結論係

Definition of Science
Science is a dynamic, iterative process characterized by:

1. Open Continuous Review:
    - Theories and findings are constantly scrutinized and re-evaluated through peer review and replication studies.
   
2. Fine-Tuning:
    - Scientific knowledge is progressively adjusted and refined in light of new evidence and better methodologies.

Goals of Science

The primary aim of science is to:

- Progressively Improve Our Understanding of the World:
    - This involves developing more accurate, comprehensive, and predictive models of natural phenomena.

Challenges in Practice

Despite its ideals, the practice of science is influenced by:

1. Social Biases:
    - Prevailing social attitudes and norms can affect which research is funded, published, and accepted by the scientific community.
   
2. Cultural Biases:
    - Cultural contexts can shape the interpretation of data and the direction of scientific inquiry.

Conclusion

Thus, while science strives for self-correction and continuous improvement, it is also a human endeavor subject to the influences of the society and culture in which it operates. This recognition is crucial for understanding both the strengths and limitations of scientific knowledge.

jimmychauck

這就是傳說中的CHATGPT灌水了？

科學有世俗化傾向，這是一種文化偏見。如果有兩個理論，證據強度相若，一個有宗教背景或假設，另一個沒有宗教背景或宗教假設，科學會選擇沒有宗教假設的。哲學家稱這偏見是剃刀原則，不過，宗教界則可能認為，有宗教假設才合乎剃刀原則。因此這也是一種文化偏見選擇。

簡單來說，科學是一個自我修正系統，只是科學的理想目標。準確一點，科學是一個世界性開放的知識共享系統，一個開放和持續更新和修訂的知識系統，研究員可以參與和提出修正。不過，這都只是科學的理想。實際上，科學會受到不同的社會偏見及集體認知偏見所影響，而且會透過各種社會教育制度、考試評核制度、招聘制度、經濟制度、投資制度、政府撥款制度強化這些偏見。富人和名人在科學界的話語權，比係一般科學家大得多。科學也有很強的不可知論和世俗化的文化，即使你有幾強大的證據，即使你係名人富人，當你沾上宗教假設，也非常容易被科學界歸納為偽科學。

Science is actually a social construct, so social bias and collective bias are unavoidable.  Existing scientific bias will be further reinforce by education, examination assessment and recruitment process, as well as social and economic status.

Knowledge is the power, but truth knowledge never been known.  We only have knowledge with robust evidence on limited domain, such as Mathematics, Engineering and IT.  When it extend to more complex field such as medicine and ecology, it become more complex and often produce many unwanted side effects or mixed result, make it controversial and less reliable.  When it further extends to social science and politics, it become highly controversial and often speculative.  When it extends to metaphysics, outerspace life, philosophy, theology and religion, (including the explanation of religious or divine experience, pray healing, past life memory and near-death experience), all human knowledge and stuff are purely speculative.

The influence of social bias on science and education. This bias can manifest through various mechanisms and be perpetuated by institutional practices. Here's a deeper exploration of these points:

Social Bias in Science

1. Collective Cognitive Bias: This refers to the shared cognitive biases within a society that shape how scientific questions are framed, researched, and interpreted. Examples include confirmation bias, where research tends to support existing beliefs, and availability heuristic, where more attention is given to readily available information.

2. Bias Due to Social Status: Social hierarchies can influence who gets to participate in science, whose voices are heard, and whose contributions are valued. This can lead to the marginalization of certain groups and perspectives.

Amplification by Examination and Assessment

- Examinations and Assessments: Standardized tests and assessments often reflect the dominant cultural and social norms. Students who conform to these norms tend to perform better, reinforcing the existing biases.
- Curricula: The content of curricula is typically designed by those in positions of power, who may unintentionally or intentionally propagate their social biases.

Institutional Reinforcement

1. Hiring Practices: Scientific institutions often rely heavily on academic results for hiring, which can perpetuate social biases. Students who succeed in biased educational systems are more likely to be hired, continuing the cycle.

2. Research Funding and Publication: Funding bodies and academic journals can also reflect social biases, favoring certain types of research and methodologies over others.

Role of Education Systems

- Curriculum Design: Curricula designed by notable educational institutions often reflect the prevailing biases of those in power. This creates a cycle where biased knowledge and perspectives are perpetuated through education.
- Teacher and Institutional Bias: Teachers and institutions may consciously or unconsciously reinforce social biases through their expectations and interactions with students.

Personal (or so called subjective) study and research are subject to personal, cognitive bias and psychological bias or even emotional bias, so it often consider as unreliable.

Science study and research also subject to social biased, cultural biased, government designed education syllabus biased and today machine bias, so it still far from reliable.  

Although science can solve individual cognitive errors, it can further reinforce collective cognitive bias.

It is important to note that both aims to be objectively , free from bias, want to seek the truth, self-correcting, and seek robust evidence, but in practice often failed.

More social bias on scientific research, make science more subjective

Funding Challenges:
    - Funder Ideology: Scientists may face pressure if their inquiries challenge the ideologies of their funders.
    - Political Influence: Even in advanced democracies, scientific inquiries that do not align with government ideologies or faith may receive less funding or no funding at all. Academic freedom can be compromised despite formal protections.

Educational Influence:
    - Government-Designed Syllabus: The design of educational syllabuses by governments can significantly influence and bias scientific inquiry and the dissemination of knowledge.

Machine Bias:
    - Algorithmic Bias: Biases can arise from the design and machine learning processes of algorithms developed by leading IT companies such as Google, Facebook, Baidu or Microsoft. These biases can affect scientific investigations and outcomes.

Presentation and Appearance:
    - Bias Based on Appearance: During presentations or interviews, individuals who do not dress well may be rejected despite having robust evidence to support their claims.


Human Safety Concerns:
    - **Threats to High Social Status*: Researchers whose work threatens high-status individuals or groups may receive informal warnings regarding their personal safety.

Conclusion

While the ideals of science strive for objectivity and impartiality, the reality is that it operates within a context influenced by social status, historical experiences, cultural biases, funding sources, political pressures, presentation norms, personal safety concerns, educational influences, and even technological biases. Recognizing and addressing these influences is crucial for fostering a more inclusive, fair, and reflective scientific community.

The De Facto Subjectivity in Science

While science is de jure (by law or principle) objective, in practice (de facto), it often exhibits subjectivity due to various social biases. These biases can manifest in several ways:

1. Evidence Requirements Based on Social Status:
    - Ordinary People vs. Celebrities: Ordinary individuals often need to provide substantial evidence to support their claims, while celebrities may be taken more seriously with less evidence.
    - Unfamous vs. Famous Universities: Research from lesser-known institutions may require more robust evidence for acceptance compared to research from renowned universities.
    - Poor vs. Rich Individuals: Poor individuals may need to present more convincing evidence than wealthy individuals to have their claims considered.

2.Conservatism in Scientific Claims:
    - Challenging Existing Claims: New theories that challenge established scientific claims typically face higher scrutiny and require more evidence than those that align with current understanding.
    - Influence Without Evidence: Wealthy individuals and celebrities can sometimes influence scientific discourse significantly, even without substantial evidence, making it difficult for the public to challenge unfounded claims.

3. Historical and Cultural Influences:
    - Bad Historical Experiences: Scientific claims that evoke negative historical associations (e.g., communism) may be dismissed or ignored despite evidence that warrants further investigation.
    - Agnosticism and Religion: Science’s strong culture of agnosticism often leads to the rejection of theories linked to religious beliefs, regardless of the robustness of the evidence. Investigations that incorporate religious assumptions are frequently labeled as pseudoscience.

Conclusion

These points underscore that while the ideals of science strive for objectivity and impartiality, the reality is that it operates within a context influenced by social status, historical experiences, and cultural biases. Acknowledging these influences is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and reflective scientific community.