US News & World Report
Paul Ehrlich
Stanford University
Harvard University
Gerald Holton
Science and Anti-Science


Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, whose manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre-technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest. The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth. Indeed, some observers fear that the anti-science epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. 'The term 'anti-science' can lump together too many, quite different things,' notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science. 'They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.'
将该词用在在美国制造一连串类似炸弹爆炸事件的人身上,也不会引起多大争议,他在1995年公开发表蔑视科学、渴望回到前技术时代的理想社会的声明。当然,这并不意味着,对不加控制的工业发展表示担忧的环保主义者也是反科学的,而去年5月份刊登在《美国新闻和世界报导》的一篇文章却似乎暗示是这么回事。 环保主义者必定会对这些批评做出反应。作为环境研究的先驱者,斯坦福大学的保罗•埃利希认为,科学的真正的敌人是那些对全球变暖、臭氧层稀薄和其他由于工业增长带来的后果的证据提出质疑的人。 的确,一些观察者担心反科学这个称号面临失去意义的危险。“‘反科学’一词可以涵盖很多截然不同的东西”,哈佛大学的哲学家杰拉尔德•霍尔顿在其1993年的著作《科学与反科学》中写道:“它们惟一的共同之处就是会激怒或威胁那些自以为比别人更有见识的人。“