博文
伪科学为什么要伪科学？
|||
题解：第一个“伪科学”是名词，第二个“伪科学”是动宾词组。
一、北京大学哲学系
二、科学是从我国近代从西方引入的观念，伪科学的概念出现应该也不会太早。由于人们习惯于用科学的标准来评判一切，因此中国一切古代的和现代的东西都被重估。我觉得这一重估结果不应该用“科学”、“伪科学”二分法，中间还应该有一个“非科学”。只有那些将非科学的东西伪装或声称为科学时，就划分到伪科学中去。
三、伪科学是有害的，还是无害的？我认为伪科学有些是有害的，有些是无害的。在伪科学是否有害的问题上，似乎也有争议。例如在百度百科的定义中提到“某些拥护伪科学的人纯粹是因为他们对科学或科学方法的本质有所误解；但亦有人会蓄意去杜撰、散布虚假的知识去欺骗大众，以得到金钱上或其它的利益。有些人觉得所有伪科学都只是无害的娱乐；相反也有些人（如理查德·道金斯）则认为所有伪科学都是有害的。科学哲学家波普尔则有一句名言：“科学经常是错的，而伪科学倒有时是对的”。”（见后）
四、伪科学要打击？还是容忍？根据1990年第四次人口普查，中国15岁及15岁以上的文盲、半文盲人口有一亿八千万，占总人口的15.88％，其中70％为妇女。文盲、半文盲主要在农村（http://www.m188.com/zhfw/content_show.asp?id=23829）。城乡户籍制度对教育的影响显著：在农业户口的居民中，拥有大学本科学历的人口仅占0．7％，达到初中教育以上水平的不足20％。而在非农业户口的人中，对应的比例分别为12.3％和85％（http://xsh.gxun.edu.cn/excl/2009/0306/article_1220.html）。2005年全国1%人口抽样调查主要数据。全国人口中，具有大学程度(指大专及以上)的人口为6764万人，高中程度(含中专)的人口为15083万人，初中程度的人口为46735万人，小学程度的人口为40706万人。（http://info.edu.hc360.com/2006/03/17090690868.shtml）。在这样的一种情况下，我认为中国目前的主要任务仍然是要普及科学，反对伪科学，尤其是要反对有害的伪科学。现在商家以科学的名义大量制作虚假骗人的广告, 以及前几年发生的几次严重的社会事件表明，伪科学对社会的危害能量还很大。
五、什么是伪科学？我查了一下网上对伪科学的定义。
1、A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.
Above: Johathan Hope: Theodorus' Spiral (2003)
Of course, the pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork; experiments do not always test a theory adequately, and experimental results can be incorrectly interpreted or even wrong. In legitimate science, however, these problems tend to be self-correcting, if not by the original researchers themselves, then through the critical scrutiny of the greater scientific community. Critical thinking is an essential element of science.
详细见：http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
2、把没有科学根据的非科学理论或方法宣称为科学或者比科学还要科学的某种主张，如星占学、维里科夫斯基碰撞理论、李森科的无产阶级遗传学等。伪科学不同于一时的科学错误，它是一种社会历史现象，要害在于，它在特定的时间和地点冒充科学，把已经被科学界证明不属科学的东西当作科学对待，并且长期不能或者拒绝提供严格的证据。非科学的事物大量存在，而且通常自有其存在的价值，如文学、艺术、魔术等等，一旦有人把它们宣称为科学，则这种宣称本身也就成为一种伪科学。
伪科学是指据称是事实或得到科学支持、但实际上不符合科学方法的“知识”。伪科学是一些虚假的“科学”或者骗局，经常借用科学名词进行装饰，但实际上与科学在本质上并无关联。
某些拥护伪科学的人纯粹是因为他们对科学或科学方法的本质有所误解；但亦有人会蓄意去杜撰、散布虚假的知识去欺骗大众，以得到金钱上或其它的利益。有些人觉得所有伪科学都只是无害的娱乐；相反也有些人（如理查德·道金斯）则认为所有伪科学都是有害的。科学哲学家波普尔则有一句名言：“科学经常是错的，而伪科学倒有时是对的”。
详细见百度百科：http://baike.baidu.com/view/428.htm
3、伪科学（英語：Pseudoscience）又稱疑似科學，是指任何經宣稱為科學，或描述方式看起來像科學，但實際上並不符合科學方法基本要求的知識、方法論、信仰或是實務經驗。偽科學一詞最早的使用紀錄出現於1843年，使用者是法國哲學家弗朗索瓦·馬讓迪（François Magendie）。此用詞帶有貶義，將某一對象指為偽科學，會將其貼上不正確或偽裝成科學的標籤。也因此，被指控者通常拒絕承認這樣的稱呼。
维基百科：http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%AA%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6
其英文版本：
Pseudoscience is a chiefly derogatory term applied to any knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie, who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
详细见Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
4、A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based on an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to defend a set of religious beliefs.
A scientific theory like the theory of natural selection is not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they call evolution "Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms put forth by scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The various theories of evolution, i.e., mechanisms that explain how evolution occurs, are defended not by deference to texts but by empirical evidence from several scientific fields: embryology, the fossil record, homology, genetics, biogeography, molecular biology.
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe, e.g. orgone energy, N-rays, or chi. Or, if the non-believers make any observations regarding the effects of this alleged energy, their comments regard the psychological mechanisms that lead people to believe in such chimeras.
We are not, of course, claiming that science deals only with what can be observed in the present moment. Science often concerns itself with what probably occurred in the past based on inferences from empirical data. Science also often studies causal events that can't be observed such as cigarette smoke causing cancer. Some creationists claim that since nobody has seen a cat evolve into, say, a dog, evolution doesn't happen. That is, they claim that since nobody observes evolution of one species to another in the present, evolution doesn't happen. Anyone who would make such a claim is simply exposing his ignorance of what evolution actually claims. (Another sign of ignorance regarding what evolution actually claims is the assertion that humans evolved from modern apes or monkeys. Evolution claims that humans and modern apes have a common ancestor, not that we evolved from modern apes.)
Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory. Scientific theories not only explain empirical phenomena, they also predict empirical phenomena. One way we know a scientific theory is no good is that its predictions keep failing. Predictions can't fail unless a theory is falsifiable. Some pseudoscientific can't be falsified because they are consistent with every imaginable empirical state of affairs. Karl Popper noted that psychoanalytic theory, including Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, is pseudoscientific because they seem to explain everything and do not leave open the possibility of error. Even contradictory behaviors are appealed to in support of the theory.
Creationists who claim that evolution can't be disproved are mistaken or lying. All it would take would be to find the presence of mammals in the pre-Cambrian fossil beds or human and dinosaur fossils in the same sedimentary layer. Creationists, on the other hand, are apologists for the faith, not scientists interested in discovering the truth about the world. They already "know" the truth: it's in their sacred text. So, their whole function is to deny and try to find fault with any scientific claim that is inconsistent with their interpretation of the Bible.
Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory, e.g., the enneagram, iridology, the theory of multiple personality disorder, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, the theories behind many New Age psychotherapies, and reflexology.
Creationists often mistake the fact that discoveries in various sciences keep confirming evolutionary hypotheses as evidence that evolutionists won't give up their theory no matter what. Nonsense! As noted above, all it would take would be to find some fossils of mammals (a rabbit or sheep would do) in pre-Cambrian layers and evolution will have to be re-examined, revised, or even revoked.
Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them, e.g., applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP. Yet, despite seemingly insurmountable evidence contrary to the theories, adherents won't give them up.
Creationists often point to errors made in science, real or imagined, to defend their notion that evolution is not a science because it will defend things that are not true rather than give up its central tenets. Nonsense! There is nothing in the history of pseudoscience that compares with the convoluted kinds of reasoning creationists have used to argue that all scientific methods of dating are wrong, that Noah's ark landed in Turkey, that the Grand Canyon was formed in a short time by the great flood that sent Noah's ark to Turkey, etc. Creationists often point to Haeckel's embryos as proof that evolution is a pseudoscience. What rubbish! (Click here for more embryo comparisons.)
Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when the interpretations of those legends either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von Däniken', and Sitchen's theories.
This is the central feature of so-called Young Earth Creationism (YEC), the notion that the Bible reveals that God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Scientists date the birth of our solar system to about 4.5 billion years ago and the universe to about 13.7 billion years ago. These scientific notions about the origin of the universe and our solar system are based on a variety of dating techniques, none of which appeal to ancient myths or legends.* The YECs use this belief about a recent creation as the main motivating force to find fault with anything science claims that conflicts with their faith. Scientists, on the other hand, have found trees that are older than what the YECs think the earth is. Of course, the YECs say the scientists are wrong.
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances, e.g., anthropometry, aromatherapy, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, and physiognomy.
Nobody, I would hope, would accuse either creationism or evolution of basing their notions on anecdotes or intuition. The one is based on the Bible and the other on the empirical evidence gathered from a variety of sciences.
Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, e.g., the theories of acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, Rolfing, therapeutic touch, and Ayurvedic medicine.
Creationism is, in essence, a metaphysical theory about the origins of the universe and of life because it asserts the cause is supernatural. By definition the supernatural is non-empirical. Science maintains that all theories about the causes it studies refer to natural causes that have empirical manifestations and may be supported or refuted by empirical facts. Creationism asserts that no empirical fact could ever refute it because it is known a priori to be absolutely true.
Some pseudoscientific theories not only confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.
Creationists have tried to maintain that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics but this idea has been thoroughly discredited by those who understand physics.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory which is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957: p. 118).
详细见：www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39731-221515.html
上一篇：国外学术打假网站——Deja Vu
下一篇：什么是伪科学？如何鉴别伪科学？
