However, few people in the scientific community follow suit, and some people who engage in pseudoscience like to use it as a slogan to encourage themselves. For example, boldly assume the existence of psychic powers, and then carefully verify them. Someone once said that even if 99 special functions are proved to be false, it cannot be proved that the term 100 is not true. The verification failed 99 times, and it's not sloppy to do it again at the100th time. If "making bold assumptions and carefully verifying" is really a scientific method, won't these pseudoscientists become the most scientific people?
In various social debates, we often see people shouting this slogan. In the recent debate about genetically modified crops, a law school professor wrote in a newspaper that "the view against genetically modified crops cannot be regarded as pseudoscience", educating everyone to "maintain a humble attitude in front of science" and "the Ministry of Agriculture should" make bold assumptions and carefully verify "on issues involving public food safety. Boldly assume that there are certain safety hazards in the production and consumption of genetically modified foods, and carefully verify the problems in the production and consumption of genetically modified foods through small-scale experiments. "
Of course, scientific research will use assumptions, but Hu Shi's proposition is not "assumptions" but "boldness". Isn't "cautious assumption" unscientific? If so, most scientific research does not use scientific methods, because they all belong to the so-called "normal science", and it is not surprising that the assumptions put forward are only tinkering with existing scientific theories. Some surprising assumptions that triggered the scientific revolution seem bold, but they are extremely rare in the history of science. It can't be said that only these scientific geniuses use scientific methods. Pseudoscientists appreciate "bold assumptions" precisely because they often pretend to be talented scientific geniuses.
Those seemingly "bold" assumptions in the history of science, once carefully examined, will find that they are not so bold. For example, the achievement of winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005-Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and gastric ulcer, is regarded by many people as a model of "bold hypothesis and careful verification". When Marshall, one of the winners, gave a speech at China University in 2008, the domestic media reported that he "sent a message, hoping that young people in China would dare to try, make bold assumptions and seriously verify". It seems that Hu Shi's famous words have gone to the world and are well known by Nobel Prize winners.
Gastric ulcer has always been regarded as a chronic disease caused by hyperacidity caused by psychological stress and lifestyle, but Warren and Marshall think that the main reason is infection with a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori), which seems bold. In fact, as early as 1875, it was suggested that gastric ulcer was caused by bacteria. Since then, this hypothesis has been put forward continuously, and spirochetes have been found in the stomachs of humans, dogs, cats, rats and other animals. On the contrary, the hypothesis of hyperacidity came out later (1905). These two hypotheses have their own supporters and have been at loggerheads for many years. Until 1954, American researchers released a research result, dissected more than 1000 human stomach samples, but failed to find bacteria (now we know it is because of its method), and regarded all the bacteria found in the stomach before as the result of sample pollution, and the hypothesis of "hyperacidity" prevailed.
Warren and Marshall actually put forward a hypothesis that is considered outdated. This is not a "bold assumption" on a whim, but because Warren himself noticed the existence of bacteria in gastric mucosa tissue slices, and he began to suspect that stomach trouble was related to this. Their main contribution is to prove the correctness of this hypothesis with a series of experiments, and to discover, isolate and cultivate Helicobacter pylori. The process of verification is sometimes quite bold: Marshall even proved the causal relationship between Helicobacter pylori and gastritis by swallowing Helicobacter pylori to make himself suffer from gastritis.
Hypothesis and verification are part of the scientific method, but not all. Hu Shi ignored the premise of hypothesis and the key to verification. Scientific hypothesis is put forward logically on the basis of existing evidence, and then seek new evidence to prove it. The scientific hypothesis is not a "bold hypothesis" that is fabricated out of thin air and whimsical, but a "reasonable hypothesis" that conforms to the evidence and logic. Similarly, scientific verification is not necessarily related to prudence, but only depends on whether the evidence is conclusive, regardless of whether the attitude of verification is bold or cautious. So if we say "reasonable hypothesis, conclusive verification", it will look like a scientific method.
Let's look at the problem of genetically modified food again. "There are certain security risks in the production and consumption of genetically modified foods", which is not bold at all, and is almost nonsense, because all food production and consumption have certain security risks, and genetically modified foods are no exception. However, people are more concerned about the safety of genetically modified foods than traditional foods, so risk assessment should be carried out before the genetically modified foods are put on the market. This evaluation method has been recognized by the world health organization, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and other international authoritative organizations, and it is considered very thorough and detailed enough. Under this condition, it is bold, but unreasonable to demand that "the production and consumption of genetically modified foods have certain safety risks".