Science, Scientist and Scientific Development Concept

It seems to me that people in every spectrum like the topics about science, for our everyday life is profoundly influenced by it. One could easily find that such science enthusiastic people include but not limit to: philosophers from religionists to atheists, politicians from capitalists to communists, scholars from pundits to pupils, activists from proponents to detractors. I wonder whether United Nations should amend its Universal Value by adding science in, for apparently everyone recognizes the value of science.

The definition of science is changing from time to time, and it appears that it has not reached a consensus one, and might never reach a consensus one. This elusiveness might just provide a unique reason for different people to adapt different science concept in their own ways. Modern science separates itself from the occult; in Isaac Newton’s (1642 – 1727) time, it was common for researchers to study both science and alchemy, though. In fact, Newton studied on alchemy for most of his life.

The word scientist was coined by William Whewell (1794 – 1866) in 1833; therefore, Newton was obviously never called as a scientist at his lifetime. But it does not bother for some historians’ enthusiasm to pick the first scientist; they generally honored this title to Ibn al-Haytham (965 – 1039) at Islamic golden age (8th century – 13th century), for his scientific method was pervaded in modern science. Someone may argue: what about Newton, for so many Enlightenment thinkers utilized Newton’s scientific methods to unfetter human Reason. The fact is Isaac Newton could hardly be called a scientist in modern science view. I absolutely regard Newton as one of the greatest scientists if he himself had no objection to be called a scientist. But Newton’s two most important contributions, calculus and laws of gravity, could not belong to modern science. His gravity theory was benefitted from his occult studies on action at a distance, and his calculus is Mathematics. Modern science rules both Mathematics and the occult out of itself.

The idea that science is “what” has actually become much less popular now. However, in China, science has never lost its utilization for politics. Has asserted that China under its ruling is a Scientific Socialism, the Communist Party now wages propaganda on the Scientific Development Concept (Kexue Fazhan Guan in Chinese). The “Scientific Socialism” was phrased by Friedrich Engels (1820 - 1895) to distinguish it from the “utopian socialism”, it is not amenable to scientific examination whether in theory or in practice. I realized Physicist Fang Lizhi (1936 - ) advocated Kexue Fazhan Guan back to 1980s, yet I wonder whether and when the Communist Party shares the same Concept with Fang; if not, it appears not to bother any troubles for the Communist to grab the same name of Fang’s Concept, just as a totalitarian does. Why not? They already deprived Fang of everything by exiling him in 1989. For science, when a subject is 100 percent predictable, that is a law of nature; when a subject is highly predictable, that is a law of averages. Here, precision and predictability have the most certainty. I don’t know what the “Scientific” certainty by the communism is. Would this “scientific” certainty carry out the writ of Habeas corpus (a Latin phrase, as “that you have the body”) or the Checks and Balances? If not, the Chinese people will still live in fear without dignity. The Chinese government claims that it is also ruling with Humanism (yiren weiben or renben zhuyi in Chinese), which would provide some compensations to its people plausibly. My understanding is that this so-called Humanism by Chinese Communist is not on the same page with the Renaissance Humanism. In Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s (1463 – 1494) Oration on the Dignity of Man, which is regarded as the humanist manifesto, he declared: [Human beings] “Thou, constrained by no limits, in accordance with thine own free will, in whose hand We have placed thee, shalt ordain for thyself the limits of thy nature.” This meant to human beings “with freedom of choice and with honor…thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer”. Isn’t it a profanity to the name of Mirandola when the Chinese government claims that its people live in humanism but without the dignity of freedom? This reminds me that during the French Revolution (1787 – 1799, 1789 was a climax), France was under the Reign of Terror. The revolutionist Maximilien Robespierre (1758 – 1794), Mr. The Incorruptible, did bloodshed to any counter-revolutionary suspects he accused, yet he called it Terror with Virtue. When Chinese government deprives its people of freedom and persecutes its conscientious people, doesn’t it mean the Chinese people live under the Terror with “Scientific” Humanism?