伪科学的实质、成因与防治对策的研究
|
摘要
随着现代科学技术的迅猛发展,“伪科学”也大肆泛滥,给人民和社会造成了巨大的危害。反伪人士通过发表学术论文和召开研讨会等方式揭露作伪者的伎俩,让人们逐渐认清伪科学的真实面目。但是,学术界也有一些人士对此持不同意见,认为反伪科学制造了“科技三大冤案”,反伪科学扩大化不但打击了我国传统文化,而且阻碍了我国科技自主创新,压制了民间科学家的成果。因此,中国科学院研究员宋正海通过电子邮件给几百名学者发信《不要让“伪科学”一词成为灭亡传统文化的借口——恳请将“伪科学”一词剔除出科普法》,号召学者联合签名废除“伪科学”提法,并发布“征集废除‘伪科学'提法网络签名”的公告,征集到150名学者的签名支持,自此围绕是否应该反对“伪科学”问题的争论进一步的激化。是否反对“伪科学”的双方不仅在网上争论激烈,而且在凤凰卫视举办的“一虎一席谈”节目中唇枪舌剑,但是关于何谓“伪科学”,如何界定“伪科学”,它的划界标准又是什么,却没有一个统一的答案。为了澄清这场争论,使反“伪科学”斗争沿着正确、健康的道路发展,笔者认为理清“伪科学”概念,认清“伪科学”的危害及其泛滥的原因和寻求恰当的“伪科学”对策是至关重要的。本文首先界定了“伪科学”的概念,在分析逻辑实证主义标准、波普尔的证伪主义标准、拉卡托斯的研究纲领标准及萨伽德和邦格等西方科学哲学派别关于科学划界标准的基础上,将伪科学与科学、非科学、科学中的谬误及反科学加以区别,并归纳出伪科学的基本特征;紧密联系伪科学在我国泛滥和造成巨大危害的实际,全面、系统和深入地分析了其经济、政治和文化根源;在此基础上提出了一整套科学的、合理的、可操作的治理与防范“伪科学”的措施,并在科技管理、科技立法和规范民间反伪等方面提出了一些新的建议。
Along with the rapid development of science and technology, pseudo-science widely spreads, which cause great harm for people and society. Anti-pseudoscience fighters expose the fraudulent tricks by articles, which lets people gradually recognize the true face of pseudo-science and oppose pseudo-science. With the deepening of the anti-pseudo-science, some people think that the anti-pseudo-science have created a "three injustice of technology," which not only blow the expansion of China's traditional culture, but also hinder scientific and technological innovation of our country, suppress result of civil scientists. Therefore, Song Zhenghai, a researcher of Chinese Academy of Sciences, wrote letters by e-mail to hundreds of scholars, "don't let the pseudo-science as an excuse to destroy traditional culture, urge the words of pseudo-science out of popular law of science", and he called on the scholars to sign together by repealing the parlance of "pseudo-science", and issued "assemble network signature of the abolition of the pseudo-science parlance and collected the support of signatures of 150 scholars. Then the debate of whether to oppose to pseudo-science or not have been further sharpened. Whether to object to pseudo-science, the two sides not only fiercely controverse but also one Tiger one seat Talk programme organized by Phoenix Satellite TV have performed play killer. But what is pseudo-science, how to define pseudo-science, what is its standards of definition, there is no unanimous answer. In order to make pseudo-science more clear and more objective understanding, the paper elaborates and compares the main viewpoints of two sides of opposing pseudo-science and opposing anti-pseudo-science and attempts to clarify the concept of pseudo-science and resolves this controversy, which provides reference for the struggle of opposing pseudo-science along the road of correct and healthy development. Firstly, this paper defines the concept of pseudo-science, distinguishes fallacies of pseudo-science and science, non-science and science, and summarizes the basic characteristics of pseudo-science: subjective fake of manufacturer, making a false and deceiving the community and public, which are the basic standards of judging pseudo-science. On the basis of analyzing four standards of pseudo-science: Logical Positivism standards, Popper's falsification standards, liatos' research agenda standards and Sagade and Bong' standards of integrate definition, this paper sums up the main features and manifestations of pseudo-science, then makes a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth analysis of the formation of pseudo-science and the spread of political, economic and cultural foundation. On the basis above, it puts forward a set of scientific, rational, workable measures of treating and preventing pseudo-science.
Along with the rapid development of science and technology, pseudo-science widely spreads, which cause great harm for people and society. Anti-pseudoscience fighters expose the fraudulent tricks by articles, which lets people gradually recognize the true face of pseudo-science and oppose pseudo-science. With the deepening of the anti-pseudo-science, some people think that the anti-pseudo-science have created a "three injustice of technology," which not only blow the expansion of China's traditional culture, but also hinder scientific and technological innovation of our country, suppress result of civil scientists. Therefore, Song Zhenghai, a researcher of Chinese Academy of Sciences, wrote letters by e-mail to hundreds of scholars, "don't let the pseudo-science as an excuse to destroy traditional culture, urge the words of pseudo-science out of popular law of science", and he called on the scholars to sign together by repealing the parlance of "pseudo-science", and issued "assemble network signature of the abolition of the pseudo-science parlance and collected the support of signatures of 150 scholars. Then the debate of whether to oppose to pseudo-science or not have been further sharpened. Whether to object to pseudo-science, the two sides not only fiercely controverse but also one Tiger one seat Talk programme organized by Phoenix Satellite TV have performed play killer. But what is pseudo-science, how to define pseudo-science, what is its standards of definition, there is no unanimous answer. In order to make pseudo-science more clear and more objective understanding, the paper elaborates and compares the main viewpoints of two sides of opposing pseudo-science and opposing anti-pseudo-science and attempts to clarify the concept of pseudo-science and resolves this controversy, which provides reference for the struggle of opposing pseudo-science along the road of correct and healthy development. Firstly, this paper defines the concept of pseudo-science, distinguishes fallacies of pseudo-science and science, non-science and science, and summarizes the basic characteristics of pseudo-science: subjective fake of manufacturer, making a false and deceiving the community and public, which are the basic standards of judging pseudo-science. On the basis of analyzing four standards of pseudo-science: Logical Positivism standards, Popper's falsification standards, liatos' research agenda standards and Sagade and Bong' standards of integrate definition, this paper sums up the main features and manifestations of pseudo-science, then makes a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth analysis of the formation of pseudo-science and the spread of political, economic and cultural foundation. On the basis above, it puts forward a set of scientific, rational, workable measures of treating and preventing pseudo-science.
引文
[1]中科院研究员:科普法应删除“伪科学”一词》,北京晨报,2006年12月4日
[2]《什么是伪科学》,http://www.gulin.gov.cn/showart.asp?id=121
[1]刘华杰:《中国类科学--从哲学与社会学的观点看》,上海交通大学出版社,2004年版,第133页
[1]刘乾锋主编,《无神论教育读本》代序,第23页,湖南科学技术出版社,1999.9
[1]邱仁宗,科学方法和科学动力学[M],上海:知识出版社,1984:40
[2]R.Carnap,Testability and Meanin,Philosophy of Science,Vol.3,No.4,1936,PP.421-422
[1]波普尔:《猜想与反驳》,上海译文出版社,1986,第52页
[2]同上书,第50页
[3]波普尔,《猜想与反驳:科学知识的增长》,傅季重等译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第364页
[4]波普尔,《猜想与反驳:科学知识的增长》,傅季重等译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第365页。
[1]同上书,第365页
[2]拉卡托斯,《科学纲领方法论》,兰征译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第9页
[1]同上书,第1-2页
[2]拉卡托斯,《科学纲领方法论》,兰征译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第5页
[3]同上书,第7页
[1](美)伯纳德·巴伯:《科学与社会秩序》,顾昕译,三联书店1991版,第97-98页。
[1]张洪波、汪青松等:《科学与伪科学的分野》,合肥:合肥工业大学出版社,2006,3
[2]刘大椿:《“自然辩证法”研究述评》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006,9
[3][日]山起茂明,杨舰等译:《科学家的不断行为--捏造·篡改·剽窃》,北京:清华大学出版社,2005,5
[4]张明昌:《天机--星座与命运的科学解码》,上海:上海文化出版社,2005,7
[5]甘霖、李军求等:《破灭的神话--伪科学的种种骗局》,上海人民出版社,2004,2
[6]刘华杰:《中国类科学-从哲学与社会学的观点看》,上海交通大学出版社,2004,1
[7]何跃,徐小钦:《现代科技与科技管理》,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2004,2
[8]涂建华:《中国伪科学史》,贵州:贵州教育出版社,2003,9
[9]申郑珏、张小林:《解读神秘》,北京:科学出版社,2003,10
[10]孟庆伟、苏蓓:《伪与罪:中国伪科学“大师”的出山与破败》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003,10
[11]严金海:《中国20年伪科学现象透析》,广州:华南理工大学出版社,2001,3
[12]何祚庥:《伪科学再曝光》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999,9
[13]何祚庥:《伪科学曝光》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996,10
[14]袁清林:《科普学概论》,北京:中国科学技术出版社,2002,2
[15]陈健:《科学划界:论科学与非科学及伪科学的区分》,北京:东方出版社,1997,6
[16]邓伟志:《伪科学批判记》,天津:天津教育出版社,1999
[17]马丁·加德纳著,贝金译:《西方伪科学种种》,北京:知识出版社,1984,12
[18]马丁·拉德纳著,安保明译:《科学与谬误》,北京:三联书店,1987,7
[19]罗斯主编,夏侯炳、郭伦娜译:《科学大战》,南昌:江西教育出版社,2002
[20]刘华杰:伪科学兴趣的社会土壤,科技日报,1995.07.20
[21]刘华杰:伪科学在我国泛滥的现状不可忽视[J],《北京政协》,1997(7)
[22]田松:唯科学·反科学·伪科学[J],《自然辩证法研究》,2000(9)
[23]王正根:科技也要打假[J],《科学画报》,2003(3)
[24]郭传杰,李士:《维护科学尊严》,湖南:湖南教育出版社,1996,10
[25]张九庆:科研越轨行为的社会控制[J],《科学时报》,2003.04.11
[26]马来平:《科技与社会引论》,北京:人民出版社,2001,12
[27]李建会:《崇尚科学.破除迷信》,北京:北京科学技术出版社,1999
[28]王玉德、林立平等:《神秘的术数》,南宁:广西人民出版社,2004,1
[29]刘韶军:《神秘的星象》,南宁:广西人民出版社,2004,1
[30]卫才胜:伪科学活动中的人员构成探析[J],《科学与无神论》,2006(2)
[31]程福华:对伪科学蔓延的几点反思[J],《南京政治学院学报》,1999(5)
[32]赵连芳编译:伪科学的甜蜜谎言[J],《科学与无神论》,2005(3)
[33]严亦屏:批判“反伪”目的何在[J],《科学与无神论》,2006(3)
[34]郝柏林:伪科学与赝科学[J],《科学》,2002,第54卷第2期
[35]Meiyue Zhou,Scientists seek allies in flight against pseudoscience,Science,Vol.272,10May,1996
[36]Shermer,M.,Why People Believe Weird Things,New York:W.H.Freeman,1997
[37]Ayala,F.,Intelligent Design:The Original Version,Theology and Science,1:1,2003
[38]Bird,A.,Philosophy of Science,Montreal & Kingston:McGill-Queen's University Press,1998
[39]Collins,H.M.and T.Pinch,The Golem:What You Should Know about Science,2nd edition,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998
[40]Hess,D.J.,Science in the New Age,Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1993
[41]Hesse,M.B.,Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science,Brighton:Harvester Press,1980
[42]Latour,B.and S.Woolgar,Laboratory Life:The Construction of ScientificFacts,2nd edition,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986
[43]Rosenberg,A.,Philosophy of Science,London and New York:Routledge,2000
[2]《什么是伪科学》,http://www.gulin.gov.cn/showart.asp?id=121
[1]刘华杰:《中国类科学--从哲学与社会学的观点看》,上海交通大学出版社,2004年版,第133页
[1]刘乾锋主编,《无神论教育读本》代序,第23页,湖南科学技术出版社,1999.9
[1]邱仁宗,科学方法和科学动力学[M],上海:知识出版社,1984:40
[2]R.Carnap,Testability and Meanin,Philosophy of Science,Vol.3,No.4,1936,PP.421-422
[1]波普尔:《猜想与反驳》,上海译文出版社,1986,第52页
[2]同上书,第50页
[3]波普尔,《猜想与反驳:科学知识的增长》,傅季重等译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第364页
[4]波普尔,《猜想与反驳:科学知识的增长》,傅季重等译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第365页。
[1]同上书,第365页
[2]拉卡托斯,《科学纲领方法论》,兰征译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第9页
[1]同上书,第1-2页
[2]拉卡托斯,《科学纲领方法论》,兰征译,上海译文出版社,1986年,第5页
[3]同上书,第7页
[1](美)伯纳德·巴伯:《科学与社会秩序》,顾昕译,三联书店1991版,第97-98页。
[1]张洪波、汪青松等:《科学与伪科学的分野》,合肥:合肥工业大学出版社,2006,3
[2]刘大椿:《“自然辩证法”研究述评》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006,9
[3][日]山起茂明,杨舰等译:《科学家的不断行为--捏造·篡改·剽窃》,北京:清华大学出版社,2005,5
[4]张明昌:《天机--星座与命运的科学解码》,上海:上海文化出版社,2005,7
[5]甘霖、李军求等:《破灭的神话--伪科学的种种骗局》,上海人民出版社,2004,2
[6]刘华杰:《中国类科学-从哲学与社会学的观点看》,上海交通大学出版社,2004,1
[7]何跃,徐小钦:《现代科技与科技管理》,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2004,2
[8]涂建华:《中国伪科学史》,贵州:贵州教育出版社,2003,9
[9]申郑珏、张小林:《解读神秘》,北京:科学出版社,2003,10
[10]孟庆伟、苏蓓:《伪与罪:中国伪科学“大师”的出山与破败》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2003,10
[11]严金海:《中国20年伪科学现象透析》,广州:华南理工大学出版社,2001,3
[12]何祚庥:《伪科学再曝光》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999,9
[13]何祚庥:《伪科学曝光》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996,10
[14]袁清林:《科普学概论》,北京:中国科学技术出版社,2002,2
[15]陈健:《科学划界:论科学与非科学及伪科学的区分》,北京:东方出版社,1997,6
[16]邓伟志:《伪科学批判记》,天津:天津教育出版社,1999
[17]马丁·加德纳著,贝金译:《西方伪科学种种》,北京:知识出版社,1984,12
[18]马丁·拉德纳著,安保明译:《科学与谬误》,北京:三联书店,1987,7
[19]罗斯主编,夏侯炳、郭伦娜译:《科学大战》,南昌:江西教育出版社,2002
[20]刘华杰:伪科学兴趣的社会土壤,科技日报,1995.07.20
[21]刘华杰:伪科学在我国泛滥的现状不可忽视[J],《北京政协》,1997(7)
[22]田松:唯科学·反科学·伪科学[J],《自然辩证法研究》,2000(9)
[23]王正根:科技也要打假[J],《科学画报》,2003(3)
[24]郭传杰,李士:《维护科学尊严》,湖南:湖南教育出版社,1996,10
[25]张九庆:科研越轨行为的社会控制[J],《科学时报》,2003.04.11
[26]马来平:《科技与社会引论》,北京:人民出版社,2001,12
[27]李建会:《崇尚科学.破除迷信》,北京:北京科学技术出版社,1999
[28]王玉德、林立平等:《神秘的术数》,南宁:广西人民出版社,2004,1
[29]刘韶军:《神秘的星象》,南宁:广西人民出版社,2004,1
[30]卫才胜:伪科学活动中的人员构成探析[J],《科学与无神论》,2006(2)
[31]程福华:对伪科学蔓延的几点反思[J],《南京政治学院学报》,1999(5)
[32]赵连芳编译:伪科学的甜蜜谎言[J],《科学与无神论》,2005(3)
[33]严亦屏:批判“反伪”目的何在[J],《科学与无神论》,2006(3)
[34]郝柏林:伪科学与赝科学[J],《科学》,2002,第54卷第2期
[35]Meiyue Zhou,Scientists seek allies in flight against pseudoscience,Science,Vol.272,10May,1996
[36]Shermer,M.,Why People Believe Weird Things,New York:W.H.Freeman,1997
[37]Ayala,F.,Intelligent Design:The Original Version,Theology and Science,1:1,2003
[38]Bird,A.,Philosophy of Science,Montreal & Kingston:McGill-Queen's University Press,1998
[39]Collins,H.M.and T.Pinch,The Golem:What You Should Know about Science,2nd edition,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998
[40]Hess,D.J.,Science in the New Age,Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1993
[41]Hesse,M.B.,Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science,Brighton:Harvester Press,1980
[42]Latour,B.and S.Woolgar,Laboratory Life:The Construction of ScientificFacts,2nd edition,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1986
[43]Rosenberg,A.,Philosophy of Science,London and New York:Routledge,2000
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |