Is science and technology an angel or a devil? (Answer with dialectical materialism)

Abstract: From the perspectives of the history of science development and its application, the relationship between science and environmental problems and their solutions, and the social research of science, this paper analyzes, "Is science an angel or a devil? Both or neither? " It is not a simple question, but a concrete analysis and a comprehensive and in-depth view.

Keywords: science; Positive effect; Negative effect; Angel; Devil

In our country, people's general views and attitudes towards science are generally embodied in the assertion that "science is an angel or a devil". Different assertions indicate that people have different understandings of why science has positive and negative effects and what kind of positive and negative effects it has caused, which will further lead people to develop and apply science in different ways, and produce corresponding scientific understanding results and impact results on nature and society. In view of this, it is necessary to analyze various assertions and their related basis in order to obtain a more comprehensive and correct understanding.

Is science both an angel and a devil?

In reality, many people give positive answers to this question. Their reason is generally that science is a double-edged sword, which can not only benefit mankind, but also harm mankind.

on the surface, this view is comprehensive, and it seems to be consistent with the reality. However, if we consider it from a historical perspective, there are great problems.

Before the late Middle Ages, science was in its infancy, and its positive and negative effects were relatively small. Compared with human beings at that time, it was neither an angel nor a devil. In the late Middle Ages, a new science different from Aristotle developed in the struggle against religion. Many aspects of this scientific understanding, such as Copernicus' Heliocentrism, Viisas's human body structure, Galileo's observation of celestial bodies, and his discussion of sports, were contrary to religious teachings. Some aspects of science were regarded as a scourge by religious believers, and science became a devil for those who believed in religion.

from the 16th century to the 18th century, the modern scientific revolution took place and was completed. During this period, science generally lags behind technology, and the social application of science, especially in industrial production, has not been fully reflected. The material value of science and the positive and negative effects produced in the process of creating material value are relatively small, but the enlightening effect of science on people is very great. Although few people criticize science, the negative effects of science are not even large in general, and they are more of an angel.

Since the 19th century, science has been ahead of technology and has been widely used in society. The positive effects of science have gradually emerged and expanded, which has created great benefits for mankind. At this time, quite a few people have regarded science as an angel to save mankind. On the other hand, the negative effects produced by science are gradually appearing and expanding. The outbreak of two world wars and the emergence of environmental problems have made people realize that if science and its negative effects are not investigated and restricted, science is likely to become the devil who harms mankind. Of course, from the present point of view, some scientific pessimists and some people who hold other views, such as some extreme environmentalists, post-modernism and some researchers in science, tend to regard science as a devil. However, the huge negative effects of science can be said to have not yet appeared, and more people regard science as an angel instead of a devil.

From the perspective of the future, there is no doubt that science will definitely bring greater positive effects. As for whether it will bring greater or even huge negative effects, there are different opinions. If the application of science does not produce huge negative effects, then science must be an angel; If science produces huge positive effects and huge negative effects at the same time, but human beings can solve the negative effects brought by science, and the cost of solving this negative effect is small, then science presents more angel side to human beings. Otherwise, science presents more devil's side. It can be seen that whether science is an angel or a devil is not only related to whether the application of science has produced huge positive and negative effects, but also related to whether human beings can solve such negative effects and the cost of solving them.

In a word, historical experience, realistic performance and future prospect show that the view that science is both an angel and a devil is untenable.

2. Is science neither an angel nor a devil?

some people are positive about this. Their reason is that there is no good or evil in scientific understanding itself, only true or false, right or wrong, without any subjective feelings, just a tool used by people. If the person who uses science is an angel, then he will benefit mankind and science will become an angel; If the person who uses science is the devil, then he will make science a disaster for mankind and science will become the devil. In this way, science itself is neither an angel nor a devil. The reason why it appears as an angel or a devil lies in human beings, and the alienation of human beings leads to the alienation of scientific application. The real angel or devil should be attributed to human beings.

there is some truth in the above view. Einstein said, "Science is a powerful tool. How to use it, whether it brings happiness or disaster, depends on people themselves, not on tools. Knife is useful in human life, but it can also be used to kill people. " [1] Madame Curie said that science is innocent, and the crime lies in the abuse of science. Marx also believes that the root of alienation of science and technology lies not in science and technology itself, but in the capitalist application of science and technology. Investigate the practical application of science, such as nuclear energy can be used to build atomic bombs and generate electricity; The atomic bomb can be used not only to wage unjust wars, but also to defend our country ... and so on, which fully illustrates this point.

However, if we analyze it deeply, we will find that this view is one-sided. In many cases, people apply science with a good purpose, and it will also produce evil results. For example, many environmental problems in history were unknown before they appeared. This kind of environmental problems are produced in the process of rational use of science to develop production, not the result of people abusing science or trying to use science to destroy the environment. How did this happen? Further research shows that there are internal reasons for this: ontologically, modern science is carried out on the basis of disenchantment with nature, which makes nature not only lose its purpose, but also lose its direct trend, value, significance and change. It has no intrinsic value, only its use value and tool value, and it is not eligible for moral care. It is regarded as an object world, which is completely transformed according to our purpose and has become an object for manipulation, processing and rule. Epistemology, philosophy of science, sociology of science, post-modernism and other studies show that science does not have absolute truth, but only has relative truth, that is to say, there are incorrect places. When this kind of science with incorrect understanding is applied to transform nature, it is reasonable to cause environmental damage. Methodologically, modern science is mainly based on the mechanically simple view of nature. However, we know that nature has complexity, so when applying scientific methodological principles and specific methods to nature with the above complexity, one is to simplify complexity into simplicity; The second is to abandon the exploration of irregular phenomena; Third, there is no exploration of non-decisive phenomena; Fourth, there is no exploration of the empirical aspects of nature; Fifth, the inseparable and reducible research object system is artificially separated and reduced ... This is to some extent an understanding of the simplicity of nature or a simplification of the complexity of nature, and an incomplete understanding of nature. Nature is only a thing that can be dissected by experimental methods, calculated by mathematics and manipulated by technology, and there is nothing profound. What is obtained by observation, experimental measurement and mathematical methods is a partial and simplified understanding of the external relationship of nature, a broken understanding of the broken nature, and a classified knowledge system, such as physics, chemistry, etc., which grasps the scattered, broken, punctate and linear laws of nature. Therefore, it is likely to be related to the transformation of organic whole nature according to this classified law. The understanding and use of DDT and the process of causing environmental damage illustrate this point. Moreover, through in-depth analysis, it can be found that science is often the understanding of the laws of the artificial world constructed in the laboratory, rather than the understanding of the laws of the external nature. When this understanding is applied to the transformation of the external nature, it is likely to cause environmental damage. This should be the most important and fundamental cause of environmental problems caused by scientific application.

That is to say, the environmental problems caused by the application of science are not simply caused by the improper use of science or the application of science with evil purposes, but are closely related to the lack of science itself. If people don't realize the shortcomings of the above-mentioned science itself, even if they apply science with a good purpose, it is likely to have negative effects and make science a devil. This enlightens us that science should have two conditions to become an angel: first, the person who uses science is an angel, and he should apply science to benefit mankind; Second, science has the essential characteristics of benefiting mankind and becoming an angel. Otherwise, even if the person who uses science is an angel, there is no guarantee that the application of science can benefit mankind and become an angel.

correspondingly, if people understand and apply science with evil purposes or ideas, such as racism, national chauvinism, terrorism and individualism, will it certainly bring evil results and make science show the devil's side? Generally speaking, it is. However, it should be clear that this evil result is not only related to human beings but also has nothing to do with science. Imagine, without the development of nuclear physics and the establishment of mass-energy equation, could human beings make an atomic bomb? Can the atomic bomb be used by some bad people to harm mankind? No, it is the knowledge of nuclear physics that enables mankind to open the "Pandora's Box" of the "atomic bomb". In this way, although the theory of nuclear physics and the mass-energy equation are correct, they are not a good, safe and complete theory, which is not conducive to maintaining human safety and ecological environment to some extent. From this perspective, some people regard nuclear physics as something like the devil. This also inspires us that even if a scientific understanding is correct, it cannot be completely guaranteed that its application will not produce negative effects. In order to make its application not produce negative effects, it must be complete and conform to safety standards, ethical standards, environmental standards and sustainable development standards. After this consideration, a theory that explains the greenhouse effect should be not only a correct theory, but also a good, safe and relatively complete theory, because it can give early warning to the society, bring a sense of security and morality to human beings, and produce little or no negative effects, and promote social progress and environmental protection.

after such consideration, we should understand that science has its own characteristics of being a devil or an angel. This is reflected in its cognitive characteristics. It is wrong to separate scientific knowledge from application, scientific fact from scientific value, so that science is neither an angel nor a devil.

3. Is science an angel, not a devil?

many people have a positive attitude towards this. The most common reasons are:

(1) There is no fault in science itself, and the negative effect of science is the result of people's abuse of science;

(2) Science has negative effects, but the positive effects it brings are far greater than the negative effects;

(3) With the progress of society and science and technology, people can completely avoid the devil side of science, so science is still an angel.

according to the previous discussion, reason (1) is untenable.

reason (2) focusing on history, ignoring the future, failing to see that the future scientific application may have huge negative effects, and such negative effects are difficult to solve.

reason (3) is only an optimistic view of science and technology, and there is not much factual and theoretical basis, which is not enough.

It is worth noting that a considerable number of people now hold the view that there is a difference between science and technology. Science seeks knowledge and technology seeks profit. Science is the understanding of nature, and technology is the transformation of nature; Science can't be directly materialized, and it won't have a direct adverse impact on human survival, and the application of technology will have direct adverse consequences. In a word, science is not technology, and the negative effects are produced by technology. The negative consequences of technology application cannot be attributed to science as a cognitive system, so science is an angel, not a devil.

There is no denying that science is different from technology, which is manifested in many aspects: object, purpose, orientation, process, problem, method, result, evaluation, value and standardization. If we look carefully, we will find more differences. Ignorance of these differences between science and technology will confuse science and technology, and treat what is originally scientific (technical) or related to science (technical) as technical (scientific) or related to technology (scientific), thus resulting in a wrong understanding of science and technology. However, this does not mean that science has nothing to do with technology, and it does not mean that the negative effects produced by technology application are only caused by technology and have nothing to do with science.

before the 16th century, technology often came from some accidental experience discoveries. In the 16th and 17th centuries, except for the navigation industry, scientific research results were hardly or rarely transformed into technology, and the real transformation began with the application of steam engines in the 18th century. However, "until the end of the 18th century, science benefited more from industry than it could at that time. It will be at least another hundred years in chemistry and biology, and then scientists can give any methods that can replace or improve the tradition, and even longer in medicine. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the situation changed, science began to walk ahead of technology, and science guided the development of technology or led to the emergence of new technologies. A major scientific breakthrough led to a new technological revolution, which became the most important driving force for the technological revolution and industrial revolution and the source foundation of technology and production. This makes people realize that the science of "knowing for the sake of knowing" can be applied to transform nature and create great social value. From electromagnetic theory to power revolution, from particle physics, mass-energy equation to the application of nuclear energy, this point has been fully explained. Therefore, promoting the transformation from science to technology and from science to productivity has become the focus of social attention.

how did science become the source of technology and production? It turns out that modern technology uses the principles contained in science to create products for practical purposes. The cognitive system obtained by modern science and the process embedded in it have laid the foundation for technological innovation in theory, which indicates the emergence of new technological fields. The nuclear energy utilization of chain reaction, the invention of semiconductor (transistor), the development of laser and the production of gene recombination biotechnology all come from the guidance of scientific theory, not from empirical exploration or from the extension of existing technology.

generally speaking, the process of transforming science into technology and production is roughly