Li Chaoying: On What Grounds is Science Used? — An Analysis of the Foundational Questions of Scientific Culture
I. Science is "Clumsy," but Science is Honest
Jiang Xiaoyuan says many people believe that "as long as we are given enough time, science and technology can solve all problems," and that "this statement can be rephrased...: as long as I am given enough time, I can explain everything in this world." [1] However, these two propositions are not actually consistent.
Regarding the former claim, such a view has likely never been taught, whether in institutional education or in popular science outreach. On the contrary, people are told there are many problems that science and technology cannot solve. For example, science cannot bring the dead back to life; it cannot allow a biological organism to survive without the exchange of matter and energy with its environment; it cannot create matter and energy from nothing or make them vanish into thin air; it cannot extract energy from a single heat source to perform work; it cannot turn back time; it cannot predict lottery numbers; it cannot ensure that individual rationality always aligns with collective rationality in a one-off game (the Prisoner's Dilemma); it cannot ensure that the outcome of a majority vote always aligns with the preferences of the majority (the Voting Paradox); it cannot simultaneously and precisely measure the position and momentum of an object (the Uncertainty Principle); it cannot trisect an arbitrary angle using only a compass and straightedge, and so on. Science not only tells people that these things cannot be done now, but that they can never be done! Compared to the claimed capabilities of divine magic, astrology, sorcery, feng shui, or occult cultivation [2], science and technology must be considered the "clumsiest" form of culture.
However, the fact that science cannot solve those problems does not mean science cannot explain why they cannot be solved. A crucial characteristic of science is that all its conclusions are backed by reasons. If a scientist determines that a particular problem can never be explained, he must provide the reasons why it will remain forever inexplicable—for instance, that certain stochastic information has dissipated over time, etc. [3] And this is, in fact, a type of explanation for the problem. Therefore, the latter claim is, in a certain sense, tenable, and it serves as a major driving force for scientific development. Tian Song argues: "This claim cannot be falsified because the future is infinite; you can always push problems that cannot be explained now into the future. Therefore, this statement is, at best, a boast, and at worst, a lie." [4] If admitting that some problems cannot yet be explained and must await future efforts is a lie, then how should we characterize Tian Song’s claim, in the face of various incurable diseases, that the "theoretical and practical foundations of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) were already perfected and mature long before the birth of modern Western science"? [5] When humanity faces inexplicable mysteries, what other good choices are there? Should we use "universal answers" like "it is God’s arrangement" to appease people, leading them to believe everything can already be explained and no further exploration is needed? Would that not be a lie?! Or should we say a problem can never be explained and exploration should cease? Yet, if no reason is given, how can we know such a statement is the truth? It is clear that compared to these other cultures, science is the most honest culture. As for Tian Song’s rhetorical question—"Within my limited lifetime, science is destined to be unable to solve all problems and transform into that flawless, all-encompassing Science; why should I believe in this currently imperfect science now?" [4]—it is even more absurd. Within Tian Song’s "limited lifetime" and even longer, medicine is certainly "destined to be unable to solve all" diseases; does Tian Song therefore not believe in "this currently imperfect" medical art? Or more simply, until a method of walking is solved that prevents falling under all circumstances, does Tian Song simply stop walking?!
II. Incomplete Solutions Do Not Mean Science Should Not Be Used as Much as Possible
The guiding ideology of the planned economy was indeed the desire to formulate a perfect production plan based on the total needs of society. However, on the one hand, people’s actual needs are constrained by their respective purchasing power; needs that do not account for this constraint will expand to the point that their statistics become meaningless. Moreover, purchasing power is related not only to income but also to the number of dependents, future expectations, personal preferences, and other factors; these factors differ for every person and change at any time, making them difficult to quantify. On the other hand, for many new products and services, demand may be impossible to survey before they are invented, yet they stimulate significant demand once they hit the market—that is, supply can conversely influence demand. Therefore, it is essentially impossible for people to accurately calculate the total needs of society, and even more impossible to formulate a perfect production plan based on them. This becomes increasingly true as living standards rise and lifestyles become more diverse. Originally, this problem would not have been difficult to recognize if reality had been studied earnestly. But under a centralized system, administrative orders were implemented mainly by pressuring subordinates rather than by convincing people with reason. Consequently, the focus of planners was often not on how to conform to reality but on how to conform to the "spirit of the higher-ups." Irrational slogans such as "the greater the people's boldness, the higher the land's yield" [6] and pseudo-rational articles "demonstrating" arguments to suit the leaders' whims became prevalent. As a result, the formulation of plans relied less and less on science, economic plans became increasingly decoupled from reality, and the masses became increasingly impoverished.
Hayek believed that the intellectual root of the defects in the planned economy was scientism and the abuse of reason [7], yet his evidence suggested the opposite. He said: the engineer’s "knowledge does not explain why those changes in prices occurred which influence his plans, and any such change appears to him an irrational [i.e., not consciously controlled] factor; he resents having to pay attention to a multitude of factors which are to him without meaning." "The engineer feels that the 'irrational' economic factors prevent him from achieving his ideal through the study of the objective properties of things—an ideal which is usually the purely technical 'best' of universal validity. He rarely realizes that his preference for these particular methods is entirely a result of the kind of problems he is constantly solving, and that this preference is only correct under specific social conditions." "The engineer’s ideal is based on a disregard for the most fundamental economic fact—the scarcity of capital—which determines our present situation." (Ibid.) It is evident that the problem with these engineers moving into management positions lay precisely in their inability to face reality rationally and to conduct objective, comprehensive analyses of various factors influencing the economy; instead, they irrationally selected only certain factors to study based on personal preference. It was not that they wanted to use science and technology to solve all problems; it was that many problems they did not solve using science and technology. In other words, the problem with the planned economy was not that it was "too scientific," but that it was "unscientific"!
Once the crux of the problem is found, the path to a solution becomes clear. Jiang Xiaoyuan believes that because the planned economy was based on the "belief" that "science and technology can solve everything," and attempted to calculate the "relationship between supply and demand" to achieve a state of "neither waste, nor surplus, nor shortage," it resulted in poverty and backwardness. [1] However, a contradiction between supply and demand is hardly a good thing. Under a market economy, people strengthen contract management, produce based on sales, and implement "zero inventory" [JIT] strategies, all to overcome this contradiction. That people cannot completely solve a problem does not mean they should not try to solve it as much as possible. Does a doctor stop treating and saving people once he knows he cannot make them live forever?! Thus, the planned economy was not wrong in wanting to solve the supply-demand contradiction, but in attempting to solve it through the "will of the chief" [commandism]! Moving away from the planned economy does not mean using less science and technology to solve economic problems, but using scientific technology as much as possible!
III. Scientific Knowledge Has No Inherent "Good" or "Bad"; Scientific Research is Always Beneficial; Scientific Methods Should Be Promoted
Tian Song accuses "science of becoming an object of superstition!" claiming it receives special treatment: "The good is attributed to science, the bad to improper application!" He asks: "Since science cannot automatically do evil, how can it actively do good?" [8] This again confuses two meanings of science. As a system of knowledge, science is certainly neutral. The law of universal gravitation, the periodic law of elements, Mendel’s laws of inheritance... can one say which of these laws is "good" or "evil"? However, science as a social activity involves value judgments. "The Spring of Science has arrived" [8] naturally refers to the "springtime" for scientific research work, not to a "springtime" for those laws and formulas. People study science to understand objective laws, and "knowledge is always better than ignorance; knowing a lot is always better than a half-baked understanding." [9] Of course, some people may use these laws for evil after learning them, but if certain scientific knowledge might be researched and utilized by bad people, is it better for good people to master this knowledge or not? On the other hand, from a certain perspective, some scientific knowledge is indeed "bad"—for instance, for an individual, "the dead cannot be brought back to life" is generally not a good thing (though it is not a bad thing for human society). Yet, is it better for people to know this fact or not to know it?
Of course, scientific knowledge inevitably contains some errors, which certainly have downsides. For example, the theory that "parasites cause cancer," which once won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine—using such knowledge to design treatment plans would certainly be harmful. But should this harm be blamed on scientific research not being rigorous enough, or on scientific research itself? If it is the former, scientists should study the causes of cancer more rigorously; if it is the latter, scientists should abandon the study of cancer's causes altogether! Having reached this point, is further analysis even necessary?! Regarding Tian Song’s example of "Uncle Farmer" using chemical fertilizers and pesticides leading to soil compaction [8]: first, it was the farmer who had the demand for increased yields before scientists invented fertilizers and pesticides; second, fertilizers and pesticides did achieve the goal of increasing yields in the short term, so the knowledge provided by the scientists was not wrong; third, the downside of fertilizers and pesticides is that long-term use leads to decreased yields, which means the problem lies not in the application of scientific knowledge, but in the insufficiency of scientific knowledge—scientists only provided knowledge of the short-term effects of fertilizers and pesticides, not the long-term ones; finally, does "Uncle Farmer" hope for scientists to further research means that achieve yield increases in both the short and long term, or does he hope scientists will abandon research on yield increases? This, too, requires no further analysis. As for Liu Huajie’s example that "Lysenko’s science indeed had a (negative) effect on his country," [10] this was not actually science having a negative effect on the country, but rather the interference of political forces in scientific debates having a negative effect on science.
In Tian Song’s mind, science and its technology have always played a disreputable role: "Science has degenerated from being the handmaiden of theology to being the accomplice of capital." [11] Then how should agricultural problems be solved? Tian Song cites Yan Huoqi’s research on agricultural history and Jiang Gaoming’s practice of ecological agriculture. (Ibid.) But are these not scientific research? Are the two of them doing the work of a "handmaiden" or an "accomplice"? Tian Song repeatedly uses Freon as an example to illustrate the harms of technology. [8] The harm in this case was that "Freon destroys the ozone layer." But people did not know this when the refrigerator was invented; if they had, they would not have invented the Freon refrigerator. It is evident the harm came not from scientific knowledge and research, but from the insufficiency of scientific knowledge and research! Of course, no matter how science and technology develop, it is inevitable that some situations will not be anticipated, but as lessons and experiences accumulate, people will certainly consider things more and more thoroughly. On the other hand, if science and technology are imperfect, how can it be seen that sorcery, "dragon veins" [geomancy], or Guanyin [the Goddess of Mercy] (Ibid.) can solve the problem? Tian Song says: "The line of thought of using science to oppose superstition actually reduces science to the same level as superstition, turning science itself into an object of superstition." (Ibid.) Then what should we use to oppose superstition? Apparently, whatever is used to oppose superstition "is reduced to the same level as superstition" and "becomes an object of superstition." "Whoever opposes Tian Song is reduced to the same level as Tian Song"; "whoever opposes the enemy becomes a target of enmity themselves." What can be done? We can only stop here.
Wu Guosheng has argued: "Perhaps the environmental issues suggested is not merely a question of the proper use of science and technology, but a question of the inherent flaws of science and technology itself." [21] What "inherent flaws" do science and technology possess? He does not specify; however, he offers a prescription: "As long as humanity complies with nature, adapts to it, and cooperates with it, natural resources will be more than sufficient for human use; otherwise, the balanced relationship between man and nature will be destroyed" (ibid). Yet, "human existence itself requires, or rather simply is, a certain alteration of the world." [22] To put it in the extreme, even if humanity ceased to exist, human corpses would still affect nature. Since influence is inevitable, we must consider what kind of influence constitutes "complying with nature, adapting to it, and cooperating with it" without "destroying the balanced relationship between man and nature," so that it can be implemented. However, is the answer to this question not still found through scientific and technological research? To make "natural resources more than sufficient for human use," population must be controlled. To achieve this goal, if we do not rely on science and technology, are we to rely on slaughter or prayer?!
Jiang Xiaoyuan has remarked that a certain report indicates: "The decline of public concern or trust in science in Europe is mainly concentrated in two fields: nuclear power and biotechnology." [23] Yet, the actual wording in that report is: the Austrian "people reject certain technologies that conflict with the general value system (for example, biotechnology and nuclear energy)." [24] It is evident that what they worry about or lose trust in is technology, not science. Science concerns laws; specifically in these two fields, the most fundamental are the laws of energy conversion and the laws of asexual inheritance. To borrow the linguistic phrasing used by Tian Song to deconstruct the "punishment by laws" theory [25]: if these two laws are objective, the public cannot reject them, and worry is of no avail; if these two laws can be rejected, then they are not "objective," or rather, they are not scientific "laws"—in which case the public has even less need to worry about science. In short, the public will not worry because humanity discovers more and more scientific laws, let alone trust these laws or their discoverers less as more are discovered.
Regarding the scope of research, "it is neither right nor possible to demarcate boundaries or set forbidden zones for scientific research." [26] As for research conduct, science indeed requires regulation. Researching science requires certain means and the consumption of human, financial, and material resources. Some means must be restricted, such as experiments involving humans or hazardous materials, experiments that produce hazardous materials, or destructive experiments; some consumption must take into account relevant capacities, such as the use of taxpayer money or the consumption of scarce resources. However, Jiang Xiaoyuan believes this proves science is not "something of supreme goodness and beauty." [12] Does a thing of beauty not require regulation? Do blood donations and charitable contributions not have legal regulations? Charity is "absolutely a thing of beauty" (ibid.), yet many current problems in charitable endeavors precisely reflect our country's urgent need for laws in this area. Regulating good deeds can, on the one hand, encourage people to do good, and on the other hand, prevent others from doing evil in the name of doing good. Liu Bing has said: "The development of science should be for the ideal development of human society; when certain scientific research may conflict with this more fundamental goal, it should give priority to the larger goal of the ideal development of human society outside of science." [27] This sounds like it possesses a great "sense of social responsibility," but it actually cannot withstand scrutiny. The goal of scientific research is to explore objective laws. Is there any law that, once known, would hinder human development, such that not knowing it would lead to better development? If that were truly the case, how would we know which laws possess this quality without first knowing them? If we knew which laws we ought not to know, would that not mean we actually already knew those laws? The existence of forbidden zones for the means of scientific research does not lead to forbidden zones for the goals of research. If one cannot use humans for experiments, one uses animals; if one cannot use physical objects, one uses models or simulations. Investigating what means can be used to discover objective laws without harming human society remains the content of scientific research, not a goal outside of science.
Wu Guosheng believes it is inadvisable to apply scientific methods to the fields of daily social life, citing the limitations of mathematical methods and "black box" methods as examples. [28] However, on the one hand, the fact that these two methods are inapplicable in certain places does not mean other scientific methods are also inapplicable; on the other hand, even if there are places where no scientific method is applicable, it does not mean scientific methods cannot be used in any field of social life. Wu further believes there is one method within scientific methodology he disagrees with most: "using any means to achieve the end." He gives an example: "No one would approve of ‘dropping atomic bombs or conducting nuclear tests in densely populated areas to solve the population problem,’ even though the method is efficient. The scientists under Hitler were constantly researching how to efficiently poison Jews and efficiently cremate Jewish corpses; they were indeed very meticulous about scientific methods" (ibid). Yet, firstly: both examples concern technology, not scientific method. Secondly: regarding the first example, why "solve the population problem"? It is so that people can live well, and being blown to death clearly contradicts this purpose; therefore, this is not a means that achieves the goal but lacks approval—it is a means that is harmful to the goal and thus inadvisable. The error in the second example is even more obvious: the goal of "poisoning Jews" was itself wrong; it was not that the efficient means "selected" by Hitler to kill Jews were inadvisable! Ultimately, if there is a means that may not be "selected," it must be because we have other ends that need to be "achieved," and scientific methods are precisely what can help us find means that account for various ends. (See Section 2 of the next essay). Scientific method "is a tool for revealing the nature and laws of the objective world, obtaining new knowledge, and exploring truth." [29] Its highest level is the mode of thinking in scientific research, namely rational thinking—popularly put, every conclusion must have a reason. Can this mode of thinking not be applied to the realm of daily social life? Can people's assertions and decisions in daily life, work, and various affairs be entirely without foundation?! This is also the greatest significance of the popularization of science—each of us may not necessarily conduct scientific research, nor is it possible to master every kind of scientific knowledge, but every one of us should make our own thinking and behavior more rational!
IV. The Merit of Technology Resides in Its Use; Technical Development Relies More on Science
Technology is indeed, as Tian Song said, not neutral [17]. However, he questions: "Since we cannot condemn scientists in the case of the atomic bomb, why can we praise Yuan Longping [30] in the case of hybrid rice?" (ibid). Simply speaking, the former is indeed a bad technology and the latter is a good one. The reason we cannot condemn the scientists in the former case is that "if Hitler's scientists had not been racing to build the atomic bomb first, the Americans would not have felt the urgency to build it." [31] For scientists to develop the atomic bomb for the United States was a choice of the lesser of two evils, whereas developing it for Germany was condemned (as in the case of Heisenberg [32]). Liu Bing even traced the source of the nuclear threat back "to physics research on the atomic nucleus." He asked rhetorically: "Is this not a most powerful example of the negative effects that scientific research can potentially bring about in its results?" [33] True, without nuclear physics research there would be no atomic bombs; however, can the problem of building atomic bombs therefore be reduced to the problem of researching the atomic nucleus? First, who is the chief culprit? It is those who want to wage war, not the nuclear physicists. If the "source" of waging nuclear war can be "traced back" to nuclear physics research, then must the "source" of waging biological warfare be "traced back" to van Leeuwenhoek, who discovered bacteria? When one person uses the same piece of knowledge to benefit humanity and another uses it to harm humanity, is this a problem with science, or a problem with the humanities? Second, where does the relevant responsibility lie? While the developers of atomic bombs were not the users, they certainly knew what they were being used for, so they bear a certain responsibility. But do the researchers of the atomic nucleus also bear responsibility? If someone uses gunpowder to cause destruction, we can hold the person guarding the gunpowder responsible, but can we "trace it back" so that the researcher of explosions is also responsible? Third, where should prevention be focused? Once the technology for building an atomic bomb is mastered, it becomes possible to build one; therefore, the spread of atomic bomb technology must be prevented. But must nuclear physics knowledge also be kept from the public? Pethidine [34] is addictive, so the knowledge of its production should be kept secret; however, should we "trace it back" to the point where even the knowledge of its pharmacology is kept secret? Finally, is there any foolproof plan? If nuclear physics should not be researched because nuclear energy can be used to make weapons, can any other energy be researched? Who knows which kind of energy might be used to manufacture weapons in the future? By extension, can the theory of oxidation be researched? Might someone use it for arson? Can fluid mechanics be researched? Might someone use it to flood a city? ... Is there any scientific research result that does not have "potential risks in its application" (ibid)? Should we simply research nothing at all? Then how would we know if what we are doing has "negative effects"? Or should we do nothing at all and "sit and wait for death"? But if we have already "sat and waited for death," what "negative effects" are left to fear? Furthermore, the concept of scientific "negative effects" should be an extension of the concept of "side effects" in medicine, but Liu Bing’s use here overlooks an important boundary. The side effect of a drug refers to the harm it does to the human body under conditions of normal use for treating a disease. If we set aside the premise of "normal use," one could still choke to death on food or die of heatstroke from wearing clothes; yet do we need to establish concepts like "the side effects of rice" or "the side effects of cotton coats"? The same applies to scientific and technological research. Cars under normal use produce harmful exhaust fumes; this is a negative effect of automotive technology and needs to be solved by improving that technology. But if a car is driven onto the tracks to hijack a train, this is not a negative effect of automotive technology; this must be solved through other means such as supervision and protection. Similarly, the atomic bomb was specifically developed by certain people for war; it was not an incidental byproduct produced by physicists in the process of researching the atomic nucleus. Thus, it is not a negative effect of nuclear physics research. Nuclear physics research does not need to make any adjustments for this, nor can other scientific research derive any preventive measures from it.
As for what Jiang Xiaoyuan calls the other problems brought about by the development and application of science and technology cited by "those environmentalists"—that "the Internet has brought about spiritual alienation, and computer games have brought about a pathological state in young people" [12]—this "dirty water" truly cannot be "splashed" onto science and technology. The Internet is a technology that helps people interact; how could it instead cause spiritual alienation? This is actually caused by anonymity. However, whether people choose to be real-named or anonymous online—is that determined by science and technology? Scientists invented computer technology, but whether the games programmed with this technology can be ended at the right time or always make people unable to stop is the choice of the game developers. It is like an inventor creating cinema technology—is whether the person who masters this technology films a romance or a horror movie also determined by science and technology? Borrrowing Jiang Xiaoyuan's words, these are "entirely matters outside of science; this is the humanities." [31] Collingwood [35] believed that: "Humanity possesses a much stronger ability to control nature than it did two thousand years ago, but the level of morality has not made any progress; this situation is like a five-year-old child wielding a sharp knife." [17] If this is truly the case, then why not blame morality for progressing slowly instead of blaming science and technology for progressing fast?! Or, to borrow Tian Song's linguistic format: "Since the fact that science and technology progress fast should be condemned, should the fact that morality progresses slowly be praised?"
Jiang Xiaoyuan argues that the addition of melamine to milk powder is an instance of "science and technology bringing about bad results." [27] But was the toxic milk powder incident really the result of the knowledge that "melamine contains nitrogen"—and the technology for producing melamine itself—being inherently harmful? Was it not, rather, the result of certain bad actors abusing that knowledge? To prevent poisoning, should scientists therefore refrain from telling people which substances are toxic, or even cease researching whether various substances are toxic or non-toxic altogether?! As for Jiang Xiaoyuan’s inclusion of false advertising in the name of science on television, or certain companies using science to amass wealth, as "problems brought about by science" (ibid.), these points are even less worthy of refutation. By this logic, should the damage caused to people by counterfeit luxury brands also be the responsibility of the legitimate brand manufacturers? Liu Bing states: "Even if science and technology were truly neutral, they could not escape the fate of being abused." [28] Yet even if this were true, should we therefore completely prohibit the use of science and technology? Unless the answer is affirmative, we cannot escape following up with questions such as: How do we distinguish between the rational use and the abuse of technology? How can we best prevent abuse? Once abuse occurs, how can we minimize the damage? Can we resolve these questions without scientific research and technical progress?!
Tian Song traces the "evil" of science and technology back to capital valorization and industrial civilization: "Since the Industrial Revolution, technology has fundamentally—from its starting point to its destination—not been 'for' satisfying 'human' needs, but 'for' satisfying the needs of 'capital valorization'." [29] Has technology failed to satisfy human needs? Does satisfying the need for capital valorization necessarily harm human needs? The article in question goes on to negate these very points itself. How, then, are we to solve the problem that "to satisfy the needs of capital valorization, technology... often deprives one group of people of their needs in order to satisfy the needs of another" (ibid.)? Tian Song paints a "beautiful picture" of a world without industrial civilization: "Traditional peasants were self-sufficient, relying on the heavens for food—relying solely on the heavens, they asked nothing of others, leaving capital with nowhere to sink its teeth." [30] If "relying on the heavens" could ensure everyone was well-fed, capital would certainly have no room to intervene; if meat pies fell from the sky, capital would not "sink its teeth" into the peasants. The problem is that a vast amount of "historical evidence" shows the "heavens" are unreliable. What then? Should we "follow nature" [31] so as to save ourselves the trouble of family planning? But what if someone is unwilling to be "naturally" starved to death and wants to revolt? Do we continue to "follow nature"? Or would that then fall under "humanities," so "science and technology" need not worry about it? It is true that some pharmaceutical companies prefer to develop drugs for the ailments of the rich rather than produce drugs for the diseases of the poor. However, without the incentive of capital valorization, would drugs for the poor become more plentiful? Should we use policy adjustments so that capital invested in both areas can valorize, or should we ensure neither can? Should we oppose any act of saving lives or curing illnesses simply because profit is involved [29]? Should all profitable enterprises then be shut down? Even if capital uses technology to deprive others of their needs, is science thereby the "accomplice of capital," and should we hate technology (ibid.)? Without the help of land, landlords would also find it difficult to realize their control over peasants; is land therefore the "accomplice of the landlord," and should peasants hate the land and oppose farming? "Science and technology themselves are merely a form of instrumental rationality; they cannot determine the purpose or the social mode of their own use." [32] In contrast, Tian Song elevates traditional culture to an extreme, disagreeing with the distinction between "the essence and the dross" [精粹与糟粕]. [33] Yet, on the one hand, he himself has said: "As for human sacrifice, do all forms of nature worship require it?" [34] This shows that even Tian Song classifies human sacrifice as "dross." On the other hand, "taking the essence and discarding the dross" implies that one should not completely negate or affirm either traditional or modern culture. Compared to Tian Song’s absolutely affirmative claim that "tradition itself is a value," which slogan actually "implicitly contains" a "condescending attitude"? [33] Since Tian Song believes that "no one can grasp a transcendent, mysterious yardstick to dare to ultimately determine what is essence and what is dross" (ibid.), on what basis does he "dare to ultimately" "negate modernization as a whole" (ibid.)?
Jiang Xiaoyuan uses people playing the stock market as a metaphor for developing science and technology. He says that if a person loses money in stocks, they want to turn defeat into victory; if they win, they want to redouble their efforts. Whether winning or losing, they always continue to play. Proponents of developing science and technology likewise use whatever science brings us—good or bad—as a reason to develop it further. [27] In fact, this approach is precisely the mode of activity found in pseudoscience! The scientific approach is to constantly analyze past experiences and lessons to adjust subsequent behavior. In terms of the stock market, this means analyzing why one lost or won and adjusting one’s strategy accordingly, including exiting the market at the right time to choose other investment methods. In terms of developing science and technology, it means constantly adjusting R&D directions based on the results of technical implementation (including simulated results), so that technology brings us as much of the good and as little of the bad as possible—including the timely development of technologies with many benefits to phase out those with many harms. Only pseudoscientists ignore success or failure and stubbornly stick to one strategy or idea until the bitter end. Both science and pseudoscience make mistakes; the difference is that science develops through a process of constant error correction, while pseudoscience constantly repeats previous errors! [35] Furthermore, comparing science and technology to playing the stock market is highly inappropriate. Playing the stock market is just one means of increasing capital; if it is ineffective, one can switch to another. But "technology" is the collective term for all means of doing everything. If we do not use technology, how are we to do anything? Peasants can choose not to use chemical fertilizers or pesticides, but they still have to produce grain. Even "slash-and-burn" [刀耕火种] agriculture—is that not also a technology? As for placing "science" before "technology," this is an inevitable trend. What do we rely on to develop technology if not science? Do we rely on customs? Tian Song strongly recommends Yin Shaoting’s research on the "slash-and-burn agriculture of Jingpo, Wa, and Dulong villages." [36] If "building terraces nationwide" was "absurd" back then (ibid.), would it be "wise" for the whole country to practice slash-and-burn now? Even in those areas where these Yunnan mountain ethnic groups live, is not one of the research conclusions the need to reclaim terraces and build water conservancy projects? [37] Since "one cannot use a single 'underworld ruler' [冥尺] to generalize everything," [36] whether slash-and-burn can be applied in places with many people and little land, and how to apply it—does that not still rely on scientific research? Tian Song asks: "Why is it that those backward, superstitious customs protected the environment, while the science that helped humanity conquer nature has conversely landed us in a predicament? Is it because we are too superstitious about science?" [38] If a certain custom indeed plays a role in protecting the environment, then we should understand its origin and evaluate its pros and cons to determine which aspects can be retained, which can be promoted, and which must be transformed. And that is precisely the task of scientific research! Without analysis, are we to promote every custom we see and resist every piece of science? Would that not be being "too superstitious" about customs? I could likewise pose a puzzle: Why do some heinous, bad people live long lives while good people who help others overcome difficulties die young? Should we therefore praise every bad person we see and berate every good person?!
{27} Tian Song: "Essays from Rice-Fragrance Garden (22): The Survival Wisdom of Slash-and-Burn Cultivation," China Reading Weekly (Zhonghua dushu bao), June 22, 2005.
{28} Yin Shaoting: Man and Forests: Slash-and-Burn Cultivation from the Perspective of Ecological Anthropology. Kunming: Yunnan Education Publishing House, 2000, pp. 353-358. (Borderland Culture Series).
{29} Tian Song: "The Superstition of Science and the Science of Superstition," Science Times (Kexue shibao), August 8, 2003.
Online Editor: Jiafei Science and Atheism (Kexue yu wushenlun), No. 1, 2012.