The so-called means center refers to a tendency to treat science, believing that the essence of science lies in its instruments, technologies, procedures, equipment and methods, not in its problems, problems, functions or purposes.
In short, the means center confuses scientists with engineers, physicians, dentists, laboratory technicians, glass blowers, urine analysts, machine guards and so on.
At the highest level of thinking, the center of means often presents a special form, that is, science and scientific method are confused. If we emphasize subtlety, alcoholism, and different avoidance of technology and equipment, it will usually have such consequences: the significance, vitality and importance of subject and general creativity will be reduced. Almost every student studying for a doctorate in psychology knows what this means in practice.
In fact, no matter how trivial the experiment is, as long as its method is satisfactory, it is rarely criticized. And a breakthrough problem that dares to challenge the theoretical basis is often killed by criticism because it may "fail" without being tested.
Indeed, it seems that criticism in scientific literature is usually only criticism of methods, techniques and logic. In the literature we are familiar with, no paper criticizes another paper as irrelevant, trivial or meaningless.
Therefore, traditionally, the theme of academic papers is not high, as long as it is appropriate. In short, traditional scientific papers are not necessarily new contributions to human knowledge, but only require doctoral students to understand the technical means and summary materials in their research fields, and the importance of good research plans is usually not emphasized. In this way, people who are obviously not creative at all may become "scientists"
From a lower level, that is, science teaching in high schools and universities, we can also see similar results. The school encourages students to associate science with the operation methods of certain equipment and the mechanical degree in recipes. In short, follow their instructions and repeat what others have found. People can't tell scientists, technicians or readers of science books.
Of course, it should be pointed out that these arguments have no intention of belittling the importance of methodology, but only want to further emphasize that even in science, means are likely to be confused with ends. In fact, only the scientific goal or purpose makes methodology show its importance and rationality. A successful scientist must care about his own methods, but only if these methods can help him achieve a reasonable goal-solving important problems. If any scientist ignores this point, he will become what Freud called a person who cleans his glasses all day without wearing them.
A dangerous consequence of the means center is that people who are usually pushed to the position of commander-in-chief of science are technicians and "equipment manipulators", but they are by no means "questioners" and problem solvers. We don't want to create an extremely unreal dividing line, but we just want to point out the difference between those who only know how to do it and those who know why to do it. There are always a large number of the former, and they must be priests in the scientific community and authorities in etiquette, procedures or ceremonies. People like this used to be troublemakers. However, since science has become a national and international strategic issue, they are likely to become an effective risk factor. This tendency is obviously very dangerous. Because it is much easier for laymen to understand operators than for them to understand creators and theorists.
Another strong tendency of the center of means is to attach too much importance to the quantitative relationship indiscriminately and regard it as the end itself. This is because means-centered science overemphasizes the way of expression and ignores the content of expression. As a result, the elegance and accuracy of form are opposite to the pertinence and richness of content.
The characteristic of scientists who hold the view of means-centered theory is to make problems fit their own technology, rather than let technology serve to solve problems. They usually ask such questions: What topics can I attack with my current technology and equipment? Don't ask yourself this question: What is the most critical and urgent problem that I can devote myself to solving?
If not, how to explain the following phenomenon: most scientists devote their lives to a narrow field, and the boundary of this field is not defined by a fundamental question about the world, but by the limitations of a piece of equipment or a technology. In other words, such scientists tend to do what they know how to do, not what they should do.
In psychology, few people appreciate the humor of the concepts of "animal psychologist" or "statistical psychologist". It refers to people who don't care if they can solve any problems as long as they can use their own animal data or statistical data respectively.
Like a drunk. He didn't look where he lost his wallet, but looked under the street lamp. The reason is: "the light is good there." Or, like another doctor, make his patients very angry, because he only knows one way to treat diseases, and uses the only prescription to deal with all diseases.
The most harmful practice of means-centered theory is to divide science into grades. At this level, physics is considered more scientific than biology, biology is more scientific than psychology, and psychology is more scientific than sociology. This level is entirely based on the perfection, success and accuracy of technology.
Problem-centered science will not put forward such a hierarchy, because according to its point of view, in some essence, no one will think that unemployment, racial prejudice and love are not as important as stars, sodium or kidney function.
The disadvantage of means-centered theory is that it divides all fields of science too mechanically, and builds an iron wall between them, so that their territories are separated from each other. When someone asks if J Loeb is a neuroscientist, anthropologist, physicist, psychologist or philosopher, he only replies, "I don't belong to any independent field, I just solve problems."
If only there were more people like Rob in the scientific community. However, these characteristics that we urgently need are obviously resisted and interfered by such a philosophy: scientists should become technicians or experts, not adventurous truth seekers, that is, people who know something, not people who think about something.
If scientists regard themselves as people who ask and solve problems, rather than professional technicians, then there will be a flood to the latest scientific frontiers, to those psychological and sociological problems that we should know the most but actually know the least. Why are so few people exploring these fields? The number of scientists engaged in psychological research is far less than that of scientists engaged in physical and chemical research. How did this phenomenon come about? Let/kloc-0.000 witty people concentrate on producing more advanced bombs (or even better penicillin), or let them study and solve the problems of race, psychotherapy or exploitation, which is more beneficial to mankind?
In a word, the means-centered theory is the gap between scientists and other people who seek truth, and the gap between their different methods of understanding problems and seeking truth. If we define science as seeking truth, understanding and caring about important issues, then it is difficult to distinguish scientists from poets, artists and philosophers, because they may care about the same problem.
But in the end, we still have to make a semantic difference, which must be mainly based on the differences in methods and technologies to prevent mistakes. However, if the boundary between scientists and poets and philosophers is not as unbridgeable as "convention", it is obviously beneficial to science.
Means-centered theory only classifies them into different fields, while problem-centered theory holds that they are collaborators who help each other. The personal experience of many very keen and outstanding scientists shows that the latter situation is closer to the truth than the former one. Many great scientists are artists and philosophers themselves, and the nutrition they get from philosophers is by no means lower than their own scientific peers.
Means-centered theory will inevitably lead to a scientific orthodoxy and a heresy. Scientific problems and difficulties can rarely be classified or classified into systems in a formulaic way. The questions of the past have become the answers of the present, while the questions of the future have not yet appeared. Moreover, the past methods and techniques can be expressed by formulas and classified.
Therefore, these formulas are called "principles of scientific methods", regarded as classics, covered with the aura of tradition, loyalty and history, and usually have the role of restraint, not just inspiration and help. In the hands of people who lack creativity, ruthlessness and prudence, these "principles" actually require us to solve the problems we face today only in the way that our ancestors solved them.
This attitude is especially dangerous for psychology and social sciences. To achieve absolute science, we must follow the following order: please adopt the technology of natural science and biological science.
Many psychologists and social scientists tend to imitate old technologies instead of inventing or creating new technologies to meet the needs of objective reality. In this way, their development level, research problems and information are essentially different from those of natural science, so new technologies are essential.
In science, tradition is a dangerous "gift", while loyalty is an absolutely dangerous adventure.