What is scientific spirit?

What is scientific spirit? Scientific spirit is the general name of * * * consistent beliefs, value standards and behavior norms formed by people in long-term scientific practice activities. Scientific spirit refers to the basic mental state and mode of thinking that is determined by the nature of science and runs through scientific activities. It is an idea or thought embodied in scientific knowledge. On the one hand, it restricts the behavior of scientists and ensures their success in the field of science; On the other hand, it has gradually penetrated into the deep consciousness of the public.

14 characteristics that scientific spirit should include:

(1) persistent spirit of exploration. According to the enlightenment or foresight of existing knowledge and experience, scientists always have both direction, confidence and perseverance in their activities.

(2) the spirit of innovation and reform. This is the life of science and the soul of scientific activities.

(3) Accept the spirit of scientific inheritance with an open mind. Scientific activities are like climbing up step by step. Scientific achievements are essentially the result of accumulation, and science is one of the most inherited cultural forms.

(4) rational spirit. Scientific activities must rise from the level of empirical knowledge to the level of theoretical knowledge, otherwise there will be a process of scientific abstraction. Therefore, we must adhere to the principle of rationality.

(5) Realistic spirit. Science must correctly reflect the objective reality, seek truth from facts and overcome subjective assumptions.

(6) the spirit of seeking truth. In the face of strictly determined scientific facts. Scientists must have the courage to stick to the truth and oppose arbitrariness, hypocrisy and fallacy.

(7) Positive spirit. Scientific practice is the only criterion to test the truth of scientific theory.

(8) Strict and accurate analytical spirit. Science does not stop at the level of qualitative description, and certainty or accuracy is one of the remarkable characteristics of science.

(9) the spirit of cooperation. Due to the expansion of the scale of modern scientific research projects, it is necessary to rely on the cooperation and support of multidisciplinary and social aspects to effectively complete the task.

(10) democratic spirit. Science never believes in authority and does not dare to challenge it.

(1 1) Open spirit. Science knows no borders. Science is an open system, which does not recognize the ultimate truth.

(12) utilitarianism. Science is a productive force, and its social function has been fully reflected, so it should be beneficial to human society.

(13) Repeatability and testability: Science is knowledge that correctly reflects the objective reality, seeks truth from facts, studies laws and applies them to transform the objective. The study of objective laws (things that must happen under certain conditions) should have the principles of repeatability and testability. Therefore, if we master the law, we can predict and transform objective things. For example, economics should study the essential laws of material exchange, not economic phenomena.

(14) Practice spirit: Without practice, science is meaningless and real.

As a pupil, you shouldn't copy so much.

It is enough to extract a few points from 1- 14.

Scientific spirit: it is the general name of * * * consistent beliefs, value standards and behavior norms formed by people in long-term scientific practice activities. Insist on treating and evaluating problems with a scientific attitude, and don't borrow non-science or pseudoscience. On the one hand, it restricts the behavior of scientists and ensures their success in the field of science; On the other hand, it has gradually penetrated into the deep consciousness of the public.

Let curiosity and thirst for knowledge take you forward; Ignoring the soul;

Experiment more, practice more, read more authoritative opinions of academic leaders, but remain skeptical and not superstitious about any authority.

Scientific spirit: stick to the truth, be down-to-earth, work hard and keep improving.

Because science is: make bold assumptions, carefully verify, and do not falsify. Science is objective, and what has not been confirmed by objective experiments is pseudoscience. All scientific experiments should adhere to three principles, none of which is indispensable:

* "Double-blind" (including the experimenter and the experimenter don't know each other to prevent collusion and cheating)

* "A large number of examples confirm"

* "comparison".

Therefore, scientific work includes: seeking truth, innovation, hypothesis, verification and so on. Its connotation is thinking, standardization, truth-seeking, pragmatism and innovation.

What is science and scientific spirit? What is science? In recent years, I have been doing some work to expose pseudoscience. People often ask me why it is pseudoscience. Simply put, it is because it is not science, but it has to pretend to be science. What makes you say this is not science? Because it doesn't conform to the characteristics of science. So, what are the characteristics of science? When we look up the definition of "science" in dictionaries, we will find that there are different opinions. Looking at the discussion on the nature of science in the works of philosophy of science, different schools also have their own dissatisfaction. It is difficult to give a concise and universally accepted definition of "science", so it is normal that there are various theories about the nature of science in the philosophy of science. However, we haven't given a generally accepted definition of "science", which doesn't mean that science has become unclear and obscure. No one can judge what is science and what is not. Everyone can do a set of "science" by himself. The absence of a recognized definition does not mean that there are no recognized criteria for judgment. Let me give you an example. What is a person? Are people animals that can use tools? Some animals also use tools. Are people animals that can make and use tools? There are still some dictionaries that define people in this way. In fact, as early as the 1960s, Gold observed that chimpanzees also made and used tools. Louis Leakey, her mentor, commented: We should either change the definition of human beings or treat chimpanzees as adults. No one wants to treat chimpanzees as adults, so we should keep looking for the definition of human beings. Is man an animal that can use language? It has been found that apes can also use language. Are people emotional animals? In fact, some animals also have feelings. Is man a self-conscious animal? We can prove that chimpanzees have self-awareness through experiments. There are different views on "what is a person" in academic circles, and there is no universally accepted definition so far. Does this mean that we can't tell people from other animals? Of course not. Under normal circumstances, it is no problem for us to judge whether we are human or not. Only under very specific circumstances, such as judging the transitional fossils from apes to humans, will there be controversy. Similarly, the failure to give a precise definition of science does not mean that we cannot distinguish between science and pseudoscience. In fact, even if scientific philosophers find an acceptable definition of science one day, it will only have philosophical theoretical significance and will not have any impact on specific scientific practice. So we don't have to worry about how to give a proper definition to science. We are more concerned about the criteria for judging science and non-science. The scientific community has recognized standards for judging what science is, and these standards are applied consciously or unconsciously by most scientific workers. There are four sets of standards: logical standards, empirical standards, sociological standards and historical standards. The most important thing is the standard of logic and experience. The experience here is not the experience of life and history, but the experience of philosophy, which actually refers to observation and experiment. Therefore, science can also be simply described as logic plus argument. Logically speaking, first, scientific theories must be self-consistent, that is, they can be logically consistent, at least self-evident, and cannot be inconsistent. Second, scientific theories must be concise, without unnecessary assumptions and conditions, leaving a way out for future failures, that is, they must conform to the principle of Occam's razor to be discussed below. Third, scientific theories must be able to be falsified, not correct under all circumstances, and cannot be corrected. Many people know that science can be falsified, but it has also caused many misunderstandings. Some people think that engaging in scientific research means constantly falsifying and overthrowing. Some people find that their theory has been falsified, but they are happy to say that this shows that my theory is scientific! In fact, your theory has been falsified, proved to be incorrect, and of course unscientific. Falsifiability is a necessary condition for science, but not a sufficient condition. Falsifiability said just now that as a scientific theory, it must be clearly stated under what circumstances it may be overturned, but it does not have to be overturned to be called scientific research. In fact, the main purpose of people's research is to prove a theory. Fourth, scientific theory must have a clear application category, which can only be applied under certain conditions and in certain fields, rather than omnipotent and all-encompassing. From an empirical point of view, first, scientific theories must have predictions that can be tested by experiments or observations, not just fantasies. Second, in fact, there have been confirmed predictions, that is, a scientific theory can not only be falsified, but also has never been confirmed, otherwise such a theory is invalid. Third, the test results must be independent and repeatable by others, not a one-shot deal, or only this one has no branches, only you can make that result, and other researchers can't repeat it. You have to blame others for being inferior to you. Fourth, there must be certain standards to distinguish between true and false data. What is normal, what is abnormal, what is systematic error, and what is accidental error should be clearly distinguished, rather than arbitrarily explaining the results according to your own needs. Science is a social and historical phenomenon, so even if a theory meets the logical and empirical standards, it may not be accepted by the scientific community. It is necessary to see whether it is effective and useful from the perspective of sociology and history. From the perspective of sociology, a scientific theory must be able to solve known problems. If not, this theory is unnecessary. It is necessary to put forward new problems that scientists can do further research and models to solve these problems, that is, it must also be able to make testable predictions, otherwise it is useless; It is necessary to make a practical definition of the newly proposed concepts, rather than some non-existent pseudo-concepts, such as "Qigong field" and "the feeling between man and nature". Historically, a scientific theory must be able to explain all the information that the old theory has explained, that is to say, you can't just choose the information that is beneficial to you and ignore the unfavorable information, otherwise it will be worse than the old theory; We must be compatible with other effective parallel theories, we must not ignore the existence of other theories, we must not be self-contained or even exclusive, and we must overthrow all scientific theories. For example, if "scientific creationism" is to replace the "old" theory of evolution, it should not only explain all the information that has been well explained by evolution, but also ignore other disciplines of modern biology and achievements in astronomy, geology, physics and chemistry that are very compatible with evolution. Similarly, some people claim that "human science" is the most advanced science, so it should not only contain the research results of modern medicine, but also conflict with parallel disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. It says "what is science", and by the way, simply say "what is science?" Science belongs to all mankind. There are no national boundaries, no national and cultural boundaries, and there is no difference between eastern science and western science. Anyone who claims that a certain science can only be mastered by China people (or foreigners who are familiar with China culture) is definitely not a real science. Science has nothing to do with faith. Anyone who claims that "faith exists and faith is spiritual" is certainly unscientific. For science, if it is spiritual, unbelief is still spiritual; If not, neither can you believe it. Science is not absolutely correct, it will make mistakes, but it can be corrected through self-correction mechanism, so that science can develop. What is the scientific spirit? People often say that we should carry forward the scientific spirit. If a person has scientific spirit, he will not be easily confused by pseudoscience. What is the scientific spirit? The most talked about is the spirit of exploration. People who engage in pseudoscience often flaunt their spirit of exploration. We don't deny it, but don't make the spirit of exploration so great. In fact, this is just an innate curiosity about the unknown. Many animals are also curious. In order to adapt to the environment, they have a "spirit of exploration". Children are also curious about new things, like to get to the bottom of things, and full of exploration spirit, so some people say that every child is a scientist. However, although children are keen to explore new things and like to ask all kinds of questions, they are also easy to believe absurd explanations and accept unreasonable answers. What they lack is another aspect of the scientific spirit: doubt. Doubt means that science will never believe in authority and will never be unconditionally tolerant. Of course, it does not mean political intolerance, but academic intolerance. Many people confuse these two kinds of tolerance. Obviously, it is unwise to look cynical and doubt everything, and you will lose your ability to explore because of your closed heart. But if you don't have the spirit of doubt, you lose the basis of distinguishing right from wrong. All ideas, whether reasonable or absurd, can be completely accepted, and science will become a garbage dump. Pseudoscientists will also say that they are full of doubts. Indeed, they have the courage to doubt the mainstream of science, for example, those who believe in creationism doubt evolution, those who study "special functions" doubt the laws of physics, and so on. On the other hand, we doubt their suspicions. What's the difference between these two doubts? How will we deal with the contradiction between exploration and doubt, avoid indiscriminate absorption of good and bad, and avoid the occlusion of the mind and doubt everything? We must add new connotations to the scientific spirit: positivism and rationality. Empirical evidence is not enough, but requires conclusive evidence. The evidence accepted by scientific research institutes must exist objectively, not subjectively. Strict control conditions must be met, such as the principle of comparison and double blindness (the researcher and the subject do not know each other); Must be repeatable and independently verifiable; It must also conform to the law of probability and statistics. Only under the condition of strict control, with strict methods, repeated and independent observation and experimental results can be regarded as conclusive evidence. Control conditions, repeatability, independence and probability statistics are the characteristics of positivism and the sworn enemies of pseudoscience. Argumentation is inseparable from rationality, that is, to analyze and deduce the evidence with strict logic and choose the most reasonable and possible explanation. Without evidence, those unreasonable and impossible explanations can also be ruled out. Exploration, doubt, demonstration and rationality are four inseparable aspects of scientific spirit. To emphasize one aspect in isolation is to open the door for pseudoscience, or it is in danger of hindering the development of science. It is under these four flags that scientific research is constantly observing and testing, abandoning wrong ideas and increasing new knowledge, thus making continuous progress. However, contrary to what pseudoscientists preach, the progress of science is not to overthrow all the revolutions from the beginning, but to evolve on the original basis. Scientific progress is coherent progress. The same is true of the two greatest revolutions of modern science: Darwin's theory of evolution did not overturn all the achievements of natural history and geology, but kept most of the information and theories and just reinterpreted them. Contrary to what many people say, Einstein's theory of relativity did not overthrow Newtonian mechanics, but expanded and deepened Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, scientific research must be skeptical, based on evidence, using logic as a tool, not trusting what is said, and not accepting any bold conclusions easily. The more sensational the proposition, the more we should ask: where is the evidence? Is it logical? Judging whether the evidence is conclusive usually requires professional knowledge and training, which most people do not have. But if we can master the principle of scientific rational thinking, even if we lack the ability of concrete analysis, we will not be easily confused by pseudoscience. When both sides lack evidence, the principle of rational thinking also helps us to judge which side's point of view is more reasonable, more likely and more acceptable. /kloc-Hume, an English philosopher in the 0/8th century, put forward a universal principle of rational thinking in his book A Study of Human Understanding, which is sometimes called Hume's axiom: "No testimony is enough to determine a miracle unless it belongs to such a situation, and its falsehood is more magical than the fact it tries to establish." This sentence is difficult to understand, but it is not difficult to understand through examples. Hume gave an example. If someone tells him that he has seen a dead man resurrect, he will compare the following situations to see which is more likely: is that person cheating or being cheated by others, or is that dead man really resurrected? His testimony should not be accepted unless the former is less likely to be false than the latter. Obviously, this is actually comparing the positive and negative possibilities and eliminating the less likely one. This is not to categorically deny the possibility that a mysterious event with little possibility did not happen, but to say that we should not be inclined to accept it when there is insufficient evidence. The possibility that the dead are really resurrected and the laws of nature are not established is far less than the possibility that a testimony claiming to see the dead resurrected is a lie or a witness is cheated. So, don't believe that the former really happened. Similarly, the human body's special functions are real, and the possibility that the laws of physics are not established is far less than the possibility that the "master of special functions" is playing deceptive tricks. William of Occam, a medieval English philosopher, once wrote a short motto called Occam's razor: "You should not add unnecessary entities." This was later regarded as a principle of scientific research and rational thinking, but there are many expressions in specific applications. One of them is that unnecessary assumptions should not be added. Among the two equivalent conclusions, choose the concise conclusion with the least assumptions. For example, there are two conclusions as follows: First, organisms have evolved. Second, God created the rules of evolution, and creatures evolved. These two conclusions illustrate the same fact, that is, "biology has evolved", but the latter's assumption that "God created the rules of evolution" is not necessary to explain this fact, so it is an unnecessary assumption and should be cut off with scientific Occam razor. Another expression of Occam's razor is: among many possibilities, we should choose the simplest one. This is not to deny the existence of complex possibilities, but to say that in the absence of evidence, the simplest possibilities should be accepted and tested first. Hume's axiom and Occam's razor both talk about how to make a choice when there is insufficient evidence. The initial choice may be wrong, but it must be proved by evidence. Then who is responsible for obtaining evidence? It's simple: whoever advocates it will prove it. For example, whoever wants to prove that aliens have indeed been to the earth has the responsibility to list positive evidence. If you want to refute him, it is enough to verify whether the evidence he provided is reliable. If the evidence is not established, we can deny the existence of this phenomenon, and there is no need to provide negative evidence for it. In fact, this principle has also been applied in court. If you want to accuse a person of killing someone, you must show the evidence of the other person's murder. You can't just arrest a person and say that he killed someone without foundation, and ask the other party to find evidence to prove that he didn't kill anyone. It is possible for a person to prove that he has never killed anyone (such as an alibi), but it is impossible to prove to others that he has never killed anyone in his life. To what extent should the proof be satisfactory? It depends on what kind of proposition you put forward. Ordinary claims don't need much evidence, or even any evidence, but very unusual claims need very conclusive evidence. For example, suppose I'm late today and I say, "Sorry, there's a traffic jam." Everyone will believe me, because traffic jams are common in Beijing. This is a very common saying, which is easy for everyone to accept and will not doubt whether I am lying. If I say I'm late for a car accident, it's a bit unusual and everyone will be skeptical. I may need to produce some evidence (such as wounds) to convince everyone. But if I say that I am late because I was kidnapped by aliens on the way, this is a very unusual proposition. If I can't produce very conclusive evidence, such as videos and gifts from aliens, then everyone will definitely regard me as a liar or a madman. Give another scientific example. When Darwin put forward the modern theory of evolution, he was an advocate and an unusual idea that would completely change biological research, so he and his followers listed countless very conclusive evidence. Now, the theory of evolution has been unanimously accepted by the biological community. Those who accept the theory of evolution are no longer advocates, but whoever wants to overthrow the theory of evolution becomes an advocate, and he is an unusual advocate who will overthrow the biological building. He himself has the responsibility to present all kinds of evidence that the theory of evolution is not established, so that the scientific community can verify whether these evidence can be established. The theory of evolution based on countless evidences will never be overthrown because of some flaws, what's more, the so-called flaws pointed out by those who oppose evolution are just lies and rumors.

What is scientific spirit? PPT:wenku. Baidu/ search? lm = 3 & ampword = % CA % B2 % C3 % B4 % CA % C7 % BF % C6 % d 1% A7 % BE % AB % C9 % f 1 & amp； =0

1. What is scientific spirit? The spirit of scientism is the spirit of dedication to science.

What is science? What kind of spiritual science does scientific spirit need? Spiritual science refers to the knowledge that has been discovered, accumulated and recognized, and the application of universal truth or theorem has been systematized and formulated. Definition of science: "Science is to sort out facts, find laws from them and draw conclusions". The connotation of science, namely facts and laws. Science should discover unknown facts and seek truth from facts on this basis, instead of pure thinking fantasy divorced from reality. Science is a knowledge system based on practice, tested by practice, and strictly demonstrated by logic about the nature and laws of motion of various things in the objective world.

Scientific spirit is the general name of * * * consistent beliefs, value standards and behavior norms formed by people in long-term scientific practice activities. Scientific spirit refers to the basic mental state and mode of thinking that is determined by the nature of science and runs through scientific activities. It is an idea or thought embodied in scientific knowledge. On the one hand, it restricts the behavior of scientists and ensures their success in the field of science; On the other hand, it has gradually penetrated into the deep consciousness of the public. It is the spirit of persistence, not afraid of difficulties, hard work and innovation.

What is the charm of music? The scientific spirit is the party, and the suspicion of political rationality is seeking truth from facts.

Pursuit of truth

Democracy, Freedom and Openness

The spirit of verifying and testing rationality