For example, some phenomena that technology and science are not clearly distinguished at present.

On February 26th, 2007, China Academy of Sciences issued the Declaration of Scientific Ideas to the society. The declaration basically correctly stated the scientific concept and played a positive role in the public's understanding of the scientific concept. At the same time, it must be pointed out that some expressions in the declaration promote anti-scientific ideas and have a negative impact on public understanding of science, which should be clarified and corrected. This paper analyzes and refutes these anti-scientific statements. 1. On the "negative impact" of scientific originality 1: "While science and technology create enormous material and spiritual wealth for mankind, they may also bring negative effects to society and challenge the social ethics formed by human society for a long time." Before analyzing this passage, let's tell a foreign joke: a young girl rented a boat while traveling, rowed ashore on the island, and sat on the boat reading a novel with relish. A policeman appeared in front of her and said to her, "Miss, fishing is forbidden here. Please pay the fine. " The girl said, "Look, I'm reading, not fishing." The policeman said, "You have fishing tools on board." The girl said, "If you punish me, I will sue you for rape." The policeman said, "I didn't rape anyone." The girl said, "You have tools for rape." (The rebuttal method used by girls is called "logical reduction to absurdity"-Reposter) If you are a healthy adult male, as soon as you go to work every day, your colleagues will announce, "You may have a negative impact on society by wearing rape tools." How do you feel? (If you are a healthy adult lady, as soon as you go to work every day, your colleagues will announce, "You may have a bad influence on society by carrying prostitution tools." How do you feel? Although this colleague is telling the truth, everyone is carrying "tools" of crime, and the possibility of "bringing negative effects to society" cannot be absolutely ruled out, but if this colleague is not mentally ill, he must have ulterior motives. Especially when this colleague "has a negative impact on society" for a long time, his motivation is even more suspicious. The worldwide anti-science trend of thought, which originated from religion and its derived philosophy and ethics, is rolling in, but it is no longer Galileo's era, and it is futile for any force to completely deny science. Anti-science forces have no choice but to settle for the second best and try their best to vilify and belittle science by demonizing, stigmatizing and blaming science. The "double-edged sword" theory, which emphasizes the "negative influence" of science, is the "stronghold" established by anti-science forces. The basic logic of the "negative influence" theory is that everything has two sides, both positive and negative, so superstition and science should reach the same status, so there is the following statement: "Avoid putting scientific knowledge above other knowledge". This logic is equivalent to saying: Liu Xiang can't run faster than the speed of light, and neither can anyone, so anyone can run as fast as Liu Xiang. The absurdity of this conclusion is obvious at a glance. In real life, "putting scientific knowledge above other knowledge" is inevitable. For example, in law, scientific conclusions can be directly used as court evidence, while "other knowledge" cannot. In the trial of rape cases, the evidential power of DNA identification results is much higher than the testimony of the parties or witnesses. Whether "challenging the social ethics formed by human society for a long time" is positive or negative, the original statement is not clear and seems neutral. However, judging from the turning sentence pattern of the whole sentence and the coordinate relationship expressed by "Bing", the original text clearly negates this "challenge". This negative expression is completely wrong. Judging from historical facts, science and technology have two major challenges to "social ethics formed by human society for a long time": Heliocentrism's victory over geocentric theory and the victory of evolution over creationism. History has proved that the challenge of science to "social ethics" is the driving force to promote the development of human history, and it is a positive rather than a negative impact. If geocentric theory and creationism only involve local social ethics in Christian culture, then the depth and breadth of condom technology challenging human social ethics far exceed the first two theories. No matter from overcoming the population explosion or preventing HIV infection, this challenge is positive. It must be noted that the negative impact of "social ethics formed by human society for a long time" is far greater than that of science, which has brought many disasters to the world. The "cannibalism" in China's feudal society is an example. Qian Zhongshu has a profound summary of this: "The great evil and cruelty in the world-there is no greater evil than cruelty-are mostly done by people with real moral ideals. ..... God wants to punish mankind. Sometimes there is famine, sometimes there is plague or war, and sometimes there are moralists with lofty ideals that ordinary people can't realize. With self-confidence and agitation that are directly proportional to the ideal, it is integrated into unconscious pride. " Ethics itself has no self-correcting mechanism like science, and can only rely on the painful experience after the catastrophe and be summarized by historians. Historical facts also tell us that science "challenges the social ethics formed by human society for a long time" is an important driving force for social ethics to correct mistakes. What we need to be alert to is not the "negative impact" of science and technology, but the high risk of "social ethics". Second, on the social responsibility of scientific originality 2: "Contemporary science and technology permeate and affect all aspects of human social life. When people place greater expectations on science, it means that scientists assume greater social responsibilities. " This statement is wrong. No one's "responsibility" can come from "expectation" and "influence". Just like no matter how parents "expect", it does not constitute the "responsibility" that children must have a successful career; Degang Guo's influence, however great, is limited by his knowledge structure, so it is impossible for him to undertake the responsibility of testing the ingredients of drugs. The legal source of responsibility is the predictability and balance of responsibility and right. Foreseeability is the first principle of taking responsibility, so formal commercial contracts have force majeure exemption clauses, which mainly include unforeseen events such as earthquake, fire and war. Another important principle about responsibility is the balance of responsibility, power and interests. For example, although we can't predict specific shipwrecks, air crashes and traffic accidents, we can know the probability of their occurrence, so we can let insurance companies bear the liability for compensation for goods and personal losses with certain benefits. When the United States deployed NMD and TMD, many scientists issued statements expressing their opposition. On behalf of the interests of military enterprises, Bush still insists on implementing this plan. In this case, scientists have fulfilled their responsibilities by issuing statements, because their power ends here, and the responsibility for actually deploying NMD can only be borne by Bush, who holds power, and has nothing to do with science and scientists, although NMD is also the result of scientific research and technological development. Original 3: "In view of the fact that the experimental sites and application objects of contemporary science and technology involve the whole nature and social system, the socialization results of new discoveries and new technologies are often uncertain, which may be bringing human beings and nature into an irreversible development process, directly affecting human beings themselves and social ecological ethics, requiring scientists to consciously abide by the basic ethics of human society and ecology, cherish and respect nature and life, respect human values and dignity, and make contributions to the construction and development of scientific ethics adapted to the characteristics of the times." There are many mistakes in this paragraph. First of all, "the application object involves the whole natural and social system" is not the characteristic of "contemporary science and technology", and ancient technological inventions also have this function. For example, the technological progress from hunting and gathering to agriculture and animal husbandry has brought earth-shaking changes to the landform and social structure of our whole land, which is far greater than the "intervention" of modern science. As for the "experimental place", it is precisely the "contemporary science and technology" that gives the "experiment" a special "place", which makes it isolated from the "whole natural and social system" and no longer "implicated", while the previous traditional medicine and other technological inventions were directly tested in the whole society. The result of socialization is uncertain, which is not only the contemporary "new discoveries and new technologies", but also the social changes caused by the invention of paper and printing in that year, which is also unpredictable by its inventors. The "development process" of "man and nature" has always been "irreversible" and has nothing to do with science. Due to the emergence of life, the earth's atmosphere has changed from a reducing component to an oxidizing component, which is "irreversible"; The extinction of dinosaurs and the expansion of mammals are also "irreversible". Qin Shihuang's transformation from enfeoffment to centralization is "irreversible"; The failure of Zhang Xun's restoration is also the evidence of "irreversibility", which also "directly affects human and social ecological ethics" and even affects human existence. "Irreversibility" is the necessity of the development of nature and human history, and there is nothing special about it. The "irreversibility" created by anti-scientific forces, like "double-edged sword" and "negative influence", is a special vocabulary for stigmatizing science. The "basic ethics" of "human society" hides many traps, and the "ecological basic ethics" is full of fallacies. Nowadays, the most fashionable nonsense-non-anthropocentric ethics is to directly deny the fallacy of "human value and dignity" under the banner of "cherishing and respecting nature and life", and even think that human beings are the cancer of the earth, and only by exterminating human beings can we protect the ecology. For these fallacies, what "scientists" should do is not blindly "obey", but thoroughly criticize and denounce them. To "contribute to the construction and development of scientific ethics adapted to the characteristics of the times" is only possible on the basis of fully analyzing the existing schools of ethics, taking its essence, removing its dross and thoroughly cleaning up and rebuilding it. Original 4: "In view of the positive and negative effects of modern science and technology, as well as the characteristics of high specialization and professionalism, scientists are required to avoid the negative effects of science and technology more consciously and assume the responsibility of evaluating the consequences of science and technology, including: testing and evaluating all possible consequences of their work; Once the malpractice or danger is found, it is necessary to change or even interrupt the work; If you can't make a choice alone, you should suspend or suspend the relevant research and report to the society in time. " Not only "modern science and technology" has both positive and negative effects, but also in other cultural fields, and its negative effects greatly exceed modern science and technology. The risk of social ethics has been analyzed above, but the statement that "morality is a double-edged sword" is unknown, few people know the "negative impact" of social ethics, and there is no "timely warning to society" in ethics circles. The "negative influence" of politics is the pain of everyone. War is bloody politics and politics is bloodless war. But so far, no political scientist has come up with a wonderful way to overcome the "negative influence" of politics. The world war continues and is still bleeding. So, have ethicists and political scientists ever "tested and evaluated all possible outcomes of their work"? No. Because it is impossible, no advocate of "non-anthropocentric ecological ethics" can predict how much loss his fallacy will bring to society. The so-called "testing and evaluating all possible consequences of a person's work" is sheer nonsense. Scientists are facing an unknown world, and the "possible consequences" are all looking at flowers in the fog. Insisting on "evaluation" will only lead to nonsense. When the lady asked Faraday, "What's the use of electricity?" Faraday replied, "What's the use of a newborn baby?" This metaphor is very apt. In the face of a baby, there is no basis for saying that he will be promoted to a higher position or become a bandit in the future. Faraday doesn't know how many volts can electrocute people, Madame Curie doesn't know the consequences of gamma rays on human body, and it is impossible for people who invented cars to know the mortality rate of traffic accidents in modern society. For a baby, you can only raise him, and it is meaningless to say anything else. "Timely warning society" must also consider the "negative impact" of doing so. A false alarm earthquake prediction will often cause greater losses to society than a real earthquake without prediction. The most successful example of this "alarm" is the alarm at the beginning of genetic engineering. Although this worrying problem has been solved and the safety regulations of genetic engineering have been established, the misinterpretation of genetic engineering caused by it is constantly expanding, and even the false concept of "genetic pollution" is derived, causing unnecessary disputes and losses in society. From the later results, it may be more wise to discuss and solve problems among peers without warning the society at that time.