1.2 Stage Position / Weeding Science

Author: Liu Huajie
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2001-09-01
Features: What is science? What is the nature of science? The author attempts to view scientific issues from a "1.2 order" or "fractional order" perspective, hence the book title "One Point Two Order Standpoint." The content is organized into four themes: philosophy of science, naturalist sentiment, scientific culture, and science communication. Some are longer essays, while more are essays and reviews. The articles cover a wide range of topics, but all are related to science and focus on meta-level issues of science! The author's self-introduction: Science permeates modern society, and people are constantly benefiting from or being impacted by science, yet we are so unfamiliar with it. Science has opened the door to new knowledge for humanity, revealing one new world after another. Science is truly vast and profound. Science is constantly evolving, and scientific discoveries are unpredictable. No one can say where science will lead us. Science-guided modern technology supports human survival but also accelerates the rate of human society and natural environmental activities, forcing people to reflect on a series of environmental, economic inequality, and sustainable development issues. In this era, multi-angle reflection on science is not just a trend. What is science? From a specific angle, it is easy to describe. But as a whole, we indeed do not fully understand science. When technology becomes complex enough, science communication becomes quite challenging. In science writing, personification, metaphors, and other rhetorical devices seem unavoidable. Jacques Ellul (1912–1994) once explained technology with the concept of "autonomy," Richard Dawkins (1941–) explained genes with "selfishness," and the sociologist of science, Harry M. Collins (1943–), used the metaphor of "Golem," a monster from the Bible, to describe science and technology. Jurgen Habermas (1929–) even said that science and technology are "ideology." From the perspective of our country, reflections on science are still limited to small academic circles, and most people do not reflect on science. They believe they have a natural, simple, and correct understanding of what science is. To many, science represents truth, and not only that, anything labeled with the "scientific" label is also considered truthful. Let alone whether science and truth are the same thing, the idea that scientific things represent truth is highly questionable. However, as G?del said, the meaning of the world is "contrary to expectation," and true science may not be more truthful in reality, while pseudo-science often creates chaos under the guise of science. In this dilemma, should we defend the purity of science or criticize its dominance? The naive idea is that, of course, we should defend the purity of science, and science is not dominant, and anti-science is not valid. However, there are always "ideal science" and "practical science," and they never align. Thus, despite its flaws, the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) reveals the science in actual operation and somewhat corrects the long-held "ideal science" concept that has long confined people's thinking. It is not to say that ideal science is unimportant, but that one should not forget reality in the pursuit of purity. Faced with these contradictions, the author of this book attempts to offer personal understandings and critiques of scientific matters. In this pluralistic era, this is just one voice. The author does not claim to have solved any problems or discovered any truths—everything is still in pursuit. So, what is the significance of this effort? One can imitate Dawkins' words: do not ask what life means, nor worry if life loses meaning. The fact that we can think and reflect today is already a miracle. Moreover, the power of thought is not limited to the abstract world; indeed, we are participating in the evolution of the world, and each of us is a "shaper" of the world. We cannot become complacent, even if we are not complacent (thinking we are complacent), and we must not shy away from facing concrete realities. The idea of caring only about the "way" and not the "means" is an illusion. Non-intellectuals often expose this illusion through trivial matters, mistakenly despising intellectuals. The "way" and the "means" must be combined, and in reality, there is no means completely detached from the way, nor a way completely detached from the means. If one only talks about the "way" from a high altitude without practical grounding, even the best "way" loses its foundation. Returning to reality, facing the grassroots, and focusing on the lower strata of society have become a test for humanities scholars. Based on this, there are no topics or discussion subjects that are "too insignificant to consider." Where is the Buddha? Where is the truth? What is the nature of science? There are answers. Of course, as an academic pursuit, one must have multiple perspectives, consider problems from various angles, and both delve deep and step back—this is what "zooming" means. At different focal lengths, we see different things. The author of this book attempts to view scientific issues from a "1.2 order" or "fractional order" perspective, hence the book title "One Point Two Order Standpoint." The content is organized into four themes: philosophy of science, naturalist sentiment, scientific culture, and science communication. Some are longer essays, while more are essays and reviews. The articles cover a wide range of topics, but all are related to science and focus on meta-level issues of science. The level of order does not represent the level or degree of truth; it merely indicates a different perspective. The author attempts to analyze the same things from different perspectives, but whether this is feasible remains to be confirmed. The subtitle "Scanning Science" means observing and analyzing science from multiple angles. The Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996) defines "scan" as: (1) to examine minutely, scrutinize carefully, and (2) to glance at or read hastily, i.e., "scan" has both the meaning of meticulous examination and that of a quick glance. In the information age, "scan" has a richer connotation. When scanning images with a scanner, there are multiple methods (e.g., black and white, grayscale, 24-bit color, 36-bit color, etc.) and multiple resolutions (50 dpi, 200 dpi, 300 dpi, or even 3000 dpi), as well as distinctions between transmission scanning (scanning film) and reflection scanning. However, no matter what, there is always a difference between the original and the scan. Particularly, the scan is not merely unidirectionally approaching the original but also distorting and constructing (e.g., interpolation). We can analogously understand meta-level examinations of science. The subtitle's "verb-object structure" (in English, v.ing + n.) reminds one of works such as Building Quarks, Changing Order, Inventing Science, Writing Biology, and Making Science. This suggests an emphasis on SSK work but does not mean I fully agree with SSK's views. To understand science, one must continuously "scan" science, requiring both macro, low-resolution scanning and micro, high-resolution scanning. Only by combining these two can one achieve the "zooming" effect mentioned earlier. This book includes 40 illustrations, all taken by the author except where noted. Summer fragments from Beijing Xisanqi in 2001: The inspiration of the story of evolution Life is short, and after death, only two things have a chance to be passed down to future generations: one is one's genes, and the other is one's memes. Those without offspring may lose the first possibility; those without thoughts may voluntarily abandon the second. In the past, marriage emphasized social status, especially for royal families, with the sole purpose of preventing the mixing of low-born genes. Beyond social considerations, this practice had some reason: the "noble" genes of the royal family could indeed be passed down through generations, provided there was no extramarital reproduction within the palace. However, inheritance is a process of feature attenuation. While genes may be immortal, gene recombination and combination inevitably lead to the fragmentation of any individual. "Elizabeth II is a descendant of William the Conqueror, but she likely only has a few of his genes. We cannot find any individual immortal features in her replication." Genes are selfish, but this is just a metaphor; genes are not individuals with the ability to think. Biologically, humans truly disintegrate and disappear without a trace. People quietly arrive, perform a few actions (like a performance on a stage), and then quietly leave. Setting aside the long history of biological evolution, let's look at the issue realistically. Each person accidentally arrives in this world that is neither good nor bad. At birth, they carry half of their parents' chromosomes, inheriting the genetic information of the previous generation. The next generation repeats the pattern of taking half and mating. Humans think themselves noble, but in the long river of evolution, humans are just gene machines, a random ride taken by genes. Are humans merely machines for spreading genes? According to Dawkins' argument, indeed they are. However, Dawkins says that people should not overemphasize the word "merely." Who is Dawkins? A science popularizer. This is one way to describe him, and there is also the more derogatory term "Darwin's bulldog." In reality, Dawkins is an animal behaviorist and a student of Tinbergen. He is the world's most famous science writer after Sagan's death—often translated as a science popularizer in China. He is a science popularizer, but also an important scholar of new Darwinian evolutionary theory. The concept of "selfish genes" has, through his eloquence, long transformed from heresy to orthodoxy in evolutionary biology. Currently, his main job happens to be "science popularization," and his official title is "Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University." His works are very popular, such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The River Out of Eden (translated into Chinese by Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers), and The Unweaving of the Rainbow. A reporter from the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) asked Dawkins, "If we are gene machines, then our behavior is programmed by genes, as it seems. But Christianity speaks of something called free will, which gives us a real choice in our actions, allowing us to effectively transcend biology. As a scientist, what are your views on this?" Dawkins replied, "I strongly agree with this idea—we can use free will to transcend biology. I indeed always encourage people to do so. My book The Selfish Gene discusses in many places what it means to be a gene machine and what it means to be programmed by genes. Only by understanding this can we better arm ourselves, escape passivity, and effectively use our brains and consciousness to escape the tyranny of selfish genes and build a new life. This new life, in the sense of 'self,' is stronger than life in Darwin's sense. In Darwin's world, our ancestors chose to evolve, and it is not a very satisfactory world. Nature is truly filled with bloodshed. When we sit down together to talk, discuss, and decide how we want to operate our society, I think we should regard Darwinism as a frightening warning: we should not organize our society in such a way." According to the theory of selfish genes and evolutionary biology, life is indeed bleak. But as mentioned at the beginning, there is also the "meme"! The meaning of life must come from this.