Scientific spirit contains two inseparable parts, one is the understanding of the word "science" itself; The second is the concrete application of scientific thinking. Let's start with what science is.

We believe that "science" is a noun, not an adjective that can be equated with "good" and "correct".

To understand what science is, you need to look at two aspects.

First, purpose - the ultimate aim of all scientific activity is to discover the laws behind natural phenomena. Technological invention is not equal to scientific research.

Whether engineers represented by Edison are scientists is debatable. But we insist that scientists should be distinguished from inventors and engineers.

In almost all the books written about the history of science, basically following the vein from the ancient Greek natural philosophers such as Aristotle to Galileo, Newton, and then Einstein, there has never been an influential history of science book about Edison or Tesla.

However, in the reality of popular science education, science and technology are often confused. This is likely the reason for the anti-intellectual, anti-science movement that is not mainstream in society, and we note that the people who demonize science are often the same people who conflate science and technology.

And the people who are most susceptible to anti-science brainwashing are the ones who have never figured out what science and technology are.

Therefore, we believe that it is extremely necessary for the general public, especially young people, to understand the difference between scientific research and technological invention. This is related to whether China's huge investment plan in the field of cutting-edge science can be widely supported by the broad masses of the people.

It also matters whether young people are willing to pursue careers in basic science.

Probably everyone will be like me, whenever a major scientific discovery is born, such as Chinese scientists discovered a new neutrino shock in 2012, discovered the quantum anomalous Hall effect in 2013, and American scientists confirmed the existence of gravitational waves last year, there are always many people around me: what is the use of these?

We think that perhaps a more successful approach to science than answering these scientific findings is to reduce the number of people asking questions.

Second, method - axiom deduction and systematic experiment. This was the point made by Einstein in a letter to a friend in 1953, in which he laid out in great depth the basic method by which scientific activity follows.

The development of Western science is based on two great achievements, namely, the system of formal logic invented by the Greek philosophers, represented by Euclid, and the systematic experimental discovery during the Renaissance that it was possible to find cause and effect.

Since the birth of modern science, all human scientific discoveries have followed two paths.

The first path: start from a few hypothetical axioms, and then use mathematical logic to deduce, and finally find hidden deep natural laws. Einstein's theory of relativity is the best example, he finally obtained the Einstein field equations of general relativity through the principle of relativity, the principle of invariance of the speed of light and the principle of equivalence.

The second path is to propose a theory by observing the phenomenon, and then test it with more accurate observations or systematic experiments. If the experimental results do not agree with the theory, the scientist is asked to revise the theory until it agrees with all known phenomena, and each time the theory passes the test, the credibility of the theory will be increased by one point.

Newton's formula for gravitation is an example.

But we must also point out that these two paths are not clear-cut, and many times they are intertwined.

The two paths merge at the end, that is, any scientific theory must be supported by experimental data, and the experiment is the only criterion for testing the theory.

Scientific theories must also have the power to make predictions. In this process, mathematics plays an extremely important role.

The scientific method is not only qualitative to the object of study, but more importantly, quantitative mathematics. Notice that in this sentence, "science" is a noun, just like saying "the characteristic of the Chinese people is"; It's not an adjective that means "good" or "right" approach.

Perhaps you will have the same experience as me, when I say that the Yin and Yang five elements to reach a certain conclusion is not a scientific method, many people will be angry.

That's because, in their understanding, "scientific method" means "right, good method."

What I am really trying to say is that the scientific method is a method of research with a specific meaning, and that man has been able to master this method for less than 400 years.

The purpose of science popularization is not to discourage Chinese people from taking an interest in traditional culture, but to reduce or even disappear those who are angry that Yin-yang and the five elements are not scientific methods.

Understanding the meaning of science is a prerequisite for scientific spirit, but it is not enough. Scientific spirit also includes the application of scientific thinking. We believe that the success of popular science education is not measured by how much scientific knowledge is mastered, but by whether a person uses scientific thinking to consider problems and scientific methods to solve problems in life.

In other words, the ultimate goal of popular science education is to hope that people can think like scientists. In the 14th century AD, William, a friar living in Ockham, Surrey, England, proposed the famous Ockham's razor principle: do not add substance unless it is necessary. This idea predates the birth of modern science by about 400 years, but science has drawn on this important philosophical idea, and it has become an important principle that is often used in modern scientific research.

In the 18th century, the Scottish philosopher David Hume formulated the Hume axiom: No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless it is in such a situation that its falsity is more miraculous than the fact it seeks to establish. The popular equivalent of this axiom is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! Hume's axioms give us a general principle of scientific thought that we think of as a highly abstract generalization of scientific thought, but it is not easy to understand them deeply.

Therefore, in the concrete popular science education, we must decompose the abstract philosophy into a more understandable knowledge point, combined with specific cases to explain.

These knowledge points include: falsifiability (verifiability), repeatability, independence, uniqueness, qualitative, quantitative, predictable, error correction. It also includes understanding that neither contextual nor correlation is causation, and that causation can only be truly found through carefully controlled systematic experiments.

In medical research, for example, large randomized double-blind controlled trials and Koch's rule are the gold standard for finding causality; Not being able to prove that there is no existence does not necessarily mean that there is, logically speaking, it is impossible to prove that the soul and God do not exist, we must adhere to the principle of who claims who proves; The use of scientific terms does not mean that it is a scientific theory, and the identification of pseudoscience is also one of the goals of popular science education.

The above knowledge points are not the whole of scientific thinking, we need to constantly summarize and refine in the specific educational practice. We believe that scientific thinking is the intellectual wealth common to all mankind, that there is no difference between east and west, that its history is very short compared to the history of mankind, and that under its guidance mankind has achieved far more than all the achievements of the pre-scientific era combined. Scientific thinking is not the monopoly of scientists, it has important value for each of us ordinary people.

Another member of the Voices for Science, the columnist Zeck, summed up the effects of scientific thinking on ordinary people in four ways: 1. Get rid of instinct and intuition; 2. Distinguish truth from falsehood; 3. Open up stairs and paths; 4. Accumulate inspiration and epiphanies. To sum up, scientific spirit is a generalization of the purpose, method and mode of thinking of science, which is not proportional to the amount of scientific knowledge mastered by a person, and senior intellectuals may not have enough scientific spirit. However, we believe that science, like philosophy, literature, art, religion and traditional Chinese culture, is an important part of human civilization, and they are not an either/or relationship.

In this world, there are priests who become scientists, and there are scientists who believe in God. The diversity of ideas is the guarantee of the continuous development of human civilization. We have also noticed that in Western countries where science education is relatively developed, they are also reflecting on science, especially the in-depth discussion of scientific ethics.

So, at this stage, should China's science popularization include this part of the reflection of science? I don't think so. Reflection on science should be confined to scientists, philosophers of science and professionals closely related to scientific research activities, and should not be expanded.

This is because in China today, the scientific spirit is still just a small flame in the wilderness, which can be extinguished by a small wind, and we all know that such things have not happened before.

Guarding this small flame, inheriting the scientific spirit and spreading it across the land of China is of inestimable historical significance to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, which is also the responsibility and value of each of us science popularizers. Human civilization has come to today, as the science fiction writer Zheng Jun said in his new work The Night of Rebirth: There is no science in the world, the night of Rebirth!