Concept
Scientific spirit is a general term for the ****same beliefs, value standards and behavioral norms that people have formed in the long-term practical activities of science. The spirit of science is the basic state of mind and way of thinking determined by the nature of science and throughout the scientific activities, is embodied in the scientific knowledge of the ideas or concepts. On the one hand, it restrains the behavior of scientists and guarantees their success in the field of science; on the other hand, it gradually penetrates into the deep consciousness of the public.
[Edit Paragraph]Characteristics of Scientific Spirit
Scientific spirit should include 12 aspects of the characteristics:
(1) persistent spirit of exploration. According to the existing knowledge, experience revelation or foresight, scientists in their own activities always have both direction and confidence, and perseverance and will.
(2) the spirit of innovation and reform. This is the life of science, the soul of scientific activity.
(3) The spirit of humble acceptance of scientific heritage. Scientific activity is like a step-by-step progressive climb, scientific achievement is in essence the result of accumulation, science is one of the most inherited cultural forms.
(4) The spirit of rationality. Scientific activity must rise from the level of empirical understanding to the level of theoretical understanding, or, in other words, there is a process of scientific abstraction. For this reason, the principle of rationality must be adhered to.
(5) the spirit of truth. Science must correctly reflect the objective reality, seek truth from facts, and overcome subjective assumptions.
(6) The spirit of truth-seeking. In front of strictly determined scientific facts. Scientists have the courage to defend the truth, against arbitrariness, hypocrisy and fallacy.
(7) the spirit of empirical evidence. The practical activity of science is the only criterion for testing the truth of scientific theories.
(8) The spirit of strict and precise analysis. Science does not stop at the level of qualitative description, certainty or precision is one of the distinguishing features of science.
(9) The spirit of collaboration. Due to the expansion of the scale of modern scientific research projects, must rely on multidisciplinary and social aspects of collaboration and support in order to effectively complete the task.
(10) democratic spirit. Science never fetishizes authority and dares to challenge it.
(11) The spirit of openness. Science has no borders; science is an open system which does not recognize ultimate truth.
(12) Utilitarian spirit. Science is a productive force, and the social function of science is fully realized and should be used for the benefit of human society.
[edit]Related Quotations
1. If we admit failure too readily, we may fail to discover for ourselves that we are very close to being right. --- Karl Popper
2. "Hard" is also the case, the face of the cliff, a hundred years can not see a seam, but with the axe, can enter an inch into an inch, have to enter a foot into a foot, and continue to accumulate, the leap will come, the breakthrough followed. --- Hua Luogeng (China)
3. I would really like to invent a trait or a machine with such a terrible mass destructive power that war will thus become impossible forever. --- Nobel (Sweden)
4. Nature can be mastered only by obeying it. --- Bacon (England)
5. The sea of truth leaves all things undiscovered lying before my eyes to be explored. --- Newton (England)
6. The benefits of fallacies are momentary, the benefits of truth are permanent; and when there are ills in truth, these are quickly destroyed, while the ills of fallacies always follow fallacies. --- Diderot (France)
7. Whoever takes a cavalier attitude toward truth in small things is also untrustworthy in great things. --- Albert Einstein (USA)
8. Man's vocation is in the courageous search for truth. ---Copernicus (Poland)
9. I do not know what the people of the world think of me. But I think of myself as a child who plays on the sea and finds a smooth stone or a beautiful shell and is delighted with it. Nevertheless, that ocean of truth is still mysteriously revealed to us. --- Newton (UK)
10. Scientific inspiration can never be waited for by sitting and waiting. If there is any chance of scientific discovery, then this "chance" can only be given to those who are educated, to those who are good at independent thinking, to those who have the spirit of perseverance, but not to the lazy. --- Hua Luogeng (China)
11. A scientist should take into account the comments of future generations, not the insults or praises of the time. --- Pasteur (France)
12. We are enjoying the great benefits brought to us by the inventions of others, and we must be glad to use our inventions for the benefit of others. --- Franklin (USA)
13. My philosophy of life is to work; I want to reveal the wonders of nature for the benefit of mankind. ---Edison (USA)
14. I have never made a single accidental invention in my life. All my inventions are the result of careful thought and rigorous experimentation. ---The development of a general capacity for independent thought and independent judgment should always take precedence over the acquisition of specialized knowledge. If a man masters the fundamental theories of his subject and learns to think and work independently, he is bound to find his own way, and will be better adapted to progress and change than one whose training consists chiefly in the acquisition of detailed knowledge. --- Albert Einstein (USA)
16. All reasoning must be derived from observation and experimentation. --- Galileo (Italy)
17. Learn to do the rough work in science. To study the facts, compare them, and accumulate them. ---Pavlov (Russia)
18. My most important discoveries have been those inspired by failure. ---David (England)
19. Thank God for not making me a dexterous craftsman. Those of my most important discoveries have been made by inspiration from failure. ---David (UK)
[Editorial] Semantic Analysis of "Scientific Spirit"
The most commonly used words are perhaps words we don't really know, such as "socialism", "culture", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science" and "science". ", "science", "democracy", "Internet", and "spirit of science ".
What is the "spirit of science" and what are its main elements? How to translate it into English? How does it relate to humanism? Indeed, people put it on their lips, but it is not easy to follow up and say a few items that are logically self-consistent. Or rather, it's easy to list a bunch of qualities illogically, right off the top of your head, but that doesn't help the discussion of the issue.
In the past, I also talked about the spirit of science in "Scientific Truth and Scientific Norms": "What is the spirit of science? Simply put, the spirit of science is: seeking truth from facts, the courage to explore the truth and defend the truth. Specifically speaking, the spirit of science includes the spirit of truth-seeking, the spirit of innovation, the spirit of skepticism, the spirit of tolerance and other aspects. The most important of which is truth-seeking and innovation. Not truth-seeking is not science, not innovative new science will not develop. The spirit of skepticism and the spirit of tolerance are derived from, and they cannot be neglected. Mere skepticism and mere tolerance are both undesirable and can easily lead to evil ways." (Science and Atheism, 3, 2000, written in 1997) After a period of reflection, I should correct the above statement. The above statement has the merit of speaking of skepticism in relation to tolerance, emphasizing that one cannot speak of only one aspect. There are many unsatisfactory aspects, notably: 1) the introduction of more ill-defined terms such as "is" and "truth". This may seem unnecessary now, as we should emphasize process rather than result when we talk about science. 2) Many of the problems of theory choice cannot be explained if we talk only about yes, but not about logical self-consistency. 3) There is no need to single out "innovation", which is not a core attribute of science. 4) The same applies to tolerance and skepticism, neither of which should be introduced. But the secondary or tertiary properties that can be deduced can be appropriately formulated, and humanism speaks of these as well. The two must be talked about together, not just one side. Also skepticism is not skepticism about everything, but organized skepticism. As I understand it now, there are only two aspects of the spirit of science: logical self-consistency and empirical evidence, as discussed below.
1. "The spirit of science" as a subject-predicate phrase, equivalent to say that the science of this thing is quite fashionable, refreshed, like asking "Is that man still alive?" The answer is: "He's still alive!" In principle, this is understandable, but it seems that people don't often use "scientific spirit" in this sense in reality. Hypothetically, is this statement correct if it is really understood as a subject-verb phrase? The answer is: 1) verbally and in propaganda reports, at least in contemporary China; 2) not in actual society. In the past, science was not developed and society did not recognize budding science, so the spirit did not rise. In modern China, science is just a mantra, Chinese society is far from accepting the concept of science, and our traditional culture seems to be incompatible with science. Despite the impact of a century, the mainstream Chinese culture is far removed from scientific culture, but its opposite has flourished.
2. There are still two interpretations of "scientific spirit" as a paraphrase. One is "the spirit of science" and the other is "the spirit of science". If the former is translated into English, the adjective scientific is used for the word science; if the latter is translated into English, the modifier is of science, which happened in the last century with the term "philosophy of science". At that time, there were two different understandings of scientific philosophy and philosophy of science, and the difference between them was very great, as anyone who has studied "philosophy of science" will understand. As for the main word "spirit", there were also many different options for translating it into English, and the meaning of each option varied greatly. It is said that English does not seem to have a Chinese equivalent for scientific spirit or humanistic spirit. Ark's survey shows that scientific spirit and spirit of science are often used in English (see the annex at the end of this article for details).
2.1 For the "spirit of science", is there a "spirit of unscience"? It would seem that the same could be said. If so, the subtext seems to be that science has become a standard, and that "scientific" is equivalent to "correct" and "noble", but of course the logic can be reversed: "scientific" is equivalent to "wrong" and "inferior". But this understanding is rare, at least in China. Only in the eyes of some anti-scientists who dare to criticize the hegemony of science, and in the eyes of some philosophers, can the latter understanding be made, but it is only possible, and not necessarily true.
2.2 For the "spirit of science", we are talking about the scientific activity, science as a whole manifests a kind of non-material things, relative to science itself, it is the second order. It is equivalent to temperament, realm, norms, concepts, and so on. This, I am afraid, is the way it is most commonly understood. If so, the famous sociologist of science Merton's "four norms" came into play, refers to the universalism (Universalism), "*** have sex" ("Communism"), quotation marks are Merton's "four norms". " (quotation marks added by Merton), Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism. These four articles were proposed by Merton in 1942 as the ethos of science under the normative structure, which had a great impact. They have since been added to, and the four articles have become many. The important thing is not so much the development in the positive direction, but the opposition to Merton's ideas, which seems to have outweighed the favorable ones in the last 20 years. To develop, of course, one has to break out of Merton's paradigm, but cumulatively, the total effect of the various developments has been to move further and further away from the context of Merton's day, and the issue itself has changed. For an insight into Merton's original ideas, see Part III of his anthology, Sociology of Science, with three essays, pp. 223-278 in English.
Add a personal comment. I think Merton speaks of a normative structure that is an ideal and does not mean that actual science is really like that. The four articles he talks about are "ideal types", which mean that this is the way it "should" be, not the way it always is. Critics have criticized Merton mostly on the basis of how science actually works, which is unfair to Merton. Even with the many counterexamples found in reality and in the history of science, Merton's norms are still valid and valuable.
The question now is whether Merton's four articles are sufficient to represent the spirit of what we call science? Are there any others that are superfluous? In logical language, are these four articles sufficient or necessary for the spirit of science, adequate, or neither sufficient nor necessary? Unfortunately, although this is the easiest question to ask in a serious discussion, it is too demanding for many humanistic and social issues. For example, Mr. Chen Jiaying's proposal that "philosophy is argumentation" (later changed to "philosophy is about argumentation") simply does not stand up to the test of sufficiency. If we really consider it strictly, the result can only be that "argumentation" is neither sufficient nor necessary for philosophy. The reason is that many philosophies don't talk about arguments at all, but they are philosophies, so "argumentation" is not necessary for philosophy; those that talk about "argumentation" may not be philosophies; science talks about argumentation, and math and logic talk about argumentation, and they can't be generalized as philosophies, so "argumentation" is not necessary for philosophy. "Argumentation" is not sufficient for philosophy. So is Mr. Chen's proposition meaningless? No. It just means that his proposition does not stand up to rigorous semantic analysis and is not LC (literally correct). But in other senses, the proposition is still significant; it is tantamount to a call for more argumentation in speaking philosophy, which is indeed a valuable criticism of much of the current so-called philosophy that focuses only on conclusions and does not care about the process of argumentation. Coming back to the four Merton articles, strictly speaking, it can only be neither necessary nor sufficient for the spirit of science. This is a fundamental realization. With this realization, it may not matter much if one article is added to or subtracted from the four articles, or if one article is changed. The reason is that the original articles are neither sufficient nor necessary.
3. Based on the above considerations, I would like to present my personal understanding of the spirit of science. Of course, I am referring to "the spirit of science".
3.1 The spirit of science is a general description of the nature of science and scientific methodology abstracted from the history of science, philosophy of science, and the operation of scientific society. Because it is abstracted, in a sense, it must have a normative nature, rather than representing the actual situation. But there is a need to harmonize norms with reality. If the norm is too far from the actual, it does not become a norm. The actual situation is diverse, as a general norm can not take care of all possible practical situations, so the norm is always at a distance from the actual situation.
3.2 The spirit of science is the basic definition of the system of scientific knowledge, the activity of scientific inquiry, and the scientific procedure, and so the core content of the spirit of science is: 1) the pursuit of logical self-consistency, that is, the pursuit of unity and compatibility of knowledge. New things trying to become science must first strive to be compatible with the existing knowledge system, when found to be really not work, before proceeding to break through the old system. For an innovation to be recognized, it must strive for downward compatibility. In this sense, science is not tolerant. If it were very tolerant, the system of science would be in disarray, the logic would not be self-consistent, and science would not be science. However, in terms of specific mastery, there is a great deal of flexibility, and self-coherence is only a relative concept, and it is not possible to strictly achieve "compatibility" (consistency) in the logical sense. However, all the natural sciences today are indeed relatively unified, and although the disciplines have different emphases and levels, their research methods, knowledge composition, and interpretive approaches are all similar. No other claimed knowledge in human society has achieved such a high degree of unity in the natural sciences (not complete unity, and unlikely to be fully united in the future).2) The search for repeatable empirical evidence. Modern science is an empirical science, requiring that all theories be put to the constant test of practice, and that theories can only be recognized if they are supported by a sufficient amount of empirical evidence. In particular, the evidence should be as reproducible as possible, not varying according to changes in spatial and temporal location, or changes in the subject of the experiment. Of course, the practical situation is complex, especially since evidence has different qualities and cannot be measured purely in terms of quantity. There is also the logical difficulty that experience is all individual, but theoretical propositions are all holomorphic or approximately holomorphic, and empirical support for theories is never sufficient. Thus science is always fallible, or falsifiable in principle. A theory that can never be wrong is definitely not science. With respect to reproducibility, the specifics are also complex, with some fields (such as geologic history, species evolution, and astronomy) where reproducible experiments are not possible, and various other methods of comparison are required (e.g., space is sometimes used in place of time, and evolutionary sequences in time are inferred from spatial concurrency). Pseudoscience often does not deny empirical evidence but does not emphasize repeatability or comparability, and much pseudoscientific evidence can be debunked using double-blind methods, and of course many other methods. Many people say that pseudoscience is indistinguishable, which is a great misunderstanding. I would not say that all pseudoscience is easy to distinguish, at least 80% of pseudoscience can be distinguished with the above two in one try, of course there are other ways.
Can we add something else besides these two? I don't disagree with that, but I personally think that these two strips are basically enough. Some of the articles to be added can in principle be deduced from these two articles. The above two articles are fundamental, and cannot be deduced from others (of course, there can be cases of circular definitions, as in the treatment of "definite bounds" and so on in the theory of real numbers). I would not say that these two articles are sufficient, but they are necessary. They are logic and experience, and there was a school of philosophy of science in the 20th century called "logical empiricism" which I think captured the essence of science better. Although logical empiricism seems to have been criticized to death today, I do not think so. Many people have interpreted logical empiricism in a one-sided way, distorting the intent of the masters. Their critique developed the philosophy of science and created a new school of thought (which is no longer limited to the philosophy of science), but that does not mean that the original logical empiricism is unimportant, much less that it is wrong. In contrast, logical empiricism provides the most essential carve-out of science, and it is also a norm that does not represent the actual situation, and there is no power in refuting logical empiricism with a case of the history of science, or with some situation in contemporary science. Of course, I avoided an important question: where do norms come from? Simply put, they are inductive and abstract. In depth it's complicated. I can't make it clear yet.
3.3 People will immediately ask: should skepticism, criticism, truth-seeking, innovation, dedication, etc. be added to the spirit of science? The answer is: not necessary. "Methodical skepticism" is a good quality, important for any academic research, but it can be deduced from the previous two. Logical self-referentiality and empirical evidence necessarily require methodical skepticism. In particular, it is important to note that mere "skepticism" is of little value and can be very bad. It is even worse to doubt everything. The same is true of "criticism". Meaningful criticism must be reasoned (logically self-referential) and supported by evidence (#2), otherwise it is indistinguishable from name-calling. "Truthfulness" or pragmatism is about the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, as can be deduced from the second article. "Innovation" is not a quality specific to science; pseudoscience, nonsense, and sophistry may be more innovative than science, but they have no connection to science. Although science talks about innovation, without innovation science can not develop, but it is still not the most essential attribute of science, because there is no innovation of the original science is still science, innovation itself is not the essence of the provisions of science. Innovation is crucial to the development of science in China, but it cannot be counted as one of the scientific spirit. Science must be downwardly compatible, and thus its innovativeness is bound to be highly restricted and cannot be arbitrary. All innovations must not violate the basic laws of nature, so scientific innovation is very difficult. The more difficult it is, the more valuable it is. As for "dedication", it cannot be counted as part of the spirit of science, because other things are more dedicated, such as religion. To do science well, of course, we need to be dedicated and love science, but dedication is only an external thing. In short, I take a simple view about categorizing the spirit of science, i.e., the benefits of trying not to force more non-essential things into the spirit of science as much as possible are self-evident.
4. You can't talk about scientific spirit without mentioning humanism. In China, the two are in relative terms and contrasted. The reason why the spirit of science for a narrower understanding of the above, but also in order to contrast with the spirit of humanism. Science is a part of human life, and although important, it is by no means the whole of it. Science has some explanatory power over the world and life, but not all of it, at least not now and not likely in the future (a conservative estimate). Simply put, both the spirit of science and the spirit of the humanities were born from a single matrix, both associated with the Renaissance, and they were both partners rather than enemies. But then, with the great development and differentiation of disciplines, science and humanities took different paths, and in some ways these two paths clashed to some extent (many of them are still consistent). So there was a discussion of the highs and lows of the two, and there was a call for one spirit to oppose the other spirit of the voice. However, if we observe carefully, we will find that when opposing the other side, people do not first make a better definition of the other side, but often arbitrarily distort the other side, put the other side of the trumped-up charges, and then criticize it. This is a common tactic in academic debates, but it is especially prominent in the discussion of the two spirits.
5. What is humanism? Humanism emphasizes the dignity of man as a human being, who can only be the end and not the means. Specifically, there are two humanism: 1) all men are created equal (in reality, this is absolutely not the case), should strive to defend the diversity of individual or minority existence and diversity of values. The diversity of individuals or minorities constitutes the human community and guarantees the cultural richness of human society. This article implies the primacy of freedom over democracy. It is the richness of the individual that guarantees the complexity of human nature and the healthy development of society. 2) The value of the human being is above all else, and it is essential to guarantee the natural survival of the human body and spirit. This article implies that killing or rendering a person incapable of thought is the greatest crime of all. There are many more articles that could be added to humanism, I can think of just these two that are the most important.
This rule is intentionally removing any overlap between scientific and humanistic spirituality. In reality both are positive and needed. I made the above immature description only to make them each do their job as much as possible. As an ideal situation, as a modern human being, one should try to behave according to the requirements of the spirit of science and the spirit of humanism. But they are all norms, and the reality is complex, with too many counterexamples. Some people have a strong scientific spirit and a weak humanistic spirit; some people are just the opposite. There are also extreme, scientific spirit is very strong, humanism is almost zero, and vice versa. It is not difficult to find typical examples in reality. Let's consider some of China's celebrities and categorize them. Those who are strong in both, not too many, should be promoted, and our education should be tilted toward these two spirits. Traditional Chinese culture lacks both scientific and humanistic spirit. If you don't believe me, you can compare it with the above four rules. Of course, if you do not agree with my rules, that is another matter. I am unwilling to engage in an argument without boundaries.
[edit]The three levels of the spirit of science
From a structural point of view, the spirit of science has three levels: first, the epistemological level, which is mainly manifested in the norms of logical consistency of scientific understanding and testability of practice, which directly embody the essential characteristics of science and constitute the basis of the spirit of science; second, the level of social relations, which is manifested in the four norms revealed by Merton, the famous American sociologist of science. Second, the level of social relations, the famous American scientific sociologist Merton revealed the four norms - universality, public ownership, non-self-interested and organized skepticism, is the basic content of the spirit of science at this level; third, the level of values, science through the search for truth, can reach the search for beauty, the search for goodness, the pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty of the unity of science as its own highest value criterion, which is the spirit of science at the This is the highest level of the spirit of science. The ethical spirit of science is embodied in all kinds of relationships based on rationality and mediated by creation. No matter whether it is the spirit of rationality or the spirit of creation, its ultimate expression must lie in the treatment of the relationship between human beings and nature, human beings and society, and human beings and human beings, and the ethical spirit is the standardization and adjustment of the mutual relationship. Therefore, the ethical spirit is the core of the whole structure of the scientific spirit, the spirit of science not only contains the ethical spirit, but also external to the people's behavioral norms.
[Editorial] The Relevance of the Spirit of Science
"The spirit of science is indispensable to the prosperity of a nation and the progress and prosperity of a people."
"We should widely promote the spirit of science in the whole society ......"
On March 4, Comrade Hu Jintao visited the members attending the Fifth Session of the 10th CPPCC National Committee and participated in the group discussion to listen to the opinions and suggestions of the members, he said These words. The general secretary's words are meaningful and thought-provoking.
The spirit of science is the spirit of truth-seeking and pragmatism. In building an innovative country, we need to have a pragmatic scientific attitude and the spirit of struggle. In the solution of the people's immediate interests in health care, housing, education, social security and other livelihood issues, but also to have a pragmatic scientific spirit, not ignore, not shirking, not "kick the ball", really put the masses of things in the heart. This year's two sessions, representatives and members brought a large number of motions and proposals reflecting public opinion, some with foresight, through continuous efforts, and strive to solve the problem earlier; some with operability, through careful and meticulous work, can be solved as soon as possible. To solve livelihood problems, first of all, we need to have feelings for the people, but we also need to have scientific approaches and measures. Only with a scientific attitude, scientific spirit, can truly, rather than verbally, for the masses to share their problems.
Scientific spirit is the spirit of reform and innovation. Science has no limit, reform has no way back. Only reform and innovation, the work can keep pace with the times, invincible. Over the past few years, the CPPCC's proposal work, members of the inspection work has been effective, but the CPPCC National Committee is still to improve and innovate, several discussions and studies to promote the implementation of the views of the Central Committee of China **** on strengthening the work of the CPPCC. In previous years, the report on the work of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC was comprehensive and solid, and this year's report by Chairman Jia Qinglin on behalf of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC was improved by compressing the number of words to 7,000, so as to make it short and practical. At this meeting, some members suggested that we should not only improve economic legislation, but also social management legislation to serve the building of a harmonious society. All these, reflecting the scientific spirit of reform and innovation, also enable our consultative democracy to play an important role.
The spirit of science is also the spirit of civilization and progress. Promoting the construction of democracy and the rule of law, strengthening the construction of civic morality, safeguarding social justice, and establishing the socialist concept of honor and disgrace, etc., are both in line with the reality of the country's development and social progress, and are also well received by the people. We have a civilized history of more than 5,000 years, but we have also been imbued with a long feudal culture. In some places, there is still a certain market for feudal backwardness and official corruption. The masses are concerned about the hot issues and representatives of the focus of the study of several members of the **** knowledge, civilization and progress of the call to drive society forward. Visible, the spirit of science is not limited to general scientific research and popularization of science work, she is to resist the Mu error weapon, replace the darkness of the light, really about the country's wealth and strength, national progress and people's happiness.
Scientific spirit is a soul of the scientific concept of development, she will guide our work for a long time, leading us step by step towards victory.