Comment on One Tiger and One Talk

Comments on "One Tiger, One Talk": Academic counterfeiting should use legal weapons, not authority! !

Just after watching A Talk with a Tiger, the main viewpoints of anti-pseudoscience fighters such as Zhao Nanyuan and Yuan Zhong are: whether a research can be judged scientifically can be judged by a scientific institution composed of authoritative scientists. What is affirmed is science, and what is denied is pseudoscience.

This is a fallacy! ! I refute their views one by one:

Zhao Nanyuan said: Zhang Yingqing is a professor at Shandong University, so Zhang Yingqing is not a weak person, but Fang is an "unemployed youth", so he is a weak person. In fact, although Zhang Yingqing is a professor, he is in an absolutely weak position in political status and discourse power. Although Fang is an "unemployed youth", there are people behind him who show off and support him. Can he be a weak man? Wu Shuzhen is not an onion, but if her husband is Chen Shui-bian, she will become an onion, so she can use the confidential expenses of state affairs as pocket money.

When Mr. Jiang Chunxuan was talking about his mathematical theory, the other party actually used unreasonable ridicule and applause to express his contempt. It is shameless to treat an old man like this, to treat an old man who is not good at expressing but is diligent in learning. Even the most basic tradition of the Chinese nation is to respect the old and love the young.

All right, back to the point. Zhao Nanyuan said: "Many authoritative awards in the world are won because someone judges its correctness, so science can be judged." I want to point out that all the authoritative awards in the world, including Nobel Prize winners, are awarded because of great discoveries or inventions in a certain field. There has never been an authoritative awarding institution to judge whether a research result is right or wrong. Their criterion is contribution, not correctness, because no one dares to evaluate correctness! ! Even those projects that have not won prizes have never been labeled as pseudoscience by an appraisal institution and sent to hell.

China is not, and China's scientists are the best. He Zuoxiu can organize a group of so-called authoritative scientists to give a right or wrong judgment on a scientific research achievement. Moreover, most of the attacks by these anti-pseudoscience fighters on a scientific research achievement belong to half-way robbery. When a scientific research achievement is not perfect enough to be recognized by international authoritative figures or authoritative magazines, and it is not perfect enough to fully prove its theory, a stick for showing off comes and a so-called authoritative seminar is held. If the research results are considered correct by them, then you can continue to survive; If they think it's wrong, I'm sorry, you're pseudoscience. You'll go to jail with the button on your hat and never turn over! No one can learn, no one dares to learn, because it is dead! Killed by powerful forces!

Dare to do things that all authoritative judging institutions in the world dare not do. He Zuoxiu is really awesome! This is the characteristic of China! !

Yuan Zhong mentioned monitors in public places, which means that science needs supervision. Indeed, I quite agree with this view, and I hope it is still a high-definition display. Academic research in any scientific field should be supervised, otherwise Hanxin's scam will not be exposed. But don't forget, the role of supervision is to prevent academic fraud, fraud in the name of science, and scientific misconduct. Simply put, it is to supervise whether someone is carrying out illegal activities in the name of science, not to supervise whether other people's scientific research results are right or wrong! As long as it is illegal, we can severely punish him with legal weapons, and we have no reason to attack his legal behavior, no matter how absurd his research theory is.

Here I must emphasize that our country is now a country ruled by law, not an era when one person or several people have the final say. Everything must be based on facts and take the law as the criterion! ! Problems in scientific research are no exception.

We have no objection to He Zuoxiu and Fang as supervisors (regardless of the irregularity and irrationality of individual or group scientific supervision for the time being). If anyone is found to be engaged in academic fraud or scientific research fraud, you can sue in court, but you are the plaintiff or witness and cannot act as a judge! The Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is the supervisory body for anti-corruption work in various industries in Hong Kong. However, when the ICAC confirms that a person or an organization is corrupt through investigation, it must also be handed over to the Hong Kong court for judgment, and the ICAC can only act as a plaintiff or witness, not a judge! And He Zuoxiu, these people don't want to be just plaintiffs or witnesses, but also judges. Moreover, they did not seek to solve the problem by legal means at all, but set up private courts under the false cloak of anti-pseudoscience, which is enough for those who really make academic fraud. For those who did not break the law at all, but their scientific research achievements were not widely recognized, they were also sentenced to death. Isn't that right? !

We know that the original intention of the fake fighter is good. They were also afraid that there were too many academic and scientific frauds in China, which would affect the development of science and technology and social stability in China, but they used the wrong method. There is no word law in their hearts, only authority! China people have always lacked the concept of the rule of law, which is vividly demonstrated in this matter.

In a society ruled by law, only the law has the power to "judge"! No one can go beyond the law and execute the power of "judgment"!

When Hu's magical power and Shen Chang's human body science and technology appear, when his mathematical theory and Zhang Yingqing's holographic biology appear, we very much welcome He Zuoxiu and Fang Fang to come forward. If you find out through your own investigation that Hu, Shen Chang, Zhang Yingqing have any misconduct in scientific research, such as academic fraud and fraud in the name of science, there are only two things you need to do: 1. Take your evidence, walk into the gate of the court, stand on the plaintiff or witness stand, state to the court the fraud or fraud of these people, and finally make a fair judgment by the law. 2. Use various media such as TV, radio, internet or newspapers to expose the fraud or fraud of these people, and publish books to tell the people about the fraud and fraud of these people when necessary, so as to avoid more people being fooled.

For Hu and Shen Chang, you did it, and you did it beautifully. The people applauded, and the law finally gave Hu and Shen Chang a fair judgment! And Jiang Chunxuan and Zhang Yingqing? Why don't you do this? The reason is simple: Jiang Chunxuan and Zhang Yingqing did not commit any illegal acts such as academic fraud or scientific research fraud! Since they are legal citizens, they and their research results have the rationality and legitimacy of existence. As for whether their theory is correct or not, a hundred schools of thought contend. Anyone can question or even deny his theory, and the academic debate itself is normal. However, He Zuoxiu and other anti-counterfeiting fighters did the opposite. In the name of anti-pseudoscience, they became judges themselves, and by virtue of their authority, they did something that all authoritative scientific and technological evaluation institutions in the world dared not do: they declared these theories wrong and were labeled as pseudoscience for political suppression. This has gone beyond the boundaries of the law and has been suspected of libel.

We often say that science doesn't believe in authority, but fake fighters Yuan Zhong and Zhao Nanyuan just believe in science and must believe in authority. Anything that is not recognized by authoritative science or published in authoritative scientific journals is unscientific and will be labeled as pseudoscience. Very funny, quite funny! !

Scientists who have really made great scientific achievements are often those who stand at the top of the pyramid. These people may be the only people in the world who understand their research, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, Hawking's many theories of the universe and so on. Few people in the world can understand Hawking's theory. I don't think it is possible to judge whether Hawking's theory is right or wrong by organizing scientists all over the world to form a scientific isomorphism. Even if we can travel through the time tunnel until 2099 and find that all Hawking's theories are wrong, can we say that Hawking is studying pseudoscience now?

For geomantic omen and fortune telling, these are all part of China traditional culture. Some people think it is the essence, others think it is the dross; Some people want to label him as "science", while others want to label him as "pseudoscience". And I thought, why can't we let it "naked" and wear nothing, and let it accompany us in our support and opposition? Why should we draw a conclusion on it today in the 2 1 century? Cultural things have no absolute essence and dross. When there are still disputes, we should learn to be tolerant and let history and time prove everything.

Combating academic corruption should use legal weapons, not authority! When we think about the bits and pieces of this pseudoscience debate from the legal point of view, many problems will suddenly become clear! Academic fraud and scientific fraud are illegal acts in themselves, and they are not even "science". How can there be "pseudoscience"? Therefore, the word "pseudoscience" is completely false, and such a formulation is wrong in itself.

This pseudo-scientific debate is a good thing, at least let us think calmly about how to carry out effective academic supervision. At present, it is not normal to crack down on academic corruption under the supervision of a few people. A society ruled by law should have a complete scientific supervision mechanism, which depends on the system, not on individuals and authority!