What kind of scientific quality benchmark for the Chinese people-science and education-IT information

On April 18, the Ministry of science and technology, the Central propaganda Department jointly issued the Chinese citizen's scientific literacy benchmarks (hereinafter referred to as the base), did not want a stone arouses thousand waves.

On April 23, 8 academics such as Chen xuelei signed articles published online in science, raise has some deficiencies of the benchmark. Subsequently, more active discussion of the benchmarks.

"Yin" entry of the benchmark is appropriate? What are benchmarks of the conceptual confusion? Scholars have suggested that the error is in the error is on the scientific problem? China does not need scientific investigation? What the results of such a debate?

According to international practice, scientific quality surveys by the philosophy of science, sociology of science, history of science scholars drafted, therefore, reporter for the benchmark of argument the question of interviewing scholars.

Chinese Academy of Sciences University Professor Li daguang:

To be in line with China's national conditions survey

Li was one of the earliest United States scholar Miller (Jon d. Miller) of the United States citizen's scientific literacy survey introduction to native scholars, in the 90 's he hosted a number of citizen's scientific literacy in China investigation. For this type of investigation he had his own thoughts.

Before actually doing your research, you should first figure out what are the scientific quality. Li told reporters that the problem had had for more than 50 years in Europe, America and other countries have discussed, by the middle of the 80 's of the last century, valuable papers reaches more than 300 papers. Scholar thinks, scientific investigation from their own country's nature and development stage, design a suitable test to measure their scientific quality. In other words, each country according to its national circumstances form a line with their own national and social development degree index system of investigation and testing issues.

An important part of China's apparent lack of academic discussion. Early 90 's of the last century, chose Miller's system is the Miller investigation has its own thoughts on scientific quality, content is quite comprehensive, his survey to more than 40 countries of the world in adopting. The other hand, domestic research institutions was very long for a survey of the quality of Chinese public, "needy". Introduction to home, only minor changes were made.

"China should work out a scientific quality benchmarks in line with China's national conditions. "Li daguang said. Therefore, from this point of view, he is supporting the development of the Chinese citizen's scientific quality benchmarks that suits China, "before discussing the good and bad, right and wrong, only to say that this is a positive and valuable."

Although was not involved in the Ministry of science and technology work of the base, but after the controversy, Li also were thinking about the problem.

"There is a very important issue, the crux of the problem is the public understanding of science. "Li said that development of scientific quality benchmarks, formulated with the participation of the majority of scientists and policy makers. First thing to understand is public science literacy benchmarks should be "scientists of science" or "public science"? Discussion everyone draws a line from the West's point of view is, the average person has a basic understanding of science can, rather than scientists, scientific quality benchmarks.

"So, what public science literacy is the basis? This goes back to the topic discussed just now, that is the need to set the country's economic development consistent, level of education, such as investigations, it is appropriate, and is worth investigating. "Li daguang said.

From this aspects again to study this debate, although benchmark in the some expressed not special accurate, but question of thought is no problem of, like United States of test in the on including electronic than Atomic small, and we breathing of oxygen from Yu plant, and earth around Sun turned, and radiation does not are is human of, and land has been in mobile and will continues to mobile, similar such of topics, "public only need understand to atomic this level on can has, didn't necessary know deeper of as Quark like of content. "Li explains.

"We must grasp this degree, this is the boundary issues. "Li believes that scientists participating in the discussion is best to learn what science is public.

This caused controversy, Li said it is a good thing, because China has been a long time, into a discussion of the scale of the public understanding of science. The other hand, he wanted to expand this discussion continues, reason, and eventually reach a consensus, and form a set of science literacy benchmarks in line with China's national conditions.

Centre for science communication Liu huajie, a professor at Beijing University:

Science literacy for all investigations are not in line with international trend

Liu huajie advocated in recent years Renaissance natural history, with his many years in the philosophy of science, science communication, scientific and sociological studies are not unrelated. He thinks some science is not meant to spread easily, nor ordinary people-oriented communication, such as quantum mechanics, elementary particle physics, such as gravitational waves. Media and ordinary people talking about gravitational waves, booing is. Instead, the Science Museum-related content, you need to spread, spread, countries should be given due attention. For critical thinking, scientific methods of communication, should be the focus, and inadequate attention to formal education and science now on this.

With regard to the benchmarks, said Liu huajie, the overall impression is an improvement, should be fully affirmed. Some references are good, such as datum points (21) (22) refers to technology is not always able to anticipate the consequences of, this is science, technology and society, can enter the benchmark is not easy.

It cannot be denied that the base also has a number of small problems, it has been pointed out that some, but not too exaggerated. Liu huajie believes that first of all is the overall standard is relatively high, reminiscent of the recent online China Rules for Primary School Students. In addition, some articles do not belong to the scientific quality range, like the public to understand innovation, to support innovation, this is overblown. "Public support for science and innovation is the quality of value judgments, some people may understand science and technology, quality is also good, but for other reasons do not support innovation, or does not support a certain type of innovation, this is possible, understandably, citizens have this right. Some people happen to be as in-depth understanding of technology risks and inhuman (such as murder weapons development) to combat attitudes. Innovation does not mean that there is no scientific quality is not supported. "Said Liu huajie, similar references in some of the benchmarks, meaning equivalent to saying: because the technology is good, the public should be supported, which makes no sense in logic. Even if it is good, it may not be supported, besides some obvious bad.

Other issue is the relationship between science literacy and science. Can know from the notification of the base, which is aimed at all citizens. Liu huajie think people actually scientific quality is basically determined by the degree of formal education.

In short, formal education is better science and technology also is high, and extracurricular education is not very large, although there is little relationship. It is clear from the fact that, however this conclusion with some departments ' main demands conflict of interest, so others often hide it. More importance is attached to the door of the baseline knowledge, branch was even stressed that this is not necessary. Relative to all kinds of knowledge, critical thinking, mastery of the scientific method should be judging an important aspect of public scientific literacy.

For the moment of controversy "yin" in the benchmarks, Liu huajie says very good, indicated that drafters of science had improved. Yin and Yang is China standard scientific and full of wisdom, now though it does not count as science, but from the perspective of traditional public understanding of yin and Yang is. Say it is pseudoscience, is equivalent to denying the dynamic development in the history of science. If the benchmarks are large enough, happens to be the science of wrong and evolution of stress is not enough. According to Popper's views can be wrong is the quality of science, is an important feature of science. The benchmark should be designed to emphasize evolution in history of science, it should be noted that scientific knowledge, scientific findings and of a temporary nature of human, which a certain historical stage is based on the collective belief of scientific community. This does not conflict with scientific objectivity, scientific objectivity is also reflected in the main room, is a sign of collective faith.

Investigation on scientific quality itself, Liu huajie have different points of view. He said, for all citizens which is obsolete and is not in line with current international trends. Now the international trend towards PISA (program for international student assessment), the only test for students on completion of compulsory education to 15 years without investigation of the whole society. PISA tests students after the completion of one phase of the compulsory education level. China has been involved in over a year.

"This test has a good world to a ages tested, and easy to compare. "Liu huajie said that instead of people of different age levels of the test.

Drafted by the disciplinary background of what scholars of the benchmark, Liu huajie said this should be by the philosophy of science, sociology of science, history of science scholars do, appropriate participation of scientists, but not the subject.

For the debate, said Liu huajie, usually there is so little concern about scientific things, discussion is indeed a good thing. "Discussions Visual angle, the more the better, say, do not rush to force consensus. As long as we actively discussed, was successful. ”

Jiang Xiaoyuan, Dean of science at Shanghai Jiao Tong University history:

Scientific literacy is not encyclopedic knowledge of science competition

After Jiang Xiaoyuan in the rough of the benchmark, outside of 8 scientists criticize scientific mishap, think, there are more bruising. Such as a datum point "known nuclear accidents, radioactivity of nuclear waste and other hazards can be controlled", which is obviously not true. Because the world is not a proper way to dispose of nuclear waste, how can we call "risk control"? He said that if the words "Recognizing that nuclear waste is a difficult issue", which can be called scientific qualities. Similar problems can also be found.

And was criticized by many scholars to be the "yin", some scholars now to defend it. He said that in the datum point on the set, he was in favour of setting technique has a problem. Because of this setting was instilled with the public clash of ideas is too large. "In the past tells us ' yin ' superstitious and now tells us that this is ' scientific qualities ', of course, people can not accept. Of course people will find fault. ”

Jiang Xiaoyuan noted that 132 basis points in a datum point related to Chinese medicine, namely (87) is a traditional Chinese medical treatment of traditional Chinese medicine, compared with Western medicine has its own advantages. "Today, a man of scientific quality, sure to face a question: what do you think of Chinese medicine? Is the yin and Yang theory of traditional Chinese medicine, the theory system of medical care for the health of the Chinese people for thousands of years, is highly effective. Effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine is undeniable, it can't support system to superstition, in short. ”

Jiang Xiaoyuan said that apart from the point on the issue of the benchmarks the most important issues in the "guidelines on the limitations of" an incomplete understanding of scientific quality. Set as Datum point too much scientific knowledge of the basic points, encyclopedia of science knowledge competition of scientific quality. Scientific knowledge is only part of scientific literacy, scientific quality has many very important part, including how to correctly treat science, including recognizing the limitations of science, science of a negative value, including that today a lot of science behind the controversy is a dimension of interest, including the scientific community but also a community of interests, and so on.

Having said that, Jiang Xiaoyuan couldn't help but a joy, "if so, you can imagine, it is will be out picking. I want to say is that the discussion itself was good, the benchmark came out, 8 scientists took the lead in opening this discussion makes sense if all discussions of scientific knowledge can improve the quality of, can deepen this ' crabbing ' is very valuable. "

Director of China Association for science and technology-dissemination and popularization of science and technology of Tsinghua University Liu Bing:

Considering the international consensus should start with basic education philosophy of the benchmark

Liu Bing said the focus of controversy, some scientific errors, is the most typical problem is definitely failures. But there's some debate is open to debate. Discussion of the benchmarks, we must first clear of a background – set the benchmark, it is a citizen-oriented and not a scientist, it is country-oriented public rather than the public around the world.

Because of citizen-oriented, is basic education category. Basic education necessary to the full scientific frontier? Can a rigorous and comprehensive picture of the frontiers of science? Liu Bing thought, generally speaking, not made "Chinese people should be aware of the Western frontier of scientific knowledge".

He said, some scientists by questioned of a article, (45) know molecular, and Atomic is constitute material of particles, all material are is by Atomic composition, Atomic can combined into molecular, "this a article should said in oriented public of requirements Shang is can accept of, citizens also no necessary in most basic of quality requirements in the are to to understand even scientists are also in discussion and explained not clear of dark material, and dark energy. ”

Another point of contention is about the "yin and Yang five elements, heaven, Scientia". Liu Bing said, the debate reflects different views and different position of science. Has foreign scholars from eight basic science education standards of international scientific literature and summarize the consensus views of the nature of science, including articles: scientific knowledge is diverse, with temporary character; people from all cultural backgrounds to contribute to the scientific and science is part of the social and cultural traditions.

"In such an understanding, of the base of the ' yin and Yang five elements, heaven, Scientia ' in datum point, taking into account the factor of Chinese culture, not copy Western scientific base, I don't think this is a step forward. As a Chinese, you should be aware that Western science is only one type of science, history and culture, China is a unique tradition of understanding nature. "Liu Bing said.

Science and Director of the Humanities Research Center of Beijing Normal University Liu Xiaoting:

Need to clarify the scope of scientific quality

Liu Xiaoting believes that any discussion of the benchmarks is a good thing, some scholars have proposed a number of issues, attracted the attention of more people, and this is a step forward.

After he saw the benchmark, think there are several issues definitely worth discussing.

Is that too much emphasis and prominent ideologies, such as (6) with universal connection, development of views understanding and solving problems. Liu Xiaoting says: "who can achieve such a high standard? "There are (32) know that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. "This is a concept or ideology instead of science literacy benchmarks, nothing to do with science. ”

Second, humanistic ethics of inclusion in scientific quality. For example, using a variety of materials, use less disposable. Without discarding or dumping of wastes into the water. "These are moral and culture questions, like ' regular repairs and maintenance vehicles ' such is the inclusion of normative requirements, is a generalization of scientific quality. "Liu Xiaoting said.

Third, the confusion of the sort. 26 basis, (6) and (7) are related to ecological civilization, content relevant to the effective use of resources, (26) and pollution of the environment, the rational utilization of land and water resources.

"In the opinion of scholars proposed ' production and daily life should have the knowledge or skills, but many of them are content with the usual scientific quality and said there is no direct relationship ', which I do not think you can seriously, because also contains practical abilities of scientific quality. "Liu Xiaoting said.

As regards the debate about "yin", and Liu Xiaoting believes that this statement inaccurate, if changed to "know yin, harmony, Scientia, such as traditional knowledge and methods, they coordinate with modern scientific knowledge and methods to" might be better, as long as you don't say the word was so full it can be, "because actually be talking about each other's relationships. And the key is an inaccurate conclusions from the last sentence, that is the problem. "

Liu Xiaoting concluded that rather than focus too much on the base itself, rather than ask a question, so what the benchmarks in place. "Now, discussion of the benchmarks so warmly, but without a body or person came forward to explain and take responsibility, then why are they launching of the benchmark, what is the purpose? ' National science literacy benchmarks ' such a big thing, should be widely consulted and fully discussed and expert sign must be developed for and providing a description of the text, instead of hiding in the ivory tower "sneaky". Now preparation of benchmarks in a top down manner, and then hastily introduced, serious enough, an anachronistic manifestations. ”

中国人需要什么样的科学素质基准 - 科学,教育 - IT资讯

4月18日，科技部、中宣部联合印发《中国公民科学素质基准》（下文简称《基准》），不曾想一石激起千层浪。

4月23日，陈学雷等8位学者在科学网上发表署名文章，提出《基准》存在一些不妥之处。随后，对《基准》的讨论愈加热烈。

“阴阳五行”等进入《基准》是否合适？《基准》存在哪些概念上的混乱？学者提出的科学上的错误是真的错误还是表述问题？中国需要不需要全民科学素质调查？这样一场争论会带来什么样的结果？

按照国际惯例，科学素质调查一般由科学哲学、科学社会学、科学史学者起草，因此，本报记者针对《基准》争论比较大的问题采访了相关学者。

中国科学院大学教授李大光：

要有符合中国国情的调查

李大光是国内最早将美国学者米勒（Jon D. Miller）做的美国公民科学素质调查引进到国内的学者，上世纪90年代起他就主持过多次中国公民科学素质调查。对这类调查他有自己的思考。

其实在做调查之前，首先应当弄清楚科学素质是什么。李大光告诉记者，这个问题曾在欧美等国家有过长达50年的讨论，到上世纪80年代中期，有价值的相关论文达到300多篇。学者们比较一致地认为，科学素质调查要从自己国家的性质和所处的发展阶段出发，设计出适合测度本国科学素质的测试题。也就是说，各个国家是要根据国情形成一套符合自己国家和社会发展程度的调查指标体系和测试问题。

而中国明显缺了学术讨论的重要的环节。上个世纪90年代初，当初选择米勒的体系，一是米勒对科学素质调查有自己的思考，内容也比较全面，他的调查为世界40多个国家采纳。另一方面，当时国内研究机构非常渴望对中国公众素质有个调查，就“饥不择食”地采用了。引进到国内，只作了小的改动。

“中国应当研究出一套符合当下中国国情的科学素质基准。”李大光认为。因此，从这个角度来看，他是支持制定适合中国国情的《中国公民科学素质基准》的，“先不谈好与不好，对与错，只单说这种做法是值得肯定的，有价值的”。

虽然没有参与这次科技部组织的《基准》的工作，但在争论发生后，李大光也在思考其中存在的问题。

“这里面有个很重要的问题，也是公众理解科学最核心的问题。”李大光说，制定各种的科学素质基准，参与制定的应该多数是科学家和政策制定者。首先要搞清楚的是，公众的科学素质基准应该是“科学家的科学”还是“公众的科学”？从西方国家的讨论中大家得出比较一致的观点是，普通百姓对科学有基本的了解就可以了，而不是科学家的科学素质基准。

“那么，什么是公众科学素质的基准呢？这又回到刚才的话题，那就是必须有一套与这个国家经济发展、教育程度等相符合的调查，这才是适合的，也是值得调查了解的。”李大光表示。

从这方面再去考察这次争论，虽然《基准》中有些表述不是特别准确，但出题的思路是没有问题的，像美国的测试中就包括电子比原子小、我们呼吸的氧气来自于植物、地球围着太阳转、辐射并不都是人为的、陆地一直在移动并将继续移动等类似这样的题目，“公众只需要了解到原子这个层面就可以了，没必要知道更深的如夸克之类的内容。”李大光解释说。

“一定要把握这个度，这就是界线问题了。”李大光认为，科学家在参与讨论之前最好要了解公众的科学是什么。

对此次引发的争论，李大光表示这是好事，因为此前中国还没有过一次长时间的、成规模的对公众理解科学的讨论。另一方面，他希望这个讨论能够持续、理性地展开，最终达到共识，并形成一套符合中国国情的科学素质基准。

北京大学科学传播中心教授刘华杰：

全民科学素质调查不符合国际趋势

刘华杰近些年倡导复兴博物学，这与他多年在科学哲学、科学传播、科学社会学上的研究不无关系。他认为有些科学注定不容易传播的，也不必面向普通百姓传播，比如量子力学、基本粒子物理学、引力波之类。媒体、普通百姓大谈引力波，纯属起哄。相反，科学当中涉及博物的内容，需要传播，也能传播，国家应给予重视。对于批判性思维、科学方法的传播，应当成为重点，而现在的正规教育和科普对此重视不够。

对于《基准》，刘华杰表示，总体印象是有进步的，应当充分肯定。有些提法比较好，比如基准点的（21）（22）条提到技术的后果并非都是能够预期到的，这属于科学技术与社会方面，能进入《基准》非常不容易。

不可否认，《基准》也有若干小问题，人们已经指出一些，但不宜夸大。刘华杰认为，首先是整体上看标准比较高，令人想起不久前网上热议的中国小学生守则。另外，有些内容不属于科学素质考察范围，比如公众要理解创新还要支持创新，这有些过分。“公众是否支持科学创新属于素质之外的价值判断，有的人可能理解科学技术，素质也不错，但是基于别的原因而不支持创新，或者不支持某一类创新，这是可能的、可以理解的，公民有这个权利。有些人恰好是因为深入了解了某些科技的风险和不人道（如杀人武器研发）而采取抵制的态度。不支持创新不等于说没有科学素质。”刘华杰说，类似的提法在《基准》中还有一些，意思相当于说：因为科技是好的，公众就应该支持，这在逻辑上讲不通。即使都是好的，也未必都要支持，况且有些明显不好。

另一个是科学素质与科普的关系问题。从《基准》的通知可以知道，其内容是针对全体公民的。刘华杰认为实际上百姓科学素质的高低基本上是由所受正规教育的程度决定的。

简单说，接受正规教育较好科技素质也就高，这与课外的教育关系不很大，虽然有一点点关系。这是显然的事实，但是此结论与某些利益部门的主要诉求矛盾，因而有的人经常掩饰这一点。《基准》比较重视各门知识，甚至还分科作了强调，这样做不必要。相对于各种知识，批判性思维、科学方法的掌握程度，应当是判别公众科学素质高低的重要方面。

对于当下争论比较大的将“阴阳五行”等列入《基准》，刘华杰表示非常好，表明起草人的科学观有了改进。阴阳五行是中国那时标准的科学，极富智慧，现在它虽然不能算作科学，但是从继承传统的角度看让公众了解阴阳五行是应当的。把它说成是伪科学，相当于否定了科学在历史上的动态发展。如果说此《基准》有较大不足的话，恰好是对科学的可错性、演化性的强调不够。按波普尔的看法，可错性是科学的优良品质，是科学的一个重要特征。《基准》中应当有专条来强调科学在历史上是演化的，应当指出科学知识、科学结论的暂时性和人为性，它们以一定历史阶段科学共同体的集体信念为基础。这与科学的客观性并不矛盾，科学的客观性也同样体现于主体间性，是集体信念的表征。

对科学素质调查本身，刘华杰有不同的观点。他表示，面向全体公民这种调查已过时，不符合现在国际的流行趋势。现在国际趋势是PISA（国际学生评估项目），只针对对完成义务教育的15岁的学生进行测试，不做全社会的调查。PISA是测试学生在完成了一个阶段的义务教育后的水准。中国曾参与过一年。

“这种测试有一个好处，全世界只对一个年龄段的人测试，容易进行比较。”刘华杰说，而不是对不同年龄不同程度的人测试。

对于《基准》由什么学科背景的学者起草，刘华杰说这主要应当是由科学哲学、科学社会学、科学史学者来做，科学家可适当参与，但不应是主体。

对于此次争论，刘华杰表示，平时人们很少这么关注科学的事，能讨论的确是一件好事。“讨论的视角越多元越好，大家畅所欲言，不要急于强行达成共识。只要大家积极讨论，就成功了。”

上海交通大学科学史系主任江晓原：

科学素质不是科学百科常识竞赛

江晓原在粗读了《基准》后，认为除了8位科学家批评的科学硬伤外，还有更多的硬伤。比如有一个基准点“知道核电站事故、核废料的放射性等危害是可控的”，这明显不符合事实。因为全世界都没有找到妥善处理核废料的方法，如何能叫“风险可控”呢？他说，如果改为“认识到核电中核废料是一个棘手的问题”，这才叫科学素质。类似的问题还可以找出一些。

而被很多学者所诟病的是“阴阳五行”，现在也有一些学者出来为之辩护。他说，在这个基准点的设置上，他是赞成的，但设置技巧性有问题。因为这样设置跟公众过去被灌输的观念冲突太大。“以前告诉我们‘阴阳五行’是迷信，现在又告诉我们这是‘科学素质’，当然让人接受不了。当然会被人挑毛病。”

江晓原注意到，132个基准点里有一个基准点涉及到了中医，即（87）了解中医药是中国传统医疗手段，与西医相比各有优势。“今天一个有科学素质的人，肯定会面临一个问题：你怎么看待中医？中医就是用阴阳五行作为理论支撑的，用这个理论支撑的医疗体系呵护了中国人的健康数千年，是卓有成效的。中医有效性不可否认，那它的理论支撑体系就不能以封建迷信一以概之。”

江晓原说，除了点上的问题，《基准》最主要的问题还出在“指导思想的局限性上”，对科学素质的理解有偏差。过多地把基准点设置成科学常识的基本点，把科学素质变成科学百科常识竞赛。其实科学常识只是科学素质的一部分，科学素质还有许多非常重要的部分，包括怎么正确地对待科学，包括要认识到科学的局限性、科学的负面价值，包括认识到当今很多科学争议的背后都是有利益维度的，包括认识科学共同体同时也是利益共同体，等等。

说到这些，江晓原忍不住一乐，“如果设置成这样，可以想见，那也是会被拿出来挑刺的。我想说的是，引起讨论本身是好的，《基准》出来后，8位科学家率先开启的这场讨论很有意义，如果大家通过讨论，对科学素质的认识能提高，能深化，这种‘横挑鼻子竖挑眼’就很有价值”。

中国科协—清华大学科技传播与普及研究中心主任刘兵：

应从基础教育理念的国际共识考量《基准》

刘兵认为这次争议的焦点，有的是科学性的错误，最典型的是力的问题，肯定是失误。但还有一些争论却是可以讨论的。讨论《基准》，首先要清楚一个背景——制定《基准》，它面向的是公民而不是科学家，它面向的是国别公众而不是全世界公众。

正因为面向公民，属基础教育范畴。基础教育需不需要全面展现科学前沿？能不能严格、全面地展现科学前沿？刘兵认为，一般来说，无须做成“中国人应该知道的西方前沿科学知识”。

他说，一些科学家所质疑的一条，（45）知道分子、原子是构成物质的微粒，所有物质都是由原子组成，原子可以结合成分子，“这一条应该说在面向公众的要求上是可接受的，公民也没有必要在最基本的素质要求中都要去了解连科学家都还在讨论并且解释不清楚的暗物质、暗能量。”

而另一个争论的焦点，是关于“阴阳五行、天人合一、格物致知”的。刘兵说，争论主要反映了对于科学的不同看法、不同立场。曾有国外学者从八种面向基础科学教育的国际科学标准文献中总结出对科学本质的共识性看法，其中有这样几条：科学知识是多元的，具有暂时特征；来自一切文化背景的人都对科学作出贡献；科学是社会和文化传统的一部分。

“在这样的理解中，《基准》能把‘阴阳五行、天人合一、格物致知’放入基准点，考虑到了中国文化的因素，没有照搬西方科学的基准，我倒认为这是一个进步。作为中国人，应该了解到西方科学只是科学的一种类型，在历史文化中，中国是有独特认识自然的传统。”刘兵说。

北京师范大学科学与人文研究中心主任刘孝廷：

需要厘清科学素质的范围

刘孝廷认为，有人讨论《基准》是件好事，还有学者提出一些问题，引起了更多人的关注和重视，这都是一种进步。

他在看过《基准》后，觉得其中有几方面的问题确实值得商榷。

一是过于强调和突出意识形态，比如（6）用普遍联系的、发展的观点认识问题和解决问题。刘孝廷说：“谁能达到这么高的标准？”还有（32）知道实践是检验真理的唯一标准。“这些是一种观念或意识形态，而不是科学素质的基准，与科学也没有关系。”

二是把伦理的、人文的内容列入科学素质里。例如，节约使用各种材料，少用一次性用品。不往水体中丢弃、倾倒废弃物。“这些是道德和修养的问题，而像‘定期对交通工具进行维修和保养’这样的是把规范性要求列入进来，都是泛化了科学素质。”刘孝廷说。

三是排序上的混乱。26个基准内容，（6）和（7）是有关生态文明、有效利用资源相关内容，到（26）又有环境污染、合理利用土地资源和水资源的内容。

“对于学者意见中提出的‘日常生产、生活应该具备的常识或技能，但其中许多内容与一般所说的科学素质并没有直接的关系’，这一点我倒觉得可以不必较真，因为科学素质也包含了实践能力。”刘孝廷说。

至于争论比较大的“阴阳五行”，刘孝廷认为，这段话表述不准确，如果改成“知道阴阳五行、天人合一、格物致知等中国传统知识内容和方法，它们与现代科学知识和方法可以相互协调”可能更好，只要不把话说太满就可以了，“因为谈论的其实是彼此的相互关系。而最关键的是最后一句下了不准确的结论，这是问题所在”。

刘孝廷最后说，与其过于关注《基准》本身，不如问一问，这样的《基准》究竟是怎样出台的。“现在，《基准》问题讨论得这样热烈，却没有一个机构或人员出面解释和担责，那他们为什么推出《基准》，初衷何在？类似‘国家科学素质基准’这么大的事情，应当广泛地征求意见并进行充分讨论，而且必须有制定的专家签字负责和提供说明文本，而不是躲在象牙塔里“偷偷摸摸”地搞。像现在这样以顶层下降的方式编制《基准》，然后贸然出台，既不够严肃，也是一种不合时宜的表现。”