Science vs. Pseudoscience - Siska De Baerdemaeker

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 穎君 紀

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

1700 年代末，

德國醫生山姆‧哈尼曼

開始發表關於一種 新治療方法的文章，

articles about a new treatment approach he called homeopathy.

他稱該方法為順勢療法。

Hahnemann’s theory had two central hypotheses.

哈尼曼的理論有兩個中心假設。

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

第一，要治療某種病痛，

應該要用一劑會造成該病痛的東西。

that might cause that ailment.

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

第二，

稀釋的藥物比濃縮的藥物更強大。

So, a homeopathic remedy for insomnia

所以，要用順勢療法治療失眠的話，

might include an extremely diluted solution of caffeine.

可能會用到極度稀釋的咖啡因溶液。

Over the following 300 years,

在接下來的三百年，

numerous physicians and patients turned to homeopathy,

許多醫生和病人 都轉向使用順勢療法，

and entire hospitals were built to focus on homeopathic treatments.

還有醫院是專門 為了順勢療法而建造。

But despite all this, many studies have shown that homeopathy

但，儘管如此，許多研究指出，

has no therapeutic effect,

順勢療法並沒有療效，

and homeopathic treatments often perform no better than placebos.

且用順勢療法來治療，

效果通常不會比安慰劑更好。

So why do so many practitioners and institutions

那為什麼會有這麼多從業者和機構

still support this practice?

仍然支持這種做法？

The answer is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience—

答案是：順勢療法是一種偽科學——

a collection of theories, methods, and assumptions

它是一組理論、方法，和假設，

that appear scientific, but aren’t.

看似很科學，實則不然。

In the worst cases, pseudoscience practitioners encourage this confusion

最糟糕的例子是

偽科學從業者會助長 這種混淆，以剝削他人。

to exploit people.

But even when they’re well-intentioned,

就算出發點是好意，

pseudoscience still prevents people from getting the help they need.

偽科學仍然會讓人 無法取得他們需要的協助。

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

那麼該如何分辨什麼是科學、 什麼是偽科學呢？

This question is known as the demarcation problem,

這種問題就是所謂的劃界問題，

and there's no easy answer.

沒有簡單的答案。

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

有部分原因是因為， 要定義科學本來就相當棘手。

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

有個普遍的觀點是， 所有科學都應該連結到

be related to testing against empirical evidence.

某種形式的實證證據測試，

But some scientific activities are primarily theoretical,

但有些科學活動主要是理論性的，

and different disciplines approach empiricism

且不同學科在追求實證主義時

with varying goals, methodologies, and standards.

都有不同的目標、方法論，和標準。

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

二十世紀哲學家卡爾‧波普爾

試圖用一條簡單的規則 來解決這個劃界問題。

with a simple rule.

He argued that in order for a theory to be scientific

他主張，如果一個理論是科學的，

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

它就必須是可證偽的，

或說要有可能證明它是錯的。

This requires a theory to make specific predictions—

要做到這一點，理論就必須 能夠做明確的預測——

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

比如，如果你的理論 是地球繞著太陽轉動，

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

你就應該能夠預測 夜空上其他星體的路徑，

This could then be disproven based on whether or not

只要根據你的預測 和你的觀察是否一致，

your prediction corresponds to your observations.

就有可能證明這個理論是錯的。

Popper’s falsification criterion is a great way

波普爾的證偽準則

是辨識偽科學領域的好方法，

to identify pseudoscientific fields like astrology,

如占星學，

which makes overly broad predictions that adapt to any observation.

它所做的預測太過廣泛粗略，

可以套用在任何觀察上。

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

然而，單靠證偽

還無法完全解決劃界問題。

Many things we now consider science were once untestable

許多我們現今認定的科學， 都曾經是無法測試的，

due to a lack of knowledge or technology.

因為以前的知識或技術不足。

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

幸運的是，還有其他因子 可以用來辨識偽科學，

including how a field responds to criticism.

像是觀察一個領域如何回應批評。

Scientists should always be open to the possibility

科學家永遠應該接受新的可能性：

that new observations could change what they previously thought,

新觀察可能改變他們先前認定的想法，

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

而徹底被證明錯誤的理論就該被拋棄，

轉而接受新的解釋。

Conversely, pseudoscientific theories are often continually modified

相反的，偽科學理論通常會不斷修正，

to explain away any contradictory results.

以解釋掉任何矛盾的結果。

This kind of behavior shows a resistance

這種行為

所展現出的，是在抵抗 哲學家海倫‧隆吉諾所謂的

to what philosopher Helen Longino calls transformative criticism.

轉化性批評。

Pseudoscientific fields don't seek to address their internal biases

偽科學領域並不想 去處理他們內部的誤差，

or meaningfully engage in transparent peer review.

或認真參與透明的同儕審查。

Another key marker of science is overall consistency.

科學的另一個特徵是整體的一致性。

Science relies on a network of shared information

科學要仰賴持續研究所發展出的

that ongoing research develops across disciplines.

跨學科共享資訊網路，

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

但偽科學通常會忽略 或否認這種共享的資料庫。

For example, creationists claim that animals didn’t evolve

比如，神創論者宣稱動物 並非由共同的祖先演化而來，

from a common ancestor,

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

且地球的年齡不超過兩萬年。

But these claims contradict huge amounts of evidence

但這些主張和許多科學學科的 大量證據都相抵觸，

across multiple scientific disciplines,

including geology, paleontology, and biology.

包括地質學、古生物學，及生物學。

While the scientific method is our most reliable tool

雖然若要分析來自我們 周遭世界的實體證據，

to analyze empirical evidence from the world around us,

科學方法是我們最可靠的工具，

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

但它確實無法揭示出 人類境況的一切。

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

基於信仰的信念對我們生活 和文化傳統有重大意義。

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

但，劃清界線之所以重要，

is that people often dress up belief systems as science

是因為人常會把信念系統包裝成科學，

in efforts to manipulate others

試圖操縱他人，

or undermine legitimate scientific discoveries.

或者暗中破壞合理的科學發現。

And even in cases where this might seem harmless,

就算是在看起來沒什麼害處的例子中，

legitimizing pseudoscience can impede genuine scientific progress.

將偽科學正當化都有可能 會阻礙真正的科學進展。

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

在這個越來越難分辨真偽的世界，

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

千萬別讓你的批判性思考技能生疏了。

So the next time you hear an amazing new claim,

所以，下回當你聽到很驚人的新主張，

ask yourself:

先問問自己：「我們能測試它嗎？

could we test this?

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

提出理論的人會根據新發現 來調整他們的主張嗎？

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

它是否符合我們對世界 更廣泛的科學理解？

Because looking scientific and actually being scientific

因為看似科學和真科學

are two very different things.

完全是兩碼子事。