註冊 登入



打印

科學與偽科學(2007/05/09 更新)

科學與偽科學(2007/05/09 更新) E-mail 此主題給朋友

[隱藏]
在這堿搢鴞釣ヵ奕郇蛌熄K文,本想駁斥一番,但駁不勝駁,因為其內容和十年前的沒有甚麼分別,毫無長進,主要是誤解曲解和邏輯繆誤,所以不如另外為演化論做些介紹,更為實際。但後來再細想,好多神創論者連甚麼是科學也不明白,所以覺得不如為現代科學作一個比較有系統的界定,這樣我們也可以有個最低限度的共識,以便進行討論。

現代科學分很多學科,大致區分為自然科學和社會科學。社會科學主要是研究人類活動和社會,其他就歸入自然科學。每個大類都分若干學科,例如物理學或心理學。

現代科學的每個學科的內涵有三個部分:

1. 經觀察和實驗而累積的數據,又叫事實(facts)。並非所有學科也可進行實驗,如天文學和地質學,因為在實驗室中不能提供所條件,又或實驗時間太長。在這些情況下,只能依賴觀察,不過觀察所得和實驗所得的數據,其地位是一樣的。所謂觀察,不單是人的肉眼和其他感覺器官的直撥觀察,並包括了用儀器探測的間接觀察。

2. 理論。一般來說,現行理論是最能解釋所有事實的學說。理論是描述該學科所研究對象的一個模型。但理論不是完全準確,只是近似。二十世紀著名哲學家卜加爵士(Sir Karl Popper)對科學理論的特性作了深入的探討,現時絕大部分科學家也同意他的結論,即能夠被證實是假的,才是科學理論。否則,最多只是偽科學。這個特徵的反面,就是在科學上不能證實一個理論,亦同時把數學和邏輯從科學中劃分開來。但要指出的是,雖然數學和邏輯並非科學,卻是科學的皏菕C

一個理論最重要的兩個要求是解釋能力和預測能力。解釋能力是理論對現存事實的總體能解釋多少,換言之,一個理論愈好,所能解釋的部分愈大,最好的當然是可以作出完全解釋。預測能力是理論對未發現的東西的預測和這些東西的吻合程度。例如門捷列夫根據元素周期表對當時未發現元素特性的預測,又如廣義相對論對巨大質量物體對光線途徑的彎曲。

科學的發展就是這些東奔西走不停的改良和完善。這些發展有時是革命性的,如演化論、相對論和量子理論的出現,是一個更好的新的模型取代舊有的模型,不過更多時候是對現有模型作出漸進的改善。亦有時候是兩個互相競爭的理論綜合為一,如演化論中突進論(PE)和漸進論(gradualism)。


3. 定理。定理可能是現行理論的一部分,它們以簡明的形式去形容自然界的部分運作規律,如:熱力學第二定理,或牛頓第三定理。


科學方法

下面這個維基百科的記甚為詳盡,因此就不再重複:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


本文內容只是本人的淺見,務請各位多加補充指正

[ 本帖最後由 星海揚帆 於 2007-5-9 11:38 PM 編輯 ]



實用相關搜尋: 對象 數據 科學
在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-15 12:46 PM 發表
二十世紀著名哲學家卜加爵士(Sir Karl Popper)對科學理論的特性作了深入的探討,現時絕大部分科學家也同意他的結論,即能夠被證實是假的,才是科學理論。
Thomas Kuhn is a key figure that stands oppose to Karl Popper.

Philip Kitcher also rejects falsification. Because Creationists appeal to naive falsification so that they can claim that evolution is not a science, Kitcher argues if falsification is true then nothing is science hence falsification is weak.

Distinguishing science from non-science is still an issue in the Philosophy of Science.

Interested reader may read up:

John Andrew Schuster, 1995,
The Scientific Revolution: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science

John Forge, HPSC2200 Philosophy of Science
http://hps.arts.unsw.edu.au/hps_ ... ontent/hpsc2200.htm






回覆 引用 TOP

科學和偽科學

引用:
原帖由 nfornick 於 2006/11/15 14:17 發表
Thomas Kuhn is a key figure that stands oppose to Karl Popper.
科學界對卜加的理論普遍接受,而對古罋則多數有保留。
引用:
原帖由 nfornick 於 2006/11/15 14:17 發表
Philip Kitcher also rejects falsification. Because Creationists appeal to naive falsification so that they can claim that evolution is not a science, Kitcher argues if falsification is true then nothing is science hence falsification is weak.
個人認為解決方法是對「否定」作出更清楚的界定,而對他的論點亦不贊同

其中一個要點不是「否定」能否在實際上行得通,而是在理論上有沒有可能。例如:在理論上,發現一種比較高等的生物,其歷史比較長,但和所有其他生物(不論是否存在或已滅絕)毫無共同之處,那演化論好可能受到很大的衝擊,而至少要經過重大修訂。

在理論上可以否定的是科學,無法如此做的是偽科學。

神創論(至少是有個全能造物者的版本)是不能在理論上加以否定,因此最多是偽科學

另一個例子是佛洛依德的心理學學說。他的學說曾風行一時,但後來學者發現根本沒有可能對其作出否定,因此已被現代心理學家摒棄。

[ 本帖最後由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-15 02:55 PM 編輯 ]






在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

理論和假說

在科學上,並非所有可以解釋一個現象或一系列可能互相關聯的現象的立論都叫做理論,而得通過一個叫假說(hypothesis)的階段。

一個得到事實支持的假說,會逐漸形成一個理論,或被現行理論吸收而成為一部分。

在上世紀八十年代對寒武紀大爆發( The Cambrian Explosion)重新發生興趣後,對此一古生物學上的現象湧現了不同的解釋,其中一個是由古特(Gould)和艾特殊所提出的「刺穿的平衡」(Punctuated equilibrium),和當時演化論的主流「逐漸說」(gradualism)成為對比。不過時至今日,PE已經成為演化論的一部分。

另一方面,在一段時間內無法得到支持的假說,都會被掃進歷史的垃圾堆中。

[ 本帖最後由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-15 03:36 PM 編輯 ]






在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
Philip Kitcher also rejects falsification. Because Creationists appeal to naive falsification so that they can claim that evolution is not a science, Kitcher argues if falsification is true then nothing is science hence falsification is weak.


星海前輩,
在下想小的可以明白他的意思……

就譬如說,地心引力
我們可以通過觀察而證明在地球,蘋果會掉在地上是事實。
因而可以推論地球上有地心引力。

但是我們無法證明蘋果會掉在地上是因爲地心引力而不是其他原因
也無法在實行上或理論上否定地心引力的存在吧?
而導致 if falsification is true then nothing is science

小弟 Physic 較弱,不知說的有沒有漏洞。有錯之処,請各位前輩多多提點







回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 Itz_me 於 2006-11-15 08:56 PM 發表
Philip Kitcher also rejects falsification. Because Creationists appeal to naive falsification so that they can claim that evolution is not a science, Kitcher argues if falsification is true then no ...
下!
個apple在樹上令佢掉下來果個力咪係"地心吸力"lo






回覆 引用 TOP

The way of science just is show other people how we found it .
The deeper truth of the science is hard to explain in words .
In other words , it is over any tool of it .
Words , Maths ......






回覆 引用 TOP

回覆 #5 Itz_me 的帖子

不是前輩…

在科學中,只有理論和定理可以被否定,而事實則不能。萬有引力屬於事實-萬有引力是宇宙間四種基本力之一(其他三種是電磁力,弱核力和強核力)

可以否定的還有很多。例如牛頓力學第二定律(F=ma)。假定你發現在有些情況下,F實在是等於ma^2,那這定律就不能成立了






在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

科學的哲學基礎

這可能經已偏離本版的討論範圍,不過知道現代科學的哲學基礎,可以使人對科學的了解更深刻,亦更能分辨真假

科學的哲學基礎是唯物主義(materialism)(並非物質主義),又叫唯物論。唯物主義認為這個物質世界就是所有,在物質世界之外沒有別的事物,同時直接否定唯心主義的精神/心靈領域的二元論。

http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=7006102105054
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%94%AF%E7%89%A9%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html

基於唯物主義,所有並非屬於這個物質世界的東西,如一個全能的造物者,皆不屬於科學的研究範圍。

[ 本帖最後由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-16 09:52 PM 編輯 ]



實用相關搜尋: yahoo 科學
在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-16 09:49 PM 發表
這可能經已偏離本版的討論範圍,不過知道現代科學的哲學基礎,可以使人對科學的了解更深刻,亦更能分辨真假

科學的哲學基礎是唯物主義(materialism)(並非物質主義),又叫唯物論。唯物主義認為這個物質世 ...
引用:
原帖由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-16 09:49 PM 發表
這可能經已偏離本版的討論範圍,不過知道現代科學的哲學基礎,可以使人對科學的了解更深刻,亦更能分辨真假

科學的哲學基礎是唯物主義(materialism)(並非物質主義),又叫唯物論。唯物主義認為這個物質世 ...
But that is materialist's point of view toward the definition of Science. In fact, I believe that the topic on the definition of Science itself already is stepping into the area of Philosophy of Science. And there are a lot of grey areas, cause different people has different views on it. Materialist's viewpoint is just one of the many. Like the case of falsification, some will agree on the method, while the others don't.

If you define Science using materialist's philosophy, then definitely the  future discussions will all point towards materialism, because anything beyond materialism will be confined and defined as non-Science.

I'm not saying it's wrong. Cause when it comes to matters like this-- coming to an agreement and setting the definition of Science for this forum, it is only common and logical to let the majority wins. And I believe most of the people in this forum do believe that materialism is THE correct definition of Science.

Which is fine.
But just a piece of advice to fellow Creationists, you all can give up suggesting the idea of design here from now on, because under the materialist's definition of Science, the idea of design is simply out of the question.



-------------
協助管理 +4


[ 本帖最後由 joencc 於 2007-5-10 12:23 AM 編輯 ]



實用相關搜尋: 科學

回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 星海揚帆 於 2006-11-16 09:49 PM 發表
這可能經已偏離本版的討論範圍,不過知道現代科學的哲學基礎,可以使人對科學的了解更深刻,亦更能分辨真假

科學的哲學基礎是唯物主義(materialism)(並非物質主義),又叫唯物論。唯物主義認為這個物質世 ...
But that is materialist's point of view toward the definition of Science. In fact, I believe that the topic on the definition of Science itself already is stepping into the area of Philosophy of Science. And there are a lot of grey areas, cause different people has different views on it. Materialist's viewpoint is just one of the many. Like the case of falsification, some will agree on the method, while the others don't.

If you define Science using materialist's philosophy, then definitely the  future discussions will all point towards materialism, because anything beyond materialism will be confined and defined as non-Science.

I'm not saying it's wrong. Cause when it comes to matters like this-- coming to an agreement and setting the definition of Science for this forum, it is only common and logical to let the majority wins. And I believe most of the people in this forum do believe that materialism is THE correct definition of Science.

Which is fine.
But just a piece of advice to fellow Creationists, you all can give up suggesting the idea of design here from now on, because under the materialist's definition of Science, the idea of design is simply out of the question.



實用相關搜尋: 科學

回覆 引用 TOP

星海揚帆 (I should address as "you") has spoken extensively on the flaws of

creationism for many times now, and he dismisses (to my dismay) the

theology idea of Creationism as being incorrect because it can be

classified as "Pseudo-Science".

The scientific process has its long origins and was developed and refined

for thousands of years.  The results obtained from these processes has

been useful (in terms of human experience).  I do agree that you put the

falsification theory as the mainstream belief among scientists, as the

"proper scientific process."  

The scientific process can be divided in several categories, like taking

a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it.  If the test and model

(physical model, for e.g. Quantum model) survives a rigorous statistical

test, then it is accepted as a scientific fact.  Inductive and deductive

reasoning is used here.  Of course, one can challenge the validity of

inductive reasoning, but it is very unlikely that this can go wrong- as

it is able to survive a very tough statistical test.  This implies we can

only be certain of something if we can falsify it- even the scientific

facts are not, ultimately in a deductive reasoning sense- valid.

This means that there are certain limitations to the Scientific process.  

Some philosophers even suggest that there may be flaws in our deductive

reasoning- so the whole realm of science may be "false" (depends on how

we define false) afterall.  Not to mention a possible mistake in our

axiom/postualte when we lay down the principles of deductive reasoning.

So can you possible falsify the falsification theory?  Although we claim

that we can minimize these limitations- and by the scientific process the

science we have today is accomplished by these falsifications.  

Our belief of science today really lies into our trust or faith, and

hoping that there is nothing wrong in what we do everyday.  And in terms

of deductive logic- I can't really see the difference of this faith

between the scientific process and a theology idea.  

And a theology idea or belief often comes with emotional feelings/

consciousness that many people undermine and neglect when considering if

it is true.

Of course one may say emotional feeling is not real.  A devoted scholar

who studies biology and evolution may say that emotional feeling is a

thing we developed as a "collection of advantages" when we evolve.  But

as a human in a world of three dimensions- there are certain

controversies that we cannot understand at the moment about ourselves.  

Emotional feeling/ consciousness is, afterall, what constitutes us.  But

in quantum theory, consciousness seem to have a place in physics.

I would say it is not a particularly good idea to completely erradicate

emotional feeling as a method of human to attain knowledge of our world.  Nor can be place our complete trust in science as our solution to our only method to attain the truth (again, depends on how to define truth).







回覆 引用 TOP

sorry I used a txt to draft it and I forgot to remove word wrap before I posted it... and I just want to add a general comment in the discussions now... whats on with all those wikipedia references!?






回覆 引用 TOP

此帖應置頂,推一推


回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 Itz_me 於 2006/11/17 20:23 發表
But that is materialist's point of view toward the definition of Science.
Correct. The thing is that the basis of science is materialism, so there's only one definition. Science can only study what we can observe (see, hear, smell, etc.) an indefinite number of times and independently.
引用:
原帖由 Itz_me 於 2006/11/17 20:23 發表
In fact, I believe that the topic on the definition of Science itself already is stepping into the area of Philosophy of Science. And there are a lot of grey areas, cause different people has different views on it.
Correct, to define science one needs to base on something else, or we are just going around in circles.
引用:
原帖由 Itz_me 於 2006/11/17 20:23 發表
If you define Science using materialist's philosophy, then definitely the  future discussions will all point towards materialism, because anything beyond materialism will be confined and defined as non-Science.
Well, that's just for setting science on a foundation. If you don't like this definition, perhaps we can continue over in the philosophy section. At any rate, you don't have to accept this definition to continue to use the scientific method.
引用:
原帖由 Itz_me 於 2006/11/17 20:23 發表
But just a piece of advice to fellow Creationists, you all can give up suggesting the idea of design here from now on, because under the materialist's definition of Science, the idea of design is simply out of the question.
Not exactly - a designer can be an alienr race with advanced technology. The problem with Creationism, purely in terms of science, is it is not a theory. The variant that calls in a supernatural being makes it worse.



實用相關搜尋: Canon
在一個晴朗的早上再度起行
聲稱需要證據,超乎尋常的聲稱需要超乎尋常的證據
對毫無證據的聲言,可信手揚棄

回覆 引用 TOP

 27 12
 提示:支持鍵盤翻頁 ←左 右→
[按此隱藏 Google 建議的相符內容]





重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,香港討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意 見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。香港討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言 (刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知 ), 同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權 。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。


Copyright©2003- Discuss.com.hk Limited. All Right Reserved.
版權所有,不得轉載。