Everyone knows the famous saying "Bold assumptions, careful verification". Hu Shi originally used it to summarize the textual research methods of Qing Confucianism. In the article "Methods and Materials of Scholarship" published in 1928, he further regarded it as a scientific method: "Scientific method is actually very simple to say, but Respect facts and evidence'. In application, the scientific method is nothing more than 'bold assumptions and careful verification'."

But not many people in the scientific community follow this saying, and there are some who engage in pseudoscience. People like to use this as a slogan to embolden themselves. For example, boldly hypothesize the existence of special abilities, and then carefully verify it. Someone once said that even if 99 supernatural powers were proven to be false, it would not prove that the 100th one was not true. The verification failed 99 times, and I have to do it again for the 100th time. It is not careless. If "bold hypothesis, careful verification" is really the scientific method, wouldn't these people who engage in pseudoscience become the most scientific people?

In various social debates, we often see people shouting this slogan. During the recent debate about genetically modified crops, a law school professor published an article in a newspaper, "Opposition to genetically modified crops cannot be regarded as pseudoscience," educating everyone to "maintain a humble attitude in the face of science" and "when it comes to public food safety." Regarding the issue, the Ministry of Agriculture should make bold assumptions and verify carefully. It should boldly assume that there are certain safety risks 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. ” p>

Scientific research will of course use hypotheses, but the reason why Hu Shi's proposition is problematic is not the "hypothesis" but the "boldness". Isn't "cautious assumption" unscientific? If this is the case, most scientific research does not use scientific methods, because they all belong to the so-called "normal science", and the hypotheses proposed are just tinkering with existing scientific theories, and there is nothing surprising in them. Some of the astonishing hypotheses that triggered the scientific revolution may seem bold, but they are extremely rare in the history of science. It cannot be said that only these scientific geniuses use scientific methods. The reason why people who engage in pseudoscience appreciate "bold hypotheses" is precisely because they often regard themselves as unappreciated scientific geniuses.

Those seemingly "bold" hypotheses in the history of science, once carefully examined, you will find that they are not actually so bold. For example, the work that won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 - Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and gastric ulcer - is regarded by many as an example of "bold assumptions and careful verification". One of the winners, Marshall, in 2008 When he gave a speech at a Chinese university, domestic media reported that he "expressed his hope that China's young people would dare to try, make bold assumptions and be careful to verify." It is as if Hu Shi's famous sayings have gone global and are well known to Nobel Prize winners.

Gastric ulcer has always been regarded as a chronic disease caused by excessive stomach acid due to psychological stress and lifestyle. However, Warren and Marshall believe that its main cause is infection with a type of bacteria (Helicobacter pylori) , this assumption seems bold. In fact, as early as 1875, someone suggested that gastric ulcers were caused by bacteria. Since then, people have continued to propose this hypothesis, and spiral bacteria 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). Both hypotheses have their supporters and have been at loggerheads for many years. It was not until 1954 that American researchers published the results of a study in which more than a thousand human stomach specimens were dissected but no bacteria were found (now we know it was because of problems with the method), and all bacteria previously found in the stomach were regarded as samples. Caused by pollution, the "hyperacidity" hypothesis prevailed.

Warren and Marshall actually reintroduced a hypothesis that was considered outdated. This was not a "bold hypothesis" on a whim, but because Warren himself noticed the presence of bacteria in gastric mucosal tissue sections, he began to suspect that the stomach disease was related to this. Their main contribution was to prove the correctness of this hypothesis through a series of experiments, and to discover, isolate, and culture Helicobacter pylori.

The process of verification is sometimes quite bold: Marshall even used the extreme method of swallowing Helicobacter pylori and causing himself to suffer from gastritis to prove the causal relationship between Helicobacter pylori and gastritis.

Hypothesis and verification are part of the scientific method, but they are not all of it. Hu Shi missed the premise of the hypothesis and ignored the key to verification. Scientific hypotheses are put forward logically based on existing evidence, and then new evidence is found to prove it. Scientific hypotheses are not "bold hypotheses" that are fabricated out of thin air or whimsical, but "reasonable hypotheses" that are consistent with evidence and logic. Similarly, there is no necessary relationship between scientific verification and "caution". It only depends on whether the evidence is conclusive, regardless of whether the attitude of verification is "bold" or "cautious". Therefore, if we say "reasonable hypothesis and solid verification", it looks a bit like a scientific method.

Let’s look at the issue of genetically modified foods. "There are certain safety risks in the production and consumption of genetically modified foods." This assumption is not bold at all, but is almost nonsense, because there are certain safety risks in the production and consumption of all foods, and genetically modified foods will not exception. It’s just that people are more concerned about the safety of genetically modified foods than traditional foods, so risk assessments must be conducted before genetically modified foods are put on the market. This assessment method is recognized by international authoritative organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and is considered to be very thorough and careful enough. Under such conditions, it is still bold but also unreasonable to demand that "it is assumed that there are certain safety risks in the production and consumption of genetically modified foods" without any basis.