【repost】Wang Quan: Is Science Certain? Our Learning and Attitude

Translator's Note: This article was translated by Gemini and may contain inaccuracies. Please refer to the original article for accurate information: 悦读丨王泉：科学是确定的吗？我们的学习和态度

The repost has removed all irrelevant images and adjusted the style for web page formatting.

Since I began serving full-time in China in 2017, especially my nearly six years of service at Shantou University, I've become aware of a problem. Some students, having gone through many years of test-oriented education, have grown accustomed to a sponge-like approach to learning, absorbing knowledge from textbooks. They don't engage in much deeper reflection on their learning, leaving them unprepared to handle difficulties and feeling lost about the future. Fichte once said, "Education must cultivate a person's ability for self-determination." Education is not primarily about practicality, not primarily about imparting knowledge and skills, but about 'awakening' students' potential, nurturing their selfhood, initiative, abstract reasoning, and comprehension. This enables them to make meaningful choices in the future, which is still unpredictable.

I have always hoped to find a topic to delve into, discussing the importance of learning and reading with young people in greater depth. After several years of learning, reflection, and preparation, I chose the title of this article and carefully prepared its content. I'm grateful to the dozens of universities that have given me the opportunity to express my insights over the past year or so. Below, I've organized my remarks according to the content of the lecture report:

Reading and Learning are Essential. I want to explain my own perspective on reading and learning by exploring the question of whether science is certain. Plato, in his Republic, through the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, presents an allegory of the cave. A group of people dwell in a cave, their hands and feet bound. Behind them is a fire, and as objects pass in front of the fire, shadows are cast on the wall. These people rely on the shadows to understand the objects themselves. One day, a person escapes the cave. He is initially blinded by the sunlight but then sees a world of colors, vastly different from the cave. Plato uses this allegory to explain his theory of Forms. The world within the cave represents the visible world, while the world outside the cave represents the intelligible world, which is beyond the material world, a world of truth and forms that are eternal, stable, and universal. Plato seeks to convey that our understanding of the world through appearances is limited, like shadows on the cave wall.

We are taught from a young age that the essence of science lies in its objective truth, comprehensiveness, and logic. Natural science relies on experimental results, speaks through facts, and is a reflection of objective reality in the realm of the mind. But after the historical shifts from geocentric theory to heliocentric theory, from Newton's deterministic mechanics to the uncertainty principle in the microscopic world, have we truly stopped to consider the true nature of science and the reflections it presents?

Next, I will explore the essence of science through three aspects to help us gain a deeper understanding of the significance of reading and learning from this perspective. These three aspects are:

1. A Brief Discussion of Science—Its Value and Purpose
2. Is Science Certain?
3. Our Learning and Attitude

01 A Brief Discussion of Science—Its Value and Purpose

Science originates from humanity's curiosity and interest in the world (both material and mental). It focuses on the relationship between the self and the world, exploring the laws of motion and the origin of the essence of the world. The Milesian School of Ancient Greece was the first to use rational speculation to explore the process of the world's formation and the inner causes of its changes. Later, people built knowledge systems about the objects of their investigations using sensory observation and logical deduction. Over thousands of years, the construction of scientific systems has helped advance human understanding. Philosophy, science, and mathematics have built observations of the laws and essence of the world from different perspectives. The starting points and methods of the three differ, but they all shine with the wisdom of the ancients. Aristotle, at the beginning of his "Metaphysics," argues that knowing is the nature of humans. "Metaphysics" further states that the philosophical explorations of people throughout history should begin with curiosity about the natural world. They first marvel at the many perplexing phenomena, gradually accumulating explanations bit by bit. They offer explanations for more significant questions, such as the movements of the sun, moon, and stars, and the creation of the universe. A person who is puzzled and curious often feels ashamed of their ignorance; they explore philosophy to escape from ignorance. Clearly, pursuing academics for the sake of knowledge does not require any practical purpose.

From this discussion, we can see that humanity's initial motivation for gaining a deeper understanding of the world is purely to escape ignorance and to pursue knowledge. The Pythagorean School believed that numbers are the form and origin of the world, thus proposing for the first time the metaphysical concept of the "formal cause" of the essence of things. Plato placed the inscription "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter" at the entrance to his academy. The motivation behind all this was not a simple practical consideration but a pure desire to find the essence and laws behind the world of appearances through learning and exploration.

Feynman once talked about the three values of science: the practical value of science in guiding technology; the cultural value of science in providing humans with wisdom and reasoning; and the inherent spiritual value of science in its freedom to explore, bringing new potential possibilities to human society. Below, I will focus on the cultural and spiritual values of science, using the origins and brief history of plane geometry as an example.

"Elements" is a mathematical work compiled by the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid around 300 BC. In fact, ancient Egypt, ancient Babylon, ancient India, and even our own China had already gained some knowledge of geometry. Regarding right triangles, Shang Gao during the Zhou Dynasty proposed the "three for the base, four for the height, and five for the hypotenuse" view. However, the first to propose and prove this theorem was the Pythagorean School in ancient Greece in the 6th century BC. In 1607, Matteo Ricci, an Italian missionary, and Xu Guangqi, a Chinese scholar, translated the first six volumes of "Elements." Li Shanlan and the British missionary Alexander Wylie completed the translation of the remaining parts in 1858, only then did plane geometry become part of our education. This book establishes a system of geometric proofs that starts from axioms and definitions, deriving theorems by proving propositions. It forms a rigorous logical system through five geometric axioms (e.g., through two distinct points, there is exactly one line), five general axioms (e.g., two figures that completely coincide are congruent), and 23 definitions (e.g., a point is what has no part). Euclid's work is recognized as an exemplary model of establishing a deductive mathematical system using the axiomatic method, paving the way to understanding the world. It has had a profound impact on many great scholars, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Kant, and Newton.

In "Elements," there is a postulate: If a line intersects two other lines, forming two interior angles on the same side whose sum is less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, will intersect on that side on which the sum of the angles is less than two right angles. This postulate is equivalent to saying that only one parallel line can be drawn through a point outside a line. Mathematicians have long considered this not to be a postulate but rather a theorem that can be proven, and they have dedicated countless years to it, but they all failed. Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky of Kazan University began studying parallel line theory in 1815 and proposed his hyperbolic geometry in 1826, which directly replaced the fifth postulate with the statement that through a point outside a line in a plane, at least two lines can be drawn that do not intersect the given line (a point outside a line can have more than two parallel lines). This year marked the birth of non-Euclidean geometry. However, his creative work was not taken seriously or acknowledged during his lifetime. He even faced various criticisms, attacks, and ridicule. As everyone knows, in 1854, Bernhard Riemann proposed elliptic geometry, where any two lines in the same plane intersect (there are no parallel lines through a point outside a line), and Riemannian geometry is the basis of general relativity.

From this simple history of the evolution of plane geometry, we can appreciate the cultural value of science in bringing about reasoning and wisdom. According to Kant's epistemology ("Critique of Pure Reason," 1781), Euclidean geometry provides the most solid theoretical evidence about the universe's existence, richness, and irrefutability. Gauss argued that the necessity of Euclidean geometry cannot be proven. Poincaré believed that geometric axioms are neither synthetic a priori intuitions nor empirical facts; they are conventions. We make choices based on empirical facts, and these choices are free. At the same time, the temporality of science leaves space for the freedom of the spirit and makes a critical spirit a characteristic of scientific exploration. Ptolemy, based on Apollonius's proposal of eccentric circles and epicycles, put forward the famous geocentric theory. Copernicus, based on his own understanding of the universe and the views of previous thinkers, including Pythagoras and Aristarchus, courageously proposed the heliocentric theory. Based on the major values of science, Feynman pointed out: As scientists, we know that great advances stem from acknowledging ignorance and from freedom of thought. Therefore, we should promote the value of freedom of thought, educating people not to fear questioning.

02 Is Science Certain?

In this section, we will explore the question of whether science is certain. Two years ago, I was invited to give a talk on the development of science at an international academic conference. Using the influence of science on humanity's understanding of the world as a criterion, I divided modern science into three stages: from the 15th century to the end of the 19th century as the stage of certain science; from the end of the 19th century to the present as the stage of uncertain science; and now entering the third stage.

The first stage originated from the opening of modern science. Copernicus was passionate about mathematical astronomy in his school days. He had his unique perspective on the universe and the formal beauty of mathematics. With his exceptional mathematical skills and simple ideas, he believed that the universe should have a simple and beautiful way of being organized and advocated heliocentric theory, thus ushering in modern science. The Pope urged him to publish this discovery and viewpoint. But there was a problem that Copernicus couldn't answer: If the Earth is revolving around the Sun, why do people fall back to the ground when they jump? Copernicus was afraid of being ridiculed, and this was one reason why he delayed publishing "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres."

Kepler was a student of Tycho Brahe. In 1609, he proposed the first and second laws of planetary motion: All planets move along elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus; A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times. But it wasn't until 1619 that he presented his third law in his book "Harmony of the Worlds": The square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of the mean distance from the planet to the Sun. I once discussed with the students in my lectures that, having access to Tycho Brahe's rich planetary data, proposing the first and second laws shouldn't have been a major problem. Given enough time and patience, some students might have even come up with those two discoveries. However, the third law is not so simple because the numerator and denominator of this constant are the square of time and the cube of distance, respectively. How did Kepler spend ten years formulating this law? Kepler wrote in his book "Harmony of the Worlds," "The motion of the celestial bodies is nothing other than a continuous music of various sounds. This music can only be understood by the mind, not heard by human ears." Therefore, a great thinker does not view problems based on the visible external world but on the invisible inner world. His values determine his thoughts. Great thinkers and scientists like Kepler and Newton believed that the created world must have beautiful laws, and their mission was to discover and celebrate that beauty. After formulating these three laws, Kepler raised the question of how the Sun controls the planets, which was the most profound question at the time. Unfortunately, he died on his way to collect wages.

Before discussing Galileo, we must mention the two translation movements. The first, primarily in Spain during the 12th century, was the century-long translation boom led by figures like Averroes, which involved translating Arabic texts. This resulted in Greek original works being translated into Syriac, then Arabic, and finally Latin. This movement made the scientific works of Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy accessible to Europeans. Notably, through this translation movement, Thomas Aquinas provided a profound interpretation and integration of Aristotle's philosophy, incorporating it into the framework of Christian theology. As everyone knows, the modern university originated in Bologna, Italy. Subsequently, famous universities like the University of Paris, Cambridge University, and Oxford University emerged. These universities, in addition to the traditional four arts of mathematics, allowed theology and reason to be taught, all thanks to this translation movement and Aquinas's intellectual contributions. The second translation movement occurred in the 15th century, stemming from the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire. At that time, the administrative language of the Byzantine Empire was Greek. This translation movement primarily brought Plato's ideas back to Europe. Supported by the Medici family, figures like Ficino, at the newly established Platonic Academy, brought Plato's works and ideas back to the Latin world. These two translation movements played a significant role in the Renaissance and the rise of modern science in Europe.

Galileo was the first figure of modern science. Like Aristotle, he greatly valued the scientific research method that combines experiment and reasoning. He was also deeply influenced by Plato's emphasis on mathematics. Galileo once said that nature is written in the language of mathematics. His "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" was published in 1632. The plot revolves around a dialogue between Galileo, an advocate for Aristotle, and a mediator, aimed at criticizing the natural philosophical foundations of Aristotelian geocentric theory and arguing for the validity of the Copernican system. Many crucial scientific ideas presented in this book have had a profound impact on subsequent scientific development, including the introduction of the concept of inertia, addressing the question that Copernicus had avoided: why do people fall back to the ground when they jump? When Galileo was tried, he was ordered to deny heliocentric theory. It is said that as he left the courtroom after the trial, he uttered the words, "But it does move." Later, during his house arrest, he published "Dialogue on the Two New Sciences." Galileo is hailed as the "Father of Modern Natural Science." His work not only made breakthroughs in mechanics and astronomy but also laid the foundation for the scientific revolution. It is worth noting that Galileo did not accept Kepler's elliptical orbit law, exhibiting an intolerant side towards Kepler, demonstrating that even the greatest thinkers have their weaknesses.

The story of Newton is widely known and need not be elaborated here. Based on Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, he made the significant discovery of universal gravitation through observation and deduction. However, Newton's scientific discoveries and ideas took time to spread throughout Europe. The European continent and the British Isles remained in disagreement for a long time on many aspects, including scientific and philosophical ideas. At the time, Descartes's theory of celestial vortices was still dominant in understanding celestial motion. Figures like Huygens and Leibniz argued that Newton's universal gravitation was a mystical force and could not accept his theory. Newton responded by saying he didn't know the source of gravity but had only revealed its form, using it to explain the laws of celestial motion. Voltaire, having come into contact with Newton's works in England, was deeply moved by the greatness of Newton's theory of natural science. He actively introduced Newton's ideas to France and other parts of Europe. In his "Philosophical Letters" published in 1734, Voltaire dedicated significant space to introducing Newton's natural philosophy. Others who promoted Newton's work included Madame du Chatelet, who translated Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," published in 1687, into French. Newton likened the universe to a precise clock. Once the clockmaker assembles it, all that is needed is to wind it up, and it will run on its own without any interference. Therefore, Newton's worldview is also known as "mechanical cosmology." Laplace was a proponent of Newton's mechanical theory. Laplace believed that the current state of the universe can be seen as the result of past events and the cause of future events. If we could accurately know the position and momentum of every atom in the universe, using this information along with Newton's laws, we could calculate the state of the universe at any given moment and predict all its past and future events. Thus, Newton's mechanical view formed a certain science. According to materialistic views, humans are composed of matter, so this certain science would directly lead to the conclusion that human life is fully determined, and we wouldn't even be responsible for our actions. This could lead to a series of profound social problems. For us students, if there is a deterministic scientific view, why do we need to learn if a good computer can solve everything?

The second stage originated from the emergence of chaotic phenomena in the macroscopic world and the opening of quantum mechanics in the microscopic world. At the end of the 19th century, King Oscar II of Sweden was about to celebrate his birthday. His scientific advisor, Leifler, suggested he hold a mathematics competition. The topic was the many-body problem: How would multiple bodies move under the influence of universal gravitation? He nominated three scientific judges: Hermite, Weierstrass, and himself. Several years later, the competition ended, and the judges unanimously recommended Henri Poincaré, Hermite's student, as the winner, who received over 2,000 Swedish crowns. Poincaré solved the restricted three-body problem in the competition, which simplified the problem by assuming one body was much smaller and had no influence on the other two. In the congratulatory letter to Poincaré, the editor mentioned a puzzling problem. Poincaré, upon reviewing the problem, realized that his answer had flaws and rewrote and published his work. In his article, Poincaré discovered the sensitive dependence of this restricted three-body system on initial conditions, meaning that even the slightest difference in initial conditions could lead to drastically different motion in the three-body system over long periods, thus introducing the concepts of Chaos and the unstable nature of the solar system.

Lorenz was an American meteorologist. In 1961, he simulated a closed box with air molecules moving due to temperature differences. He was astonished to discover that even a small disturbance would lead to fundamentally different molecular motion after a sufficiently long time. This is the butterfly effect: A butterfly flapping its wings in South America could trigger a tornado in Texas, USA. These two examples illustrate the uncertainty of science in predicting the motion of macroscopic objects.

In the microscopic world, we know about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the position and velocity of a microscopic particle cannot be simultaneously determined. We also know about Schrödinger's fundamental equation, proposed in 1926, in quantum mechanics. People have discovered wave-particle duality, which refers to the property of a substance exhibiting both wave-like and particle-like characteristics. The double-slit experiment of the last century validated this. When no detector was used, multiple interference patterns appeared on the screen, showcasing the wave-like nature of electrons. With a detector, double slits appeared on the screen, showcasing the particle-like nature of electrons. The debate between Einstein and Bohr regarding whether quantum mechanics is complete involved profound scientific and philosophical questions related to causality, locality, and more.

These macroscopic and microscopic phenomena point to the uncertainty of science: Any minor random change could lead to completely unpredictable results, which is the famous "butterfly effect." The helplessness of earthquake prediction, the difficulty of weather forecasting, even the puzzles surrounding life phenomena, and the inconsistencies of brain consciousness, all reveal the challenges posed by the uncertainty arising from the complexity of the world we face. What is our value in the face of this uncertain science? The uncertainty of science is a major problem that even touches upon the essence of human thought, such as causality. Are the deductive observational and causal concepts we uphold in our daily learning helpless in the face of this uncertain world? What is the meaning of our learning?

The third stage is how we perceive both certain and uncertain science and how to bridge the gap between them, forming new methodologies and values. In 1930, Hilbert proposed that formal mathematical systems are complete and consistent. Mathematics would thus be founded on rigorous logic, the most unassailable truth in the world. Future work would simply involve deriving theorems from existing axioms. Consistency in a mathematical system means that the conclusions derived from it are free from contradictions. Completeness refers to the complete knowability of mathematical objects: a statement is either a theorem or a false proposition. Hilbert, therefore, argued that there is no unknowable, especially in natural science. His epitaph reads, "We will know, we must know." "We must know" expresses the human nature of seeking knowledge, as Aristotle had already proposed. "We can know" fully expresses a deterministic philosophical view, a value system based on a certain epistemology.

Kurt Gödel was an American-Austrian mathematician and logician. In 1931, just a year after Hilbert expressed his ambitious vision, Gödel presented his "Incompleteness Theorems" for formal systems of arithmetic: Any formal system that includes a description of simple elementary number theory and is consistent will necessarily contain statements that cannot be proven true or false by the methods allowed within the system. This incompleteness theorem was a bitter pill for those who believed mathematics to be perfect and unassailable, yet it was a pill they had to swallow. Gödel argued that some truths are considered true but not necessarily provable. The implication at the epistemological level is that we have no absolutely certain knowledge. Von Neumann described Gödel's achievements in modern logic as extraordinary and immortal. His immortality transcends monuments; he is a milestone, an enduring monument.

Current unresolved scientific questions are also related to the deeper understanding of whether science is certain. Will Einstein's dream of unifying the four fundamental forces into a single field be realized due to the unity and causal relationships that deterministic science upholds? Will the ancient philosophical problem of the physical explanation of the origin of the universe be solved because our rationality hasn't yet reached the uncertain domain? The uncertainty in science and epistemology also raises the ancient problem of the relationship between the world we perceive and the real world. These unresolved issues not only call for us to continue exploring the essence of the certainty and uncertainty of science and delve into epistemology and philosophical thinking but also bring new perspectives and enlightenment to our methods of education and scientific research.

Lord Kelvin believed, "My objective is to demonstrate how to construct a mechanical model that satisfies all conditions in any physical phenomenon we consider. I will never be satisfied until I build such a model. If I succeed in building a model, I will understand it; otherwise, I cannot understand it." This is the tenacious pursuit of a "rational model" that humanity has established in its pursuit of scientific knowledge for centuries. This tenaciousness is essentially a manifestation of deterministic mechanism. This mode of thinking is deeply ingrained in our daily education and research. It provokes reflections like the position of classical mechanics in science, the position of deterministic science in our education and scientific development, and our responses. How do we prepare students in education to respond and be prepared for the arrival of unforeseen new scientific paradigms and new global trends? How can we adjust our teaching methods within the essence of scientific certainty and uncertainty to correct the bias of making the transmission of existing knowledge the goal of teaching and education. These long-term and current problems should be deeply considered and prepared for by educators, and young students should also engage in profound reflection on the value of reading and learning.

Beyond the certainty and uncertainty of natural science discussed above, the humanities and social sciences also involve discussions of certainty and uncertainty. Here is just one example. Marx acknowledged the objective laws governing historical development. He believed that human society is composed of multiple factors, and historical laws carve their own paths through the conflict and intertwining of these factors. Marx emphasized that the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production is the ultimate cause of transformations in social structures, social systems, and ideologies. Marx systematically explained the scientific implications of historical determinism. However, Popper argued that the course of human history is strongly influenced by human knowledge and that humans cannot use rational or scientific methods to predict the growth of our scientific knowledge or the future course of human history. Further, Popper argued that people must abandon deterministic research methods akin to theoretical physics when considering historical and social scientific issues, implying that no scientific theory of historical development can serve as a basis for predicting history. This example shows that regardless of whether it is natural science, the humanities, or social sciences, there is an epistemological concept of certainty and uncertainty. Therefore, the contemplation and exploration of this issue will continue. This exploration is essential for us to understand the world and ourselves. I will end this section with a quote from the 1915 report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors: Since human endeavors in academia and science are still in their infancy, and our understanding of the overall meaning and purpose of human existence is far from reaching a basic consensus compared to the vastness of the universe, we must carefully protect any progress made in human exploration, grant freedom to explorers, enabling them to pursue truth without restraint and freely publish their research findings.

03 Our Learning and Attitude

The discussion of the three stages of modern scientific development highlighted the influence of both certain and uncertain science on humanity's understanding of the world. Now, let's delve into our attitude towards learning and reading.

Embracing the Spirit of Free Scientific Exploration and the Spirit of Not Following the Crowd

We previously mentioned the spiritual value of free scientific exploration. On the lintel of the Royal Society of London, there's a Latin inscription: "Nullius in verba." Its English translation is "take nobody's word for it." Because the Royal Society required experimental achievements for membership, I believe the first translation is, "Let experiment be the evidence, not words." However, the second translation, I believe, is more in line with the consensus of the intellectual and academic world: "Do not blindly follow the crowd."

Confucius said, "The noble person stands in the middle without leaning, harmonious without going with the flow." The core meaning is that the noble person is peaceful with others but does not follow the crowd. When Confucius was surrounded in the wilderness by the states of Chen and Cai, he asked his students why they were in this situation. Zilu attributed it to insufficient virtue, Zigong suggested lowering their stance somewhat. Yan Hui said, "The Master's way and teachings are the greatest, so the world cannot accommodate him. But even if they do not accommodate him, what does it matter? They do not accommodate him, only then does it reveal that the Master is a gentleman." This is the spirit of "not being accepted, then one sees the gentleman," and it is also the spirit of not following the crowd.

Today, we often hear young scholars talk about the importance of having a school of thought in academic development, about knowing how to interact and navigate social situations. I've also observed that many young people spend a significant amount of time and energy on these aspects. There are many reasons for this situation, which cannot be discussed in detail here, but I hope to have another opportunity to explore them. However, I believe that throughout history, countless "lonely" thinkers have faced various social and environmental challenges, but like Confucius, they remained unyielding, and their spirit endures.

A Deeper Understanding of Our Perception of the World is a Continuously Evolving System, and It is a Fact that Human Perception is Limited

The concept of uncertain science indicates that many phenomena, both macroscopic and microscopic, cannot be explained by Newton's deterministic theories. Scientific understanding requires advancement and a change in the paradigm of knowledge. In terms of the perception of space and time, classical and modern science have interesting arguments. Newton believed, "Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external." However, Einstein said in a more vivid way, "Before me, people believed that if you took everything out of the universe, what would be left is space and time. But I have proven that if you take everything out, nothing remains." If we go through such an interesting journey of scientific development through education and can grasp the arguments and profound meanings of great thinkers about each stage of development, it will undoubtedly help us realize that science is a continuously evolving system and gain a deeper understanding of scientificism and its limitations on our own perception. Such education is undoubtedly more valuable than merely transmitting knowledge.

Furthermore, from the pattern of scientific development moving from one paradigm to another, and the fact that humanity faces cognitive limitations it cannot transcend in each stage, we can see that human rational cognition is limited. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," in terms of epistemology, drew boundaries for human knowledge and therefore for rationality. The four sets of antinomies demonstrate that the scientific knowledge humans gain through "understanding" is merely a perception of the "phenomenal world." Things in the "phenomenal world" are relative and conditional. When reason tries to understand the "noumenal world" (thing-in-itself), it leads to contradictory conclusions about the same object of knowledge, each of which is valid yet incompatible. This signifies the boundary of our rationality. Kant views our way of knowing the world like this: human knowledge starts from experience, combining our rational abilities. However, we can only perceive the phenomena of the world but cannot penetrate through them to understand the world itself. Although Niels Bohr, a leading figure in quantum mechanics, argued with Einstein for many years, he could not ultimately explain Einstein's emphasis on causality and locality. He expressed his view like this: The world itself is intrinsically ambiguous, contradictory, and complementary. Everything has its opposite. Or perhaps the external world is clear, and the problem lies in our human thinking, which, due to some internal limitations, has failed to understand the world clearly. It seems that either nature or human thinking has flaws, or perhaps it is the interaction between them that has problems. This contradiction has no answer, or at least cannot be understood through common sense.

Scientific Discoveries are Also Based on Personal Values

Kepler wrote in his "Harmony of the Worlds," "The motion of the celestial bodies is nothing other than a continuous music of various sounds. This music can only be understood by the mind, not heard by human ears." Copernicus pointed out that Ptolemaic astronomy was not absolute and did not sufficiently delight the mind. This feeling of the mind led him to become an advocate of heliocentrism. In "The Little Prince," the fox, when parting with the little prince, offers his wisdom: "What is essential is invisible to the eye." The little prince also tells the author this point that he believes adults don't notice. The author ends the story by writing, "… I beg of you, do not hurry. Stay a little while with your star. If a child comes to you, if he laughs, if he has golden hair, if he does not answer when you ask him questions, you will know who he is. Then, be kind. Do me this favor. Write to me and tell me that he has come back. " The little prince, with his golden wheat field-like hair, whom the author "sees," is seen with his heart. The author, throughout his life, will not be able to see him with his eyes. Husserl, in his unfinished "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology," when describing the misuse of technology and science without thought, states that abandoning the philosophical ideas of universal science leads to a loss of the most intrinsic driving force of scientific research. This driving force comes from setting goals; a person without ideals is lifeless. Montesquieu identified the following two evils: science without humanity and knowledge without conscience. Therefore, I believe that every powerful idea has a personal value system behind its proposer, and human values are also sublimated in the river of thought. True science is based on values and universal self-concepts. Its development is a process of exploration, which involves reflection. This process is also a path for humanity to shape and strengthen its values and its understanding of the world and itself.

In this contemporary age where certain and uncertain thoughts coexist, cultivate a scientific and humanistic temperament with philosophical depth

The beginning of ancient Greek philosophy marked the start of humanity's exploration of nature. From contemplating the origin and form of the world, to reflecting on the existence of the self, to exploring what constitutes a good society, to pondering virtue and the good, to methods of knowing the world, and culminating in the establishment of a grand system of modern science, this entire journey is imbued with humanistic spirit and care. Those who truly understand the essence of science are also those who possess humanistic concern for the world and humanity itself. In a letter to his daughter, Einstein wrote, "There is an inexhaustible source of energy that science has not yet found a reasonable explanation for. This is a vital force that contains and governs everything else. And it lies behind any phenomenon in the workings of the universe, even those we haven't defined yet. This vital force is called 'love'." This epistemological view transcends the realm of natural science, ascending from an understanding of natural science to a deeper insight into the workings behind the universe. This insight, of course, arises naturally from reflections on the laws of science and aesthetic consciousness, leading to humanistic associations and understanding. In our current era, the order of magnitude of our scientific laws in terms of length is the Planck length: 10^-35 meters; in terms of time, it's the Planck time: 10^-44 seconds; and in terms of the macroscopic universe, it's defined in the order of billions of light-years. If we can, like Einstein, ascend from deep scientific understanding to an understanding of the humanistic values of the world, we can appreciate the beautiful words of William Blake in "Auguries of Innocence": "To see a world in a grain of sand; And a heaven in a wild flower; Hold infinity in the palm of your hand; And eternity in an hour." Cultivating a scientific and humanistic temperament with philosophical depth not only allows us to appreciate beauty in different fields but also makes us more eager to pursue beauty.

Our Attitude: Why Lifelong Learning?

Einstein once said, "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself part of the liberation and foundation of inner security." These philosophical words advise us to break free from certain constraints, and this process of liberation allows us to understand the world more deeply. Therefore, regardless of the nature of science (certain or uncertain), our reading and learning are inherently worthwhile. Reading and learning allow us to engage in constant dialogue with great minds and gain a better understanding of both the external world and our inner selves. Therefore, as Socrates said, an unexamined life is not worth living. Let us, through reading and learning, think more deeply and become wise individuals. In the lecture, I shared a cartoon with everyone. It depicts three people. The first person is standing on the earth, with a sky full of blue clouds and white clouds. The second person is standing on a stack of books, seeing dark clouds. The third person is standing on a thick pile of books, and their eyes meet the beautiful sunlight above the clouds. This cartoon, in another sense, serves as a summary of my report. When we only know certain science, we believe it to be the true face of the world, everything is certain, and we need not worry. After reading and learning, we come to understand uncertain science, we understand the limitations of human knowledge, we realize that our current understanding of the essence of the world is far from complete. We are bewildered, helpless, even afraid, leading some to abandon the pursuit of knowledge, to give up the pursuit of an ideal world. But others continue on the journey of reading and learning. Those who persevere on this path see hope. As Emily Dickinson describes in her poem: “Hope” is the thing with feathers / That perches in the soul / And sings the tune without the words / And never stops at all. Let us hope that we will step out of the cave physically, and our minds will step out of the cave as well, understanding the essence of science and the reflections it presents. Kant wrote in "Critique of Practical Reason": "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." This also reflects humanity's pursuit of the good and the beautiful for thousands of years.

With this, I have essentially compiled a written version of the reports I have given over the past year. I have worked overseas for nearly 20 years and have worked at universities in China for nearly eight years. During this time, I have spent a lot of time doing educational services and reflecting on related matters. I often tell students that before setting our sights on grand aspirations, we must first strengthen our minds, gain wisdom and strength through reading and learning. Only when we are not easily defeated by immediate difficulties can we better help others and serve society. The sweetness that flows from our hearts will bear beautiful fruit for others. During the Mussar movement in the 19th century, a rabbi recounted his experiences: "At first, I wanted to change the world, but I failed. I decided to shrink my dream and just try to influence the Jewish community in Poland, but I failed there as well. Later, I focused my goals on my hometown of Reading, but I didn't achieve much success. So, I poured all my energy into changing my own family, but I also failed. Finally, I decided to change myself." The change here is not about following the crowd but about strengthening oneself through learning. When I share this with young people for them to contemplate, more thoughts remain in my mind, prompting me to read and learn even more. I believe this is the greatest harvest of my eight years of work in my homeland, worth recording.