把所有这些放在一起来描述“科学是什么以及它是如何运作的”

J. Zimring
{"title":"把所有这些放在一起来描述“科学是什么以及它是如何运作的”","authors":"J. Zimring","doi":"10.1017/9781108569149.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on the discussions in this book, the following definition of science is suggested to my fellow scientists and nonscientists alike. First and foremost, science is an outgrowth of normal human observation, reasoning, conclusion, and prediction. Scientists and nonscientists both depend upon induction and the assumptions it entails – assumptions that are imperfect and don’t always hold. They assume that the future will resemble the past to a greater extent than by guessing alone, and they also assume that what one has encountered today is more representative of things not yet encountered than can be arrived at by random guessing. Both scientists and nonscientists retroduce causes for the effects they observe, a form of reasoning that suffers from the fallacy of affirming the consequent. As a result of this fallacy, scientists and nonscientists both retroduce hypotheses of causal things that likely never existed, such as phlogiston being the cause of heat, a vital force being required for the types of chemicals that come from living things, and the great Sananda causing a prophet’s pen to write. One needs ongoing observation, and if possible experimentation, to further assess which retroduced causes one should hold onto (at least for now) and which should be rejected (at least for now). Scientists and nonscientists both use deduction (or at least a form of reasoning that resembles deduction but may not adhere to strict standards of formal logic) to make further predictions based on their retroduced hypotheses. Scientists and nonscientists both have fallacies in their hypothetico-deductive (HD) thinking, make mistaken observations, have cognitive biases, and fall in love with their hypotheses, noticing observations that confirm and ignoring observations that refute. Scientists and nonscientists are both susceptible to social pressures, social biases, and manipulation (intentional and unintentional) by the groups and societies in which they find themselves.","PeriodicalId":118072,"journal":{"name":"What Science Is and How It Really Works","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting It All Together to Describe “What Science Is and How It Really Works”\",\"authors\":\"J. Zimring\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/9781108569149.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on the discussions in this book, the following definition of science is suggested to my fellow scientists and nonscientists alike. First and foremost, science is an outgrowth of normal human observation, reasoning, conclusion, and prediction. Scientists and nonscientists both depend upon induction and the assumptions it entails – assumptions that are imperfect and don’t always hold. They assume that the future will resemble the past to a greater extent than by guessing alone, and they also assume that what one has encountered today is more representative of things not yet encountered than can be arrived at by random guessing. Both scientists and nonscientists retroduce causes for the effects they observe, a form of reasoning that suffers from the fallacy of affirming the consequent. As a result of this fallacy, scientists and nonscientists both retroduce hypotheses of causal things that likely never existed, such as phlogiston being the cause of heat, a vital force being required for the types of chemicals that come from living things, and the great Sananda causing a prophet’s pen to write. One needs ongoing observation, and if possible experimentation, to further assess which retroduced causes one should hold onto (at least for now) and which should be rejected (at least for now). Scientists and nonscientists both use deduction (or at least a form of reasoning that resembles deduction but may not adhere to strict standards of formal logic) to make further predictions based on their retroduced hypotheses. Scientists and nonscientists both have fallacies in their hypothetico-deductive (HD) thinking, make mistaken observations, have cognitive biases, and fall in love with their hypotheses, noticing observations that confirm and ignoring observations that refute. Scientists and nonscientists are both susceptible to social pressures, social biases, and manipulation (intentional and unintentional) by the groups and societies in which they find themselves.\",\"PeriodicalId\":118072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"What Science Is and How It Really Works\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"What Science Is and How It Really Works\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569149.014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"What Science Is and How It Really Works","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569149.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于本书的讨论,我向我的科学家和非科学家同行们提出了以下科学的定义。首先,科学是人类正常观察、推理、结论和预测的产物。科学家和非科学家都依赖于归纳法和它所带来的假设——这些假设是不完美的,并不总是成立的。他们认为未来将在更大程度上与过去相似,而不仅仅是猜测,他们还认为今天遇到的事情比随机猜测更能代表尚未遇到的事情。科学家和非科学家都为他们观察到的结果还原原因,这是一种因肯定结果而产生谬误的推理方式。由于这种谬论,科学家和非科学家都还原了可能从未存在过的因果事物的假设,例如燃素是热的原因,来自生物的化学物质类型需要一种生命力,以及伟大的萨南达导致先知的笔写字。一个人需要持续的观察,如果可能的话,还需要实验,以进一步评估哪些还原原因应该坚持(至少目前),哪些应该拒绝(至少目前)。科学家和非科学家都使用演绎(或者至少是一种类似演绎的推理形式,但可能不遵守严格的形式逻辑标准)来基于他们的还原假设做出进一步的预测。科学家和非科学家在他们的假设-演绎(HD)思维中都有谬误,会做出错误的观察,有认知偏差,并且会爱上他们的假设,注意到证实的观察结果而忽略反驳的观察结果。科学家和非科学家都容易受到社会压力、社会偏见以及他们所处的群体和社会的操纵(有意或无意)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Putting It All Together to Describe “What Science Is and How It Really Works”
Based on the discussions in this book, the following definition of science is suggested to my fellow scientists and nonscientists alike. First and foremost, science is an outgrowth of normal human observation, reasoning, conclusion, and prediction. Scientists and nonscientists both depend upon induction and the assumptions it entails – assumptions that are imperfect and don’t always hold. They assume that the future will resemble the past to a greater extent than by guessing alone, and they also assume that what one has encountered today is more representative of things not yet encountered than can be arrived at by random guessing. Both scientists and nonscientists retroduce causes for the effects they observe, a form of reasoning that suffers from the fallacy of affirming the consequent. As a result of this fallacy, scientists and nonscientists both retroduce hypotheses of causal things that likely never existed, such as phlogiston being the cause of heat, a vital force being required for the types of chemicals that come from living things, and the great Sananda causing a prophet’s pen to write. One needs ongoing observation, and if possible experimentation, to further assess which retroduced causes one should hold onto (at least for now) and which should be rejected (at least for now). Scientists and nonscientists both use deduction (or at least a form of reasoning that resembles deduction but may not adhere to strict standards of formal logic) to make further predictions based on their retroduced hypotheses. Scientists and nonscientists both have fallacies in their hypothetico-deductive (HD) thinking, make mistaken observations, have cognitive biases, and fall in love with their hypotheses, noticing observations that confirm and ignoring observations that refute. Scientists and nonscientists are both susceptible to social pressures, social biases, and manipulation (intentional and unintentional) by the groups and societies in which they find themselves.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How Scientific Reasoning Differs from Other Reasoning Index Natural Properties of a Rule-Governed World, or Why Scientists Study Certain Types of Things and Not Others Adding More Building Blocks of Human Reasoning to the Knowledge Problem The Knowledge Problem, or What Can We Really “Know”?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1