What foreign investors have entered the market in Nanchang recently?

Scientism is to treat science not as a tool but as a belief. It is wrong to believe it as absolute truth. Why? Because the development of science is a process of refutation and a process of constant revolution. Do you regard Newtonian mechanics as the truth, or do you regard the theory of relativity as the truth? This is Popper's falsificationism. There are many historical facts of science that can illustrate this problem. I don’t want to go into details here. The key point is that everyone has always regarded the latest results of current scientific research as absolute truth. Some people have done this at every stage of scientific development, and some still do. After the discovery of Newtonian mechanics, the mechanical materialism of Descartes and others appeared. After Darwin published "On the Origin of Species", Spencer proposed social Darwinism. Although many of us now know that both are wrong. However, we regard the theory of relativity and modern biological science as absolute truth, making the same mistakes that have been made in the history of science and philosophy.

This is the mistake of scientism. Therefore, we call the inappropriate expansion of scientific methods, theories, and functions scientism.

Scientism has the following misunderstandings: 1. The scientific method is not a universally applicable method, while scientism regards experiments and mathematical reasoning as methods for all scientific research. For example, if you do not prove the correctness of a theory through experiments, it will not be considered correct. This is the positivist error. 2. Science is not omnipotent; scientists often use science to solve things that science itself cannot complete or that the development of science is still difficult to complete, such as: relying on interstellar immigration to solve environmental problems; treating all infectious diseases such as AIDS The solution to the disease lies in vaccines. 3. Science has restricted areas and blind spots, but scientists often believe that there are none. Science for science's sake, for example: human cloning goes against human ethics. Technically speaking, it may still cause huge hidden dangers to human security, but scientists completely deny this; social issues, ethical issues, and political issues may all be beyond the reach of science. problems to be solved, but scientists still believe that science can solve social problems. 4. Science is not absolute truth. Scientologists believe that the current level of science represents absolute truth. 5. Science is not the ultimate goal we pursue, and the negative effects of science cannot be ignored. Scientists turn a blind eye. Still argue that the invention of nuclear weapons promoted world peace. He believes that the problems caused by the development of science in today's society would still be possible without science.

From different perspectives, our understanding and attitude towards science can be different. I want to talk about two perspectives, one is the national perspective, and the other is the perspective of all mankind. From a national perspective, science should be highly valued and improved. Why? Due to our backwardness in science and technology, our country has learned a bloody lesson in modern times. Now we still dare not place our hopes for peace on moral grounds. From the perspective of all mankind, science has become a major cause and condition of human crisis.

Therefore, all my articles that reflect on science are based on this foundation and look at issues from the long-term perspective of all mankind. Some people refute me, are the men who carried out the two bombs a hero or a sinner? I said, of course he is the hero, why? From our national perspective, it has promoted China's international status and military strength. I am Chinese, so I want to be the hero. Second, China is a force for world peace. The risk of nuclear war will not disappear just because China does not have two bombs. As a nuclear power, China has promised not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. So our nuclear weapons are not nuclear deterrence, but self-defense. But for mankind as a whole, the emergence of nuclear weapons is still a misfortune.

For the development of the entire physics, the emergence of nuclear weapons has been the highest level of huge mistakes, and it is meaningless to develop it in the future.

But the development of biology, such as the development of physics, makes us worried. Unlike nuclear weapons, genetic weapons have no deterrent effect. The possibility of being secretly studied and used is very high. The danger to humans is even greater. Science is very important to a country's economic development and improvement of national strength. It has also made great contributions to mankind's conquest and transformation of nature. The admiration and praise of science began in the Renaissance.

Now, I can still write a hymn to him. But I don't want to write a paean to it, because her negatives are just as great as his positives.

In the past, in the struggle between man and nature, man was the weak one, and science helped us defeat nature. The achievements of science will never be forgotten by us. But now, in the struggle between man and nature, nature is the weak one. Science's help to mankind has become an inducement for environmental crises. It is not easy to cut down the forest with human power. But with modern logging tools, it's much easier. The Loess Plateau was cleared by humans, but it took thousands of years. Only a few decades after the reform and opening up, the forest destruction in the southwest and northeast has reached a very high level.

In the past, humans also had wars, and they were more cruel than now, but there are always winners in wars. In tomorrow's war composed of nuclear weapons and genetic weapons, there will be no winners. Over the past 60 years since the invention of nuclear weapons, only It was only used once during World War II, which is a miracle. How long will this miracle last? Will genetic weapons be developed?

The current environmental crisis and war crisis, the former is the result of the intensification of the contradiction between man and nature, and the latter is the result of the intensification of the contradiction between man and man. Science can only add fuel to the fire in resolving these two contradictions. Blind reliance on science to solve all problems is dangerous. On the other hand, if we rely on human self-discipline and noble virtue, these two contradictions can be completely resolved. And only relying on humanities can solve these two problems.

Humanity has only unprecedented understanding and trust. All countries should realize that annihilating the enemy is actually annihilating oneself. Compared with such a big thing as human survival, all interests are small and small. Only by using peace talks instead of war to resolve international disputes can mankind embark on the path of peace, and only then can mankind have hope. Arguably, we have done this, so the Cold War can end peacefully. But it is not enough. Permanent peace also requires the unremitting efforts of the people of the world. The anti-war movement in the United States is very strong now. I think such a movement will affect the foreign policy of the United States. The war launched by the United States for the benefit of a few arms dealers and the bourgeoisie will ultimately be rejected by the American people