested by the experiment. If there is a counter -examples, the theory can be proved. Therefore, he believes that science originated from the problem. The progress of science is revolutionary rather than cumulative.
Calpap also believes that science does not directly grasp the objective truth, but is constantly approaching the truth. Scientific theory has a problem of realism. The purpose of science is not so much to pursue the pursuit of higher realism.The scientific research model of not proved the scientific concept is: guess → reasoning → experiment → exclusion errors,Whether it has proven pseudo -pseudo is the boundary between science and non -scienceEssence
The scientific standards of fakeism have been questioned by many people. Some people think that it is too weak. The astrology is also evidenced and pseudo. Is it scientific?Some people think that it is too strong. At the beginning of the birth of a scientific theory, many counter -examples are often encountered. Scientists are always passionately verified and repaired.Scientific situation.
Paradigm theory
American scientist Thomas Cunn found that the process of scientific development was neither inductive-the static accumulation process described by the empirical faction was not a interpretation-the revolution and leaping process that the certificate did not consider, and scientific research alsoNot only the collection of some propositions, but also the results of the activities of some scientists’ groups, so he proposed a paradigm theory. The so -called paradigm is a set of symbolic concepts, theoretical assumptions, guidelines and methods jointly accepted by scientists group.A basic commitment to the theory, epistemology, and methodology, this promise has psychologically formed the common belief of scientists. Scientists share paradigms. Everyone thinks about the world in a paradigm.People will not easily abandon a paradigm, unless the scientific revolution that has consensus has occurred, the old paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm.
The theory of paradigm believes that the development of science is a dynamic process that has accumulated and interrupted, and gradually occurred with leaps. It is divided into previous scientific periods → normal scientific period → during the period of abnormal and crisis → Scientific revolution → a new normal scientific period.The scientific and non -scientific circles depends on whether the discipline has formed a paradigm.
Scientific research program methodology
It was founded by Karpap’s colleague and believers Lakosos. He inherited and developed the theory of falsification and expanded Karpopp’s single theory into multiple theories, and regarded theoretical auxiliary assumptions and theory itself as a whole.He also believes that Kun’s paradigm theoretical scientific view dynamics and historically display the scenes of scientific research, but it is difficult to judge the quality of pros and cons of the old and new paradigms, which is the so -called non -convention.On the basis of the two, he founded the methodology of the scientific research program, using the “hard core+protective belt+methodology rules” to replace the paradigm.It is composed of protecting the negative inspiration of the protective zone.
The scientific outlook on scientific research is based on the scientific research program as the border standard, transforming the boundary of the boundary into scientific evaluation issues, and trying to give scientific standards a toughness with historical value.
Bayesian scientific concept
The scientific view of this school believes that the condition that the theory can be proved is that it is as high as a reasonable probability of this theory, and this probability changes from the cognitive proof of the new argument.Theorem is calculated and predicted.
Bayesianism regards science as a probability event, and can be corrected by continuously improving evidence and data analysis. In fact, many scientific development cases, including Einstein’s theory of relativity, seem to gradually become scientific theories.Although the new evidence will eventually make everyone’s beliefs, the subjective prior probability is very important.
The scientific view of Bayesianism has blurred the boundary of science and non -science. A scientific theory right or wrong is not an absolute thing, but a probability problem. It cannot get rid of the influence of subjective beliefs.Essence
Anacialist science concept
A scientific outlook advocated by Feiya. He believes that there is no so -called universal, uncomfortable methodological rules at all to dominate scientific evolution and the growth of knowledge. At the beginning, science should have been a ideological liberation movement.But as its development has become more and more rigid and dogmatic, it has become an ideology and totalitarianism that suppresss people’s thoughts.He claims that science is essentially an uncultivated cause, without the supreme authority, and non -scientific forms such as science and myths, religion, metaphysics, etc. are penetrated with each other. We must keep up with various choices.
Feiya Bende holds the view of the truth of relativity and advocates the methodology principles of “how to do”.He believes that there are no dividing standards between science, non -science and even pseudo -science.
New Experimental Science Concept
The new experimentalism that appeared in the 1980s returned to induction-the accumulation of scientific progress on the empirical faction emphasized that scientific experiments are a practical activity. There are many independent lives. Experiments and theories can be two points. Experiments can be created by experiments.The new phenomenon, its philosophical significance cannot be fully expressed through its representation of experience and theory, directly challenging the traditional view of “observation and experimental load theory”, breaking the scientific philosophy tradition of theoretical advantages.
New experimentalism can give scientific reality a good research direction from the perspective of experimental intervention. It may be resolved in the experiment in the experiment.
In the face of the same world, people’s scientific concept is actually diverse, and the disputes between various scientific outlooks are also accompanied by scientific reality and anti -true arguments. Over time, there will be a variety of different science in the future.The view continues to emerge.It can be seen that science is not as “scientific” as we imagined. It is impossible for science itself and science philosophy to give the so -called most authoritative and accurate definition of science.
