Abstract: From the perspective of the history of scientific development and its application, the relationship between science and the emergence and solution of environmental problems, and the social research of science, "Is science an angel or a devil? Two "Both or neither?" is not a simple question, but requires a detailed analysis and a comprehensive and in-depth view.
Keywords: science; positive effect; negative effect; angel; devil
In our country, people’s general views and attitudes towards science are generally reflected in the belief that “science is an angel” Still the devil" assertion. Different assertions indicate that people have different understandings of why science causes positive and negative effects and what kind of positive and negative effects it causes. This will further lead to people using different ways to develop and apply science, and produce corresponding scientific understanding results and understanding of science. Natural and social consequences. In view of this, it is necessary to analyze various assertions and their related bases to obtain a more comprehensive and correct understanding.
Is science both an angel and a devil?
In reality, many people answer this in the affirmative. Their reason is generally: Science is a double-edged sword that can both benefit and harm mankind.
On the surface, this view is relatively comprehensive and seems to be consistent with the reality. However, if we think about it from a historical perspective, there are big problems.
Before the late Middle Ages, science could be said to be in its infancy, with relatively small positive and negative effects. Compared to humans at that time, it was neither an angel nor a devil. In the late Middle Ages, a new science different from Aristotle developed in the struggle with religion. Many aspects of this scientific understanding, such as Copernicus' heliocentric theory, Visas's human structure, Galileo The observation of celestial bodies and the discussion of motion are contrary to religious tenets. Some aspects of science are regarded by religious believers as a scourge. Science has become a devil to people who believe in religion.
From the 16th century to the 18th century, the modern scientific revolution took place and was completed. During this period, science generally lags behind technology. The social application of science, especially its application in industrial production, has not been fully reflected. The material value of science and the value generated in the process of creating material value have not been fully reflected. The positive and negative effects of science are relatively small, but the enlightenment effect of science on people is very large. Although a few people criticize science, in general, the negative effects of science are not large or even do not appear. What appears is more of an angelic side.
Since the 19th century, science has been ahead of technology and has been widely used in society. The positive effects of science have gradually emerged and expanded, creating huge benefits for mankind. At this time, quite a few people have Think of science as the angel that saves mankind. On the other hand, the negative effects produced by science are also gradually emerging and expanding. The outbreak of the two world wars and the emergence of environmental problems have made people realize that if science and the negative effects produced by science are not examined and restricted, , science is likely to become the devil that harms mankind. Of course, from the current perspective, some scientific pessimists and some people who hold other views, such as some extreme environmentalists, postmodernists, and some scientific researchers in the West, regard science as However, it can be said that the huge negative effects of science have not yet appeared. More people do not regard science as a devil but as an angel.
From the perspective of the future, science will definitely bring greater positive effects. There is generally no doubt about this. As for whether it will bring greater, or even huge, negative effects, there are differences. view. If the application of science does not produce huge negative effects, then science must be an angel; if science produces huge positive effects, it also produces huge negative effects. However, humans can solve the negative effects brought by science and solve them. The cost of this negative effect is small, and science appears more angelic to humans. Otherwise, science presents more of a demonic side. It can be seen that whether science is an angel or a devil is not simply related to whether the application of science has produced huge positive and negative effects, but also related to whether humans can solve such negative effects and the cost of solving such negative effects.
In a word, historical experience, realistic performance and future prospects show that the view that science is both an angel and a devil is untenable.
2. Is science neither an angel nor a devil?
Some people are positive about this. Their reason is: scientific knowledge itself does not matter whether it is good or evil, only true or false, right or wrong. It does not contain any subjective emotions and is just a tool used by people. If the person who uses science is an angel, then he will bring science to benefit mankind, and science will become an angel; if the person who uses science is a devil, then he will bring science to harm mankind, and science will become a devil. In this way, science itself is neither an angel nor a devil. The reason why it appears as an angel or a devil is rooted in human beings. It is the alienation of human beings that leads to the alienation of scientific applications. The real angels or devils should be attributed to humans.
The above point of view has some truth. Einstein said: "Science is a powerful tool. How to use it, whether it brings happiness or disaster to people, all depends on the person himself, not on the tool. The knife is the most important tool in human life. Useful, but it can also be used to kill people.” [1] Marie Curie said that science is not guilty, the crime lies in the abuse of science. Marx also believed that the source of technological alienation does not lie in technology itself, but in the capitalist application of technology. Examining the practical application of science, for example, nuclear energy can be used to build atomic bombs and generate electricity; atomic bombs can be used to carry out unjust wars and defend the country... etc. This fully illustrates this point. a little.
However, if you analyze it in depth, you will find that this view is one-sided. In many cases, when people apply science for good purposes, it will also produce evil results. For example, before many environmental problems in history emerged, people did not know that such environmental problems existed. Such environmental problems are caused by people's rational use of science to develop production, and are not the result of people abusing science or wanting to use science to destroy the environment. How does this happen? Further research shows that there are internal reasons for this: Ontologically speaking, modern science is based on the disenchantment of nature, which makes nature not only lose its purpose, but also lose its direct trend, value, Meaning and change have no intrinsic value, only use value and instrumental value. They are not eligible for moral care. They are regarded as an object world and can be used and transformed completely according to our purposes. They become an object that can be manipulated, processed and ruled by others. The means for human beings to achieve their goals, which creates the confrontation between man and nature in terms of practice and value; in terms of epistemology, research on the philosophy of science, sociology of science, postmodernism, etc. shows that science does not have absolute truth, but only relative truth. truth, that is to say, there are inaccuracies. When this kind of science with incorrect understanding is applied to transform nature, it is reasonable to cause environmental damage; methodologically, modern science is mainly based on The mechanically simple view of nature is the basis. However, we know that nature has aspects of complexity. In this way, when scientific methodological principles and specific methods are applied to nature with the above-mentioned complexity, firstly, the complexity The second is to abandon the exploration of irregular phenomena; the third is not to explore non-deterministic phenomena; the fourth is not to explore the empirical aspects of nature; the fifth is to treat inseparable and reducible research objects The system has been artificially separated and restored... To a certain extent, this is an understanding of the simplicity of nature or a certain simplification of the complexity of nature. It is an incomplete understanding of nature. Nature is just something that can be dissected by experimental methods, calculated by mathematics and manipulated by technology, without anything profound. What is obtained through observation, experiment, measurement and mathematical methods is a partial and simplified understanding of the external relationships of nature. It is a fragmented understanding of nature that has been broken. What is obtained is a classified knowledge system, such as Physics, chemistry, etc... grasp the dispersed, fractured, point-like and linear laws of nature. Therefore, when transforming the organic and holistic nature according to such classified laws, it is likely to be inconsistent with the systematic and linear nature of nature. Comprehensive and three-dimensional laws are violated, causing damage to the ecological environment. The cognitive use of DDT and the process of causing environmental damage illustrate this point. Not only that, through in-depth analysis, it can be found that science in many cases is an understanding of the laws of the artificial world constructed in the laboratory, rather than an understanding of the laws of external nature. This understanding is applied when transforming external nature. , is likely to cause environmental damage. This should be the most important and fundamental reason for environmental problems caused by scientific applications.
This means that the environmental problems caused by the application of science are not simply caused by humans’ inappropriate use of science or the application of science for evil purposes, but are closely related to the shortcomings of science itself. If people are not aware of the above-mentioned shortcomings of science itself, even if science is applied with good intentions, it is likely to have negative effects and make science a devil. This inspires us that if science wants to become an angel, there should be two conditions: first, the person who uses science is an angel, and he must use science to benefit mankind; second, science has the essential characteristics to benefit mankind and become an angel. Otherwise, even if the person who uses science is an angel, there is no guarantee that the application of science can benefit humans and become angels.
Correspondingly, if people carry out scientific understanding and application with evil purposes or ideas, such as racism, national chauvinism, terrorism and individualism, will it necessarily bring about evil results? , makes science appear devilish? Generally speaking this is the case. However, it should be clear that this evil result is not only related to humans and has nothing to do with science. Just imagine, without the development of nuclear physics and the establishment of the mass-energy equation, would humans be able to create an atomic bomb? Can atomic bombs be used by some bad people to harm mankind? It is impossible. It is the knowledge about nuclear physics that enables mankind to open the "Pandora's Box" of the "atomic bomb". In this way, although the theory of nuclear physics and the mass-energy equation is a correct theory, it is not a good, safe, and complete theory, and is not conducive to maintaining human security and the ecological environment to a certain extent. From this perspective, some people regard nuclear physics as something like a devil. This also inspires us that even if a certain scientific understanding is correct, there is no guarantee that its application will not have negative effects. In order for its application to not have negative effects, it must be complete and comply with safety standards and ethics. standards, environmental standards and sustainable development standards, etc. After considering this, the theory that explains the greenhouse effect should be not only a correct theory, but also a good, safe, and relatively complete theory, because this theory can give early warning to society and bring a sense of security and morality to mankind, which is very important. Produce less or no negative effects and promote social progress and environmental protection.
After considering this, we should understand that science has its own characteristics of becoming a devil or an angel. This is reflected in its cognitive characteristics. The view that separates scientific understanding and application, scientific facts and scientific value, and thus believes that science is neither an angel nor a devil, is wrong.
3. Is science an angel and not a devil?
Many people are positive about this. The most common reasons are:
(1) Science itself is not at fault. The reason why science causes negative effects is the result of people’s abuse of science;
(2) Science causes negative effects. However, the positive effects it brings are far greater than the negative effects;
(3) With the advancement of society and technology, people can completely avoid the devilish side of science, so science is still an angel in the end.
According to the previous discussion, reason (1) is untenable.
Reason (2) Focusing on history, ignoring the future, failing to see that future scientific applications may have huge negative effects, and how difficult it is to solve such negative effects.
Reason (3) is just an optimistic view of science and technology, without much factual and theoretical basis, and is not enough to be relied upon.
It is worth noting that a considerable number of people now hold the view that there is a difference between science and technology. Science seeks knowledge, and technology seeks profit; science is the understanding of nature, and technology is the understanding of nature. The transformation of nature; science cannot be directly materialized and will not have a direct adverse impact on human survival. Only the application of technology will cause direct adverse consequences. In a word, science is not technology, and negative effects are caused by technology. The negative consequences of technology application cannot be attributed to science as a cognitive system. In this way, science is an angel and not a devil.
It is undeniable that science is different from technology. This difference is reflected in many aspects: object, purpose, orientation, process, problem, method. In terms of results, evaluation, value, and norms. If we look carefully, we will find more differences.
If you are not clear about the differences between science and technology, you will confuse science and technology, and regard things that are scientific (technical) or related to science (technological) as technology (science) or related to technology (science). , thus causing a misunderstanding of science and technology. However, this does not mean that science and technology have nothing to do with each other, nor does it mean that the negative effects caused by the application of technology are only caused by technology and have nothing to do with science.
Before the 16th century, technology often came from accidental empirical discoveries. In the 16th and 17th centuries, except for the navigation industry, scientific research results were rarely or rarely transformed into technology. The real transformation began with the application of steam engines in the 18th century. However, "until the end of the 18th century, science benefited industry far more than it could give back to industry at that time. In both chemistry and biology, it would be at least another hundred years before scientists could come up with any alternative Or improve traditional methods, and in medicine it took even longer. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the situation changed, and science began to get ahead of technology. Science guided the development of technology or led to the emergence of new technologies, which was significant. Scientific breakthroughs caused new technological revolutions, became the most important driving force for the occurrence of technological revolutions and industrial revolutions, and became the source and foundation of technology and production. This made people realize that science based on "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" can be applied to transform nature. Create huge social value. From electromagnetic theory to electric power revolution, from particle physics, mass-energy equation to the application of nuclear energy, etc., this has been fully demonstrated. Therefore, promoting the transformation of science into technology and the transformation of technology into productivity, It has become the focus of social attention.
How did science become the source and basis of technology and production? It turns out that modern technology uses the principles contained in science to create modern products. The cognitive system obtained by science and the processes embedded in it theoretically laid the foundation for technological innovation, heralding the emergence of new technological fields such as the use of nuclear energy in chain reactions, the invention of semiconductors (transistors), the development of lasers, and genetically recombinant organisms. The emergence of technology comes from the guidance of scientific theories, rather than from empirical exploration or the extension of existing technologies.
Generally speaking, the process of transforming science into technology and production can be roughly divided into the following three. Stages: (1) Scientific principles (natural regularities) + purposeful technical principles (natural regularities including purposes); (2) Technical principles + functional technical inventions (realization of technical possibilities); (3) Technical inventions + Economic and social production technology (realization of social and economic feasibility). From this perspective, technology is not only an operating system including material devices, skills and knowledge through which humans transform and control nature, but also a way for humans to achieve their goals. It is a system of means or tools, and it is also a systematic system in which human beings actively integrate the knowledge obtained through science into their own purposeful expectations and realize the principles of scientific understanding. Science is not only a knowledge system for human beings to understand the world, but also a system for human beings to understand the world. The knowledge base that transforms the world. Without technology, the application of science is impossible. Technology enables scientific understanding to be applied to the production of material products, materializes science, and moves scientific understanding from the laboratory to the production workshop. Without science, many technological innovations will be lost. The space of possibility for innovation has become water without a source and a tree without roots. Technology often does not know what kind of products it wants to produce, nor what it is used to do, and sometimes it even does not know what channel it should mainly use. Produce this kind of product. In the process of scientific application, it is not that science is transformed into technology, but that technology is transformed to materialize the principles revealed by scientific understanding and possible practical applications. The statement "scientific application is the transformation of science into technology" is wrong.
Because of this, it can be said to a certain extent that science is the internal basis for the possibility of technology, and technology is the external condition for science to be valued by society and to continue to develop. In this sense, science is analogous to the fertilized egg, technology is the womb in which it is fertilized, and our society is analogous to the maternal environment. Without scientific understanding, many technological innovations will no longer be possible, nor will the production and use of many new material products. Furthermore, the positive and negative effects brought about by the production process and the use process of the new products produced will not be possible. No more possible. In view of this, negative effects are not simply caused by technology, but are closely related to science.
Just imagine, without the development of nuclear physics, how could the atomic bomb have been born, and how could mankind have faced the threat of "nuclear winter"? Without the development of chemistry, how could the chemical industry be born and how could chemical pollution occur? Without the development of nanoscience, how could there be applications of nanomaterials, and how could there be potential risks in nanoapplications? If there is no development of biological science, how can there be the emergence of genetically modified organisms, and how can there be environmental risks and health risks of genetically modified organisms... In a word, if there is no development of science, how can there be the application of science - technology, How can there be negative effects caused by scientific applications? Science makes this positive and negative effect possible, and technology makes this possibility a reality. Both are indispensable. The view that "science is not at fault and negative effects are caused by technology" is definitely wrong. Good things belong to science, and bad things belong to technology. From the perspective of the relationship between modern science and technology, it is unfair to technology and irresponsible to science.
In this way, the view that science is an angel and not a devil is untenable.
4. Is science a devil and not an angel?
If science is a devil rather than an angel, what conditions should be met? First, the positive effects produced by science are small and the negative effects are large. In this case, even if the negative effects produced can be solved, science may still be regarded as a devil. However, judging from the history and future of scientific development and application, this situation does not exist. Second, the positive effects produced by science are large, and the negative effects are also large. Moreover, such negative effects cannot be solved or are very difficult and costly to solve. At this time, we may regard science more as the devil. Technological pessimists are typical representatives in this regard.
In addition, in the second half of the 20th century, a fashionable anti-scientific trend emerged in Western academic circles, which also tended to regard science as the devil. Its specific connotation is reflected in radical postmodernism, "strong program" sociology of scientific knowledge, post-colonial scientific outlook, multiculturalism, regional science, racial science, extreme environmentalists and certain feminist scientific views. Under discussion. Summarizing their views, the central meaning is: scientific knowledge is a social construct and has nothing to do with nature. It is the result of mutual negotiations and compromises among members of the scientific community; science has nothing to do with truth, and all knowledge systems are epistemologically related to Modern science is equally valid, and unorthodox "cognitive forms" should be given the same status as science; science is a thing like other cultural forms and has no special priority; the emergence of Western science is related to Western male dominance, racism and Imperialism is closely related, and Western science developed the tools of Western hegemony and led to the decline of the non-West...
If science is indeed what they say, it has really become the devil. Just imagine, if science really does not obtain a correct understanding of nature as they think, what results will the application of science lead to? It can only be: the more science develops, the more misunderstandings about nature, the greater the ability to transform nature, the greater the chance of erroneously transforming nature, the greater the damage to nature, and the greater the threat to humanity. The bigger it is, the less future mankind has. If science really understands nature like this, it would be a tragedy for mankind, and science would be a devil.
Perhaps because of this, people who deny the truth of science generally move toward technological pessimism and ecological pessimism, believing that technology is the culprit causing environmental problems. Not only can technological progress fail to solve some environmental problems, And it will also bring about new and more serious environmental problems. To solve environmental problems, the only way out is to completely deny and abandon science and technology. Science and technology must stop or even retreat. It is even advocated that human beings should return to pre-industrial society.
This attitude is unacceptable. It will lead to relativism and scientific nihilism, lead to anti-science, and is not conducive to the development of science and technology, environmental protection and social progress, and should be abandoned. In fact, we really cannot completely deny the relative truth of science.
We should conduct in-depth analysis, reflection and criticism of other views of anti-scientific trends, learn from their positive elements and discard their erroneous views. The conclusion obtained is: "The reason why science has become a 'demon' in the second meaning comes from the distortion of the nature of science by postmodern 'scientific culture and sociological research'. This is not the original face of science." In this way, There is no basis for denying science and treating science as a devil based on the views held by anti-scientific trends.
5. Brief conclusion
Through the previous discussion, it can be seen that the reason why scientific understanding and its application can cause positive and negative effects is not only related to the purpose of people's application of science. , and it is also related to the characteristics of scientific understanding of itself - correctness and error, naturalness and artificiality, comprehensiveness and limitations, safety and danger, etc. If scientific understanding is correct and complete, applying science with good purposes will generally get good results. Applying science with evil purposes will generally get bad results; if scientific understanding is incorrect, If science is incomplete, even if it is applied with good intentions, it will achieve evil results. In this regard, the view that "science is just a tool that people use, and the positive and negative effects it produces depends on the purpose for which people use it" is wrong. Science has its own inherent qualities of becoming angels and devils. This also inspires us that if humans do not change themselves, optimize our society, correct the direction of scientific development, and apply science cautiously, science may eventually become the devil.
Not only that, the evaluation of whether science is an angel or a devil should be carried out from two aspects: diachronicity and chronologicality. From a historical perspective, science plays more of an angelic role; from a current perspective, the angelic side of science has been fully manifested, while the devilish side has not yet been fully manifested; from a future perspective, science may be both an angel and an angel. Devil, the key is to see whether or to what extent the negative effects it produces can be resolved. The kind of conclusion that science produces both positive and negative effects leads to the conclusion that science is both an angel and a devil; the kind that concludes that science is an angel from the progress of science and concludes that science is also a devil from the reality of its application Conclusion: It is untenable to think that science is an angel before it is applied, and it is a devil when it produces negative effects after its application.
It is undeniable that the positive effects brought by science are likely to be far greater than the negative effects it brings. The reason why science brings negative effects is sometimes or even often the result of people's abuse of science. Science is It is possible to obtain true knowledge, and science can solve the negative effects it brings to a certain extent. Without the negative effects of technological scientific application, it is impossible to achieve it. However, all of this does not allow us to conclude that "science is an angel." Not the devil" conclusion, science may still become the devil in the future. However, it must be clear that from the current research, science has become a devil not because of the conclusions drawn by the Western anti-scientific trend in the second half of the 20th century, but because of the relative truth and incompleteness of science in its application. The negative effects are becoming increasingly huge, and it is difficult to solve such negative effects.
In a word, the answer to the question "Is science an angel or a devil?" should not be answered in a general way, but should be specific and targeted based on in-depth analysis. unfold sexually. Otherwise, only inappropriate answers will be given.
Of course, from a logical point of view, people who attribute science to "both angels and devils", "neither angels nor devils", "angels but not devils", "devils but not angels" , in fact, it uses an either-or way of thinking to judge science from the perspective of binary opposite values. In many cases, what we get is an extreme idea that excludes the middle level (thinking with the excluded middle), there is inappropriateness. How to avoid this shortcoming, avoid the binary opposition judgment of "is science an angel or a devil", and provide an appropriate and comprehensive scientific evaluation is a challenge facing mankind.
References:
[1] Einstein. Collected Works of Einstein [C]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1979.56
Xiao Xianjing. Postmodernity Ecological Science and Technology View: From a Constructive Perspective [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2003.77-124
This also shows that the impact of science on society is reflected in both spiritual and material aspects, including both There is scientific understanding that affects all aspects of society as a new concept, and there is also scientific understanding that is used in specific practical activities, such as in the production of material products, affecting human beings. The view that scientific knowledge can only be right or wrong, but not good or evil, is wrong.
Even without considering the positive and negative effects of the application of scientific understanding, the significance of scientific understanding will have an impact on social politics, economy, cultural ethics, religious values, etc., thus triggering people's spirit of scientific understanding. Values ??are evaluated to determine whether science is an angel or a devil.
For details, see: Li Xingmin. Between Science and Technology [N]. Guangming Daily. Page B4, April 29, 2003
Robert P. Malthauf. The Scientist and the’Improver’of Technology[J]． Technology and Culture, 1959, Vol, 1. Winter. 38-47.
Editor-in-Chief: Chen Changshu. New Introduction to Dialectics of Nature [M]. Shenyang: Northeastern University Press, 2001.204
Xing Dongmei. How did science become a 'demon'? [J]Natural Dialectics Newsletter, 2005,1.21"