Science vs. Pseudoscience - Siska De Baerdemaeker

翻译人员: Yip Yan Yeung 校对人员: Jacky He

In the late 1700s, a German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann began publishing

18 世纪末期，一位名为 塞缪尔·哈尼曼（Samuel Hahnemann）的

articles about a new treatment approach he called homeopathy.

德国医生发表了一些关于 他称之为“顺势疗法”的文章。

Hahnemann’s theory had two central hypotheses.

哈尼曼的理论有两个核心假设。

First, the treatment for an ailment should be a dose of something

第一，治疗某种疾病的药物 应包含致病的物质。

that might cause that ailment.

And second, diluted medicines are more powerful than concentrated ones.

第二，稀释后的药物 比浓缩药物更有效。

So, a homeopathic remedy for insomnia

所以，治疗失眠的顺势疗法

might include an extremely diluted solution of caffeine.

可以是高度稀释的咖啡因溶剂。

Over the following 300 years,

在接下来的 300 年里，

numerous physicians and patients turned to homeopathy,

许多医师和患者采用了顺势疗法，

and entire hospitals were built to focus on homeopathic treatments.

还有专为顺势疗法创办的医院。

But despite all this, many studies have shown that homeopathy

虽然如此，很多研究表明顺势疗法

has no therapeutic effect,

没有任何实际疗效，

and homeopathic treatments often perform no better than placebos.

顺势疗法通常不见得 比安慰剂更有效。

So why do so many practitioners and institutions

那为什么还有这么多医师和机构

still support this practice?

坚持采取这种疗法呢？

The answer is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience—

答案就是顺势疗法是伪科学——

a collection of theories, methods, and assumptions

一大堆看似符合科学的 理论、方法、假设，

that appear scientific, but aren’t.

但并无依据。

In the worst cases, pseudoscience practitioners encourage this confusion

最坏情况是奉行伪科学的人 把它作为获利的手段。

to exploit people.

But even when they’re well-intentioned,

即便本身出于好意，

pseudoscience still prevents people from getting the help they need.

相信伪科学妨碍人们 接受正确的治疗。

So how are you supposed to tell what’s science and what’s pseudoscience?

你该如何分辨什么是 科学或伪科学呢？

This question is known as the demarcation problem,

这个难题被称为“划界问题”，

and there's no easy answer.

并无明确的答案。

Part of the issue is that defining science is surprisingly tricky.

一部分原因是 定义科学非常麻烦。

There's a common idea that all science should, in some form or another,

人们通常认为所有的科学 都应该在某个方面

be related to testing against empirical evidence.

涉及与客观事实的校验。

But some scientific activities are primarily theoretical,

但有些科学活动是理论性质的，

and different disciplines approach empiricism

每个学科关于经验主义

with varying goals, methodologies, and standards.

也存在着不同目标、方式和标准。

20th century philosopher Karl Popper tried to solve the demarcation problem

20 世纪的哲学家卡尔·波普尔 （Karl Popper）试图以一个简单的原则

with a simple rule.

解决划界问题。

He argued that in order for a theory to be scientific

他认为，一个理论若要符合科学，

it must be falsifiable, or able to be proven wrong.

必须是“可证伪的”， 即可以被证明是错误的。

This requires a theory to make specific predictions—

这就要求该理论做出具体的预测——

for example, if you’re theorizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun,

例如，你提出了 地球绕太阳运行的理论，

you should be able to predict the path of other celestial bodies in the night sky.

那你便能预测夜空中的 其他星体的运行轨迹。

This could then be disproven based on whether or not

然后这个预测就可以 依靠观测数据

your prediction corresponds to your observations.

来辨别真伪。

Popper’s falsification criterion is a great way

波普尔的证伪标准是鉴别

to identify pseudoscientific fields like astrology,

伪科学领域的好方法，如占星学，

which makes overly broad predictions that adapt to any observation.

这些领域会做出过于宽泛的预测， 适用于任何观察结果。

However, falsification alone doesn't completely solve the demarcation issue.

但是单凭证伪是无法 彻底解决划界问题的。

Many things we now consider science were once untestable

我们现在公认的科学道理 过去无法验证，

due to a lack of knowledge or technology.

由于知识或技术的缺乏。

Fortunately, there are other factors we can use to identify pseudoscience,

所幸我们还能通过其他因素 鉴别伪科学，

including how a field responds to criticism.

包括这个领域是否接受批评。

Scientists should always be open to the possibility

科学家应该开放地接受

that new observations could change what they previously thought,

新的观察会改变他们 先前认知的可能，

and thoroughly disproven theories should be rejected in favor of new explanations.

而彻底被推翻的理论 应该由新的假设所取代。

Conversely, pseudoscientific theories are often continually modified

对应地，伪科学理论会被持续修订，

to explain away any contradictory results.

以去除任何逻辑问题。

This kind of behavior shows a resistance

这种行为展现出对哲学家

to what philosopher Helen Longino calls transformative criticism.

海伦·朗吉诺 (Helen Longino) 所称”变革性批评“的抗拒。

Pseudoscientific fields don't seek to address their internal biases

伪科学领域并不试图纠正 其内部的认知偏差，

or meaningfully engage in transparent peer review.

或实质性地参与透明的同行评审。

Another key marker of science is overall consistency.

科学的另一关键特征 是大体的一致性。

Science relies on a network of shared information

科学依赖着共享信息网络，

that ongoing research develops across disciplines.

涵盖各类学科， 由当前进行的研究维护。

But pseudoscience often ignores or denies this shared pool of data.

但伪科学总会无视 或不承认公共的数据库。

For example, creationists claim that animals didn’t evolve

比如，神创论者 主张动物并不是

由一个共同的祖先进化而来的，

from a common ancestor,

and that Earth is less than 20,000 years old.

而且地球存在不足两万年。

But these claims contradict huge amounts of evidence

但是这些主张与大量

across multiple scientific disciplines,

来自多个科学领域的证据不符，

including geology, paleontology, and biology.

包括地质学、古生物学与生物学。

While the scientific method is our most reliable tool

虽然科学方法是我们

to analyze empirical evidence from the world around us,

分析周围世界产生的客观证据 最为可靠的工具，

it certainly doesn't reveal everything about the human condition.

但是它显然并不能揭示 关于人类境况的一切。

Faith-based beliefs can play an important role in our lives and cultural traditions.

基于信仰的看法会在我们的生活 和文化传统中起到重要的作用。

But the reason it’s so important to draw a line

但划定界限的重要意义在于

is that people often dress up belief systems as science

人们总是会将信仰体系 粉饰成科学，

in efforts to manipulate others

借此操纵他人

or undermine legitimate scientific discoveries.

或诋毁正当的科学发现。

And even in cases where this might seem harmless,

即使有些时候这看似并无大碍，

legitimizing pseudoscience can impede genuine scientific progress.

让伪科学正当化 会阻碍真正的科学发展。

In a world where it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction,

在这个越来越真伪难辨的世界里，

it's essential to keep your critical thinking skills sharp.

维持你的批判性思维能力至关重要。

So the next time you hear an amazing new claim,

当你下次听到新奇的发现时，

ask yourself:

想一想：

could we test this?

我们能够验证它吗？

Are the individuals behind this theory updating their claims with new findings?

这套理论的提出者 是否用新的研究补充它？

Is this consistent with our broader scientific understanding of the world?

这与我们对世界综合的 科学认识相符与否？

Because looking scientific and actually being scientific

因为看起来科学 和实际上科学

are two very different things.

完全是两码事。