Questioning the Practical Significance of "What is Science"

Wu Guosheng, a professor in Peking University, mentioned in many articles and speeches that science is an exotic product from the West. To understand science, we must return to the western context. China culture, which takes the spirit of benevolence as the highest pursuit of human nature, lacked the scientific spirit from the beginning.

Wu Guosheng believes that questioning and thinking about what science is has extremely urgent practical significance in current China. Thus, this new book "What is Science" came into being.

First of all, this book devotes a lot of space to Greek science, aiming at clarifying the source of science, that is, the source of science is in Greece. Another important part of the book talks about the difference between modern science and classical science, which is also the premise of correctly evaluating modern science. The natural history part of the book not only makes people understand another western scientific tradition, but also creates a broad sense of "science" and reconstructs the scientific pedigree.

Of course, "this book not only returns to the western historical context and traces the historical origin of Greek science and modern science, but also hopes to open up a new way of thinking for China to re-evaluate ancient science." Wu Guosheng said.

Just like The Course of Science, which he wrote and published more than 20 years ago, what is science is also very readable and deeply loved by readers. Printed one month after listing. Wu Guosheng said with a smile, in fact, there are a lot of quotations and notes in the book, and about 80% of the words are published in CSSCI journals. As for becoming a popular book, it is the credit of the publishing house.

China Science News: The title of this book looks simple, but it's actually a bit awkward. Many people say "what is science" as "what is science", just as people are used to confusing "science and technology" with "science". Please talk about the difference between "what is science" and "what is science"? Why do you want to talk from this angle?

Wu Guosheng: At first, I thought it was just an expression habit, and there was no substantive difference. Later, it was suggested that "what is science" smacked of essentialism, as if you didn't know "what is science". Let me tell you, I think it makes sense.

What is Science seems to avoid this suspicion of essentialism. From my own original intention, I just want to raise it as a problem and highlight the "problem" nature of this problem. I just want to draw everyone's attention to this problem. So it is a question, but it doesn't have to provide a standard answer.

China Science Journal: You said that what is science by British philosopher chalmers didn't answer the question raised in the title, and everyone in western philosophy of science gave different answers to this question. "What is science" seems to focus on different issues. Why?

Wu Guosheng: For western philosophers of science, the reference of "science" is clear, that is, they all know what the word "science" refers to. When they ask "what is science", they are not looking for "reference", but want to establish science as the standard of science. This is indeed what western philosophers of science want to do, but this standard has never been established, so in this sense, chalmers failed to achieve his goal.

On the other hand, for our readers in China, it is not natural to mention science, because in China, there seem to be many kinds of science, Marxism is science, and there were also sciences in ancient China. So we hope to clearly define the extension of science and exclude some things from science, which is obviously not what chalmers wants to do.

China Science: After reading the book, we will find that we are not talking about this science, this science is not science, it is science ABC, but starting with the translation of the word "science", we will talk about the difference between Greek civilization and China farming civilization, and the pursuit of freedom. It is more about the contrast between western and China cultures than about science. Please introduce the creativity of this book.

Wu Guosheng: As I said in the preface, there are two kinds of China people who are more concerned about "what is science".

Some people just want to crack down on all kinds of pseudoscience, so they want to have a standard, that is, science is science, which can be used to judge what is science and what is not. My book is not for this group of people.

There are also a group of people who want to develop China's scientific career, carry forward China's traditional culture and seek China people's cultural identity in modern times. They are bound to encounter problems such as why modern science in China has not been developed, whether there is science in ancient China, and why modern science has negative consequences. My book is for these people.

My thinking is that the development of modern science in China is always unsatisfactory, and the key lies in the general lack of real scientific spirit in China culture, that is, the pure rational spirit from Greece; The reason why China people can't easily see the negative consequences of modern science without defense is because we don't understand the metaphysical basis and philosophical presupposition behind modern science; There was no science in the sense of mainstream western mathematical science in ancient China. Therefore, if we cover ancient China with the mode of mainstream mathematical science like Needham, we can only salvage a pile of historical fragments. On the contrary, if we change a scientific paradigm, that is, from the perspective of natural history, natural history in ancient China is very rich and developed.

China Science News: You said, "Because you don't realize the uniqueness of science, it's easy to think that there was science in ancient China-China people had technology and intelligence, so there was science. This wrong view of science has prevented us from reflecting on our own culture. " What is the difference between this kind of reflection and the tradition of reflection during the May 4th Movement?

Wu Guosheng: This universalist view of science, on the one hand, misses the true meaning of science, making our science unable to develop healthily and continuously; Secondly, we misunderstood and missed the characteristics of China's traditional culture.

In a sense, this is a simple and accurate tradition of reflection, which can be traced back to the May 4th period. The difference is that we can take a more tolerant and sympathetic stance towards traditional culture, and explore the characteristics of traditional culture itself and its positive significance in the contemporary era.

China Science Journal: Defining the concept of science can clear the way for the development of science in China? Will this lead to China people becoming more westernized not only technically but also ideologically?

Wu Guosheng: Of course. Clarifying the concept of science can clear the way for the development of science in China.

China people have long been westernized, but they are not clear about it, or they don't want to admit it. Many things that China people have unconsciously accepted have not been clarified. Because there is no consciousness, it is in a mixed state with the things left by tradition in the mind, which leads to the loss of cultural identity, confusion on many issues, and the lack of knowledge in China today.

China Science Journal: Besides Greek rational science and mathematical science, another important part of the book is natural history. What is the consideration? Why is medicine not included?

Wu Guosheng: As far as natural history is concerned, there are two considerations. One is to correct and reduce the hegemonic position of western mathematical experimental science; The second is to provide a place for the "science" of non-western culture.

Medicine is neither science nor technology. On the contrary, medicine is a common human cultural phenomenon. Almost all ethnic groups have their own medicine, just as all ethnic groups have their own scientific and technological traditions, but the science is different. Only ethnic minorities have science, and the Chinese nation is not one of them.

China Science News: You said that the publication of this book is not only a hobby of pure scholars, but actually there are many practical concerns. Please give an example in detail.

Wu Guosheng: The reality is that people in China have many misunderstandings about science, which have affected many very real problems such as scientific research, scientific decision-making, scientific research evaluation, higher education, traditional culture evaluation and cultural identity.

For example, if we don't understand that the true meaning of scientific spirit lies in freedom, our scientific and technological decision-making will always be based on application, scientific research evaluation will always be eager for quick success and instant benefit, and scientists will always play the role of "slave scientists"; For example, without understanding the demanding nature of modern science, it is impossible to understand why science has become a double-edged sword and why scientists have become interest groups. For another example, if we don't understand the position of natural history in the history of science, we can't find practical ways to ease the tension between man and nature.

China Science Journal: From The Course of Science published by 1995 to What is Science, are these two books related? What has changed in your own mind? Undoubtedly, What is Science is a thought-provoking book. What other aspects do you think need further discussion?

Wu Guosheng: After all, the course of science was more than 20 years ago, which is completely different from what science is. When I wrote that book, I was a 28-year-old young man, and I didn't read many books on the history of science. There are not many thoughts in the book that belong to me. This book certainly has a lot of my own ideas.

Of course, some ideas are mature and some are not mature enough. For example, reconstructing the history of ancient science in China from the perspective of natural history is a new idea of mine, but I only have some very abstract suggestions on how to repair it.