(The memory of this diploma is completed by typing on the mobile phone, and the content may not be complete, please forgive me.) ）
This morning, the contemptible people published an article entitled "The Collective Voice of the Scientific Community: Zhu Qingshi Was Propagating Pseudoscience", and I said at the end of the article:
Others say that Zhu Qingshi was "brave enough to explore science." I don't think he's exploring science. He explores pseudoscience. Science needs to be explored, but exploration is only the starting point of scientific research, and Zhu Qingshi did not even do the starting point correctly, and completely took a crooked road. His research methods and direction are completely wrong, and he distorts the facts purely based on personal subjectivity. If a study of something does not exist, since it is studied for tens of thousands of years, it will not produce really useful results. ”
It may be that my attitude is too clear, which has caused dissatisfaction among many netizens. For example, a netizen named @ Peng Sihuai is not very happy, leaving me a message in the afternoon, it seems to be to the effect that: the famous great scientist Qian Moumou has made a huge system, is his level not as good as yours?
Since he mentioned this famous scientist, I think it is necessary to be specific. Because, many people are superstitious about authoritative people, they have always judged by the fame of celebrities. But scientific facts never value so-called fame. Qian Moumou is certainly a great man who has made outstanding contributions to engineering and technology, but after all, he has made many mistakes in addition to his own profession. It even uses its enormous influence to mislead us into taking a long detour. "Qigong fever" is an example. Mr. Qian is a hero of the country that I admire, but we need not hide his mistakes. Pointing out where his mistakes are is to draw lessons and promote the spirit of scientific governance, not to criticize specific individuals. If we are superstitious about the fame of individuals, we will repeat the mistakes of the past and cause losses to the country.
Therefore, I left a message to this friend @ Peng Sihuai: Even if it is Qian Moumou, his statement on this is also wrong, it is a superstition.
This friend asked me: What is superstition?
Below, is a general description of the content of my conversation with @Peng Sihuai. However, our conversation did not last long, and Mr. Peng finally chose to block me. In fact, I also had a hunch that he would do this, but I didn't mind what he did. To be honest, I don't have any ill will toward him, and I won't get angry at him for blocking me.
So why should I make our conversation public? This is because, several times, he asked me: What is science?
This is a clichéd question. To be honest, the people who often ask this question often themselves often do not really understand "what is science", but they like to point fingers at science. I know their thoughts, their mental processes very well, and I know that they think something like this:
"Science today is only a provisional conclusion and does not represent the truth. The superstition of the present may be science in the future. Since science is not necessarily the truth, those of you who call yourself science cannot blame anyone in the name of science. ”
In addition, there are many people who think they are "tolerant" and like to insist on taking a resigned attitude towards any statement, and once the scientific community has criticized superstition, they will stand up and say:
"Why do you have to blame? What right does science have to accuse heresy? ”
Zhu Qingshi
I have a deep understanding of what these people think. These people never feared science, but regarded science as a kind of "tool", which was "on the same level" as theology, metaphysics, and witchcraft. I call it a "humanistic disease."
What is a "human disease"? That is, science does not allow nonsense, and the humanities allow and even encourage nonsense. If science criticizes superstition, whether or not this thing being criticized is superstition, they will be very unhappy and have to say to you, "freedom of speech." For example, this @Peng Sihuai obviously thinks that it is very inappropriate for me to publish an article criticizing Academician Zhu Qingshi. Because he felt that I had hindered Academician Zhu's "freedom of speech." In his thinking, "science is not necessarily science", even if Zhu Qingshi's statement is really superstitious, it should be allowed to talk nonsense, otherwise it is a violation of "freedom of speech".
So, @Peng Sihuai said to me:
"I mean, everybody has a say, as long as it's not anti-x and not breaking the law."
Mr. Peng had his freedom of thought, and I also gave him freedom of speech, so I "allowed" him to leave me messages. Although I very much disagree with his idea. Not only do I not agree with his views, but I also think that it is precisely many people in society who have such similar ideas to him, which objectively promotes the atmosphere of superstition. Some superstitions and pseudoscience prevailed, but the talisman of "freedom of speech" was criticized, and the result was that science retreated step by step, gradually marginalized, and became a "scientific superstition" among some people. It is precisely because I do not quite agree with @Peng Sihuai's point of view of compromise, confusion, and failure to recognize the social harm caused by superstition, although I am not in good health, I still take the liberty of having the following dialogue with him.
Back to the point, the content of our dialogue is as follows.
@Peng Sihuai is referred to as "Peng". The "skeptical explorer" is the "I.".
Peng: What is superstition?
Me: Superstition means believing things you shouldn't. It's not all about calling everything invisible "superstition," it's not. Scientists can't see black holes, but through mathematical calculations and some indirect evidence, they are still convinced that black holes are a kind of celestial body that exists in the universe.
What is something that should not be believed? Simply put, it is the supernatural. For the supernatural is something that can never be falsified.
I'll give you an example, now there are two sentences below, please judge which one is superstitious:
a, the earth is topped by a large sea turtle on a vast ocean;
b, the wind is caused by the wind god's magic weapon.
The answer is: sentence b is superstition.
For the description of this sentence can never be falsified. There are no large turtles under the earth, as long as we keep digging to the center of the earth, theoretically one day we can dig to the bottom, which can prove whether there are big turtles in the end. Whether there are or not large turtles can be falsified. So this sentence is not a superstition, but a personal hypothesis that has been denied.
As for whether there is a "wind god", it is impossible to be falsified. Because if you can't find the "wind god" on Earth, it may also be on Jupiter. If jupiter can't be found either, it could be outside the solar system, or millions of light-years away, or anywhere in the universe. In short, no matter what price we pay, we just can't see the true face of the "Wind God". Therefore, to say that the "wind god" exists is something that can never be falsified.
If you have to die and say, "The wind god must exist," then your attitude is superstitious. And this sentence is superstition for others.
Zhu Qingshi and his brother-in-law
Zhu Qingshi's "Quantum Buddhism" "Quantum True Qi is also a truth. The so-called "surreal experience" in Buddhism does not have anything mystical, but can actually be explained by psychology and brain science. "True Qi" has long been proven to not exist. However, when Zhu Qingshi was in the qing dynasty, they had to say things that had already been confirmed to not exist, and made up more things that did not exist, such as "there is an Amitabha Buddha in the high-dimensional space" and other things that can never be falsified, this attitude is superstition.
The difference between science and superstition is also whether or not it obeys authoritative claims. For example, some people were immediately frightened when they saw that Zhu Qingshi's identity was an academician. They would say to those who criticized Zhu Qingshi, "Are you an academician?" If not, what qualifications do you have to say him? This kind of behavior of only looking at the status and not asking the truth is a typical superstition.
And the core of science is "measurement". No matter what you say, please show the steps of the measurement and make the results public. We can't believe you just because you're an academician. Nor will I identify with you because you say , " I experienced " , " I saw " , " someone experienced " . The so-called "experience", if it does not follow the strict scientific experimental method and has no scientific measurement, belongs to the subjective experience of the individual. What Zhu Qingshi said about "true qi" clouds and clouds belongs purely to the subjective experience without any measurement.
Peng: I mean, everyone has a say, as long as they don't rebel and don't break the law.
Me: I don't recognize it that way. For example, if you propagate superstition and cause confusion and miasma, you should be blamed.
The "mother cannon" atmosphere of the entertainment industry is not illegal, and it can be resolutely criticized, not to mention the superstition that is more harmful to society?
I will give an example of superstitions that endanger society, where farmers in the mountains of Guizhou obstructed the construction of the "Tianyan" project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences on the pretext of destroying feng shui, resulting in a delay of five or six years.
Also, so-and-so advocated "100,000 catties per mu", which gave the decision-making level the wrong confidence. Later, Chairman Mao said, "I misbelieved so-and-so's words, so I engaged in the 'Great Leap Forward.'" "Mr. so-and-so spoke irresponsibly, although he was not illegal or reactionary, but he mistakenly affected high-level decision-making and seriously misled the wrong radical decision-making.
Let's just say that when Zhu Qingshi was speaking, because of Zhu Qingshi's erroneous views, the son of a friend of mine who was in the third grade of junior high school listened to his article views and ran away from home to Putuo Mountain to want to leave his family, and his family was almost destroyed. Although Zhu Qingshi did not force him to go with a gun, but misleading minors with wrong articles, could he not criticize his practices?
In my opinion, it is not necessary to give it "freedom of speech" as long as it is not anti-x and not illegal. Freedom of speech, as well as other actions, is not unlimited freedom without borders. If a major social problem is caused, no matter what the speech or behavior, it should be actively involved. For example, network companies engage in online games, so that teenagers can't extricate themselves from it every day. Of course, this is not illegal, and has nothing to do with politics, one is willing to fight a wish, are legal business behavior, but Internet addiction causes very serious family and social problems, the state does not allow the so-called "freedom" to play online games, but stipulates that network companies must close the server at a certain time, strictly restrict minors in internet cafes.
Coming back to Zhu Qingshi's so-called right to speak, if it involves superstition and may cause major social problems, we should hinder his nonsense, or at least criticize him. If he's just publishing in a private place, or saying it at home, we don't have to care. But he used the developed online media to propagate superstition in public, and we must severely criticize his wrong practices. You don't say it, he doesn't say it, everyone is a "good person", for His Holiness, the result is that the society is smoky miasma, science is abandoned, and how many teenagers who have not erected a correct world outlook will be biased. They should have grown into the pillars of the country, maybe twenty or thirty years later to become the principal, to be Huawei's technical director, to take the Nobel medal, the result is biased by the superstitious atmosphere without any restrictions, so they become no one is not ghost, the future is ruined, a lifetime of obsession, who will bear this loss?
If we Chinese teenagers are not biased, their future is unlimited
Let me give you another example. The Internet is actually a society. I've served as an administrator for some big forums and know exactly how superstition can destroy the internet. For example, it was originally a forum with a large number of gods, and the level of members was very high. As a result, some nonsense folk science came, shouting every day "punch Einstein, kick Newton Hawking", and the forum administrator ignored it and said that "we are not qualified to restrict free speech". The end is that the gods are scared away, and no normal people want to stay in the garbage dump. Now there are already a few abnormal people left there to laugh at themselves. In addition to gaining a reputation as a so-called "good guy", what did that administrator contribute to maintaining a clean environment on the Internet?
"Freedom of speech" should also be divided into occasions. Public propaganda of superstition must be criticized! If Zhu Qingshi was given the "freedom" to propagate superstition, the people would not be free.
Peng: You're talking about the Tao, but hasn't science ever harmed anyone?
Me: Science is invention for the benefit of mankind, technology is neutral. What harms people is not science or technology, only the negativity of industrialization and human desires.
Science is not equal to technology, and technology is not equal to industrialization.
Peng: How many people die in shootings in the United States every year? Answer.
Me: Then you've made the wrong target for criticism. Shootings are rampant, and the culprit lies in the community of corporate interests that manufacture guns and irresponsible officials, which have nothing to do with science and technology.
Peng: Without science, where is technology? Without technology, how can guns be built?
Me: First, there is no science, but there is technology, and history abounds. Many technological inventions do not require scientific principles, and even some grassroots farmers can invent and create.
Second, science and technology are not equivalent.
Thirdly, even if a gun is fired, science and technology cannot be proven guilty. The use of a gun is not necessarily a crime. Guns can also be used for hunting, can defend against invaders, and can also protect against damage from wild beasts. It depends on how you use it. If you really use it to do bad things, it is also because of human reasons, and has nothing to do with science and technology. For example, when humans invented pesticides, they were meant to use pesticides to kill pests in farmland, not to poison bad people and kill people. We can't say that the science and technology that invented pesticides is harmful just because a few people poison them.
A kitchen knife is also an example. Under normal circumstances, people use kitchen knives to cook for the sake of making life more convenient, not to let you take a kitchen knife to organize a "kitchen knife team". You were beaten up by the "kitchen knife team", can you say that the science and technology that invented the kitchen knife is evil?
Musket battalion of the Ming Dynasty
Peng: Since invention does not necessarily require science and technology, and technology does not necessarily need science, why did ancient China not have guns?
Me: Of course not. During the Ming Dynasty, there was ah.
Peng: Oh, do you understand the definite language? Do you dare to say that you understand science?
Me: I know what you're thinking. Don't you just hate science? Science criticizes your beliefs, and you are not happy. But you can't do without science. There are 7 billion people in the world, and without science, more than half of them will die immediately. Even if you hate science, you still can't live without it. Your so-called "fixed language" is nothing more than playing with words.
Peng: I see you don't understand science. Without Traditional Kampo Medicine, Chinese would not exist.
Me: Why do you have to mention "Traditional Chinese Medicine"? I never mentioned a word.
I have to say that your words are logically problematic. There is no Traditional Chinese Medicine in the West, and Westerners don't exist?
You should say something like this: "Traditional Chinese medicine has made a certain contribution in history. ”
That's what it is. I admit that Kampo Medicine has done such a feat. But it cannot be exaggerated indefinitely.
Moreover, this topic has little to do with our discussion. I have never participated in the criticism of kampo traditional medicine in all these years. I have many professors and friends in the field of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and I have a very good relationship with them, and they also think that I look at Traditional Chinese Medicine very objectively, not superstitious, not exaggerated, not extreme, not smeared.
Peng: Oh, do you understand science?
Me: To be honest, I do know a little better than you.
Peng: Was there science in ancient China?
Me: Of course there was science in ancient China.
Peng: Oh, so you don't understand. In ancient China, there was no science, only technology. Do you understand the final language?
Me: That's a part of the people's claim, controversial. In fact, ancient China was scientific and brilliant. It is recommended to look at Professor Li Shen's "History of Chinese Science". Divided into two volumes, the book makes the point that there was indeed science, not just technology, in ancient China.
Peng: Do you understand science? I'm concerned that you're a mistake.
Me: Whether you pay attention to me or not, I don't really care. To be honest, one more is not much for you. Of course, I have no ill will towards you. You don't pay attention to me, I still have to talk. If you can't get used to it, just say it.
(Note: Then @Mr. Peng Sihuai blocked me.) The conversation between us was interrupted. Hand-typed text was completed on September 5, 2021 at 5:20 p.m. ）
Author: Skeptical Explorer