Walking

三聚氰胺是个明星分子了，不是因为它在Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.封面秀过，而是因为它引发了中国出口食口安全的全球性关注——那年，中国饲料毒死了美国猫猫，就是加了这玩意儿。

当时我厚脸无耻地以一个chemist自居地去看了好多报道，特别记得在有一篇报道中很多饲料厂的人都说多新鲜啊加这玩意儿有什么奇怪的——都加的啊！

三聚氰胺的最初牺牲者是美国猫猫而不是中国农民这一点我一直不知道应该引以为豪还是引以为耻……

加这虾米胺的动机好像没别的，都是为了提高产品的含氮量。这一点我非常困惑，是不是现在的生物化学和分析化学仍然处于这么落后的水平吗？测量产品的 蛋白质含量还是用古老的定氮法吗？蛋白质含量能跟含氮量等同吗？起码应该搞个screening或者生物芯片什么的啊。肽链能不能PCR的？PCR一下 label一下都比定氮要强吧？有没有做质检的人跟我讲一下呢？照我这个伪化学家的理解，这种方法土到无以复加的地步了。

不过也是，土就土呗，干嘛要改进？改进了好多人就没钱入口袋了。大把人希望它土下去，永远地土下去……

你们不随时准备下一秒进入求生不得求死不得的境界的咩？难怪小小事情就要宗教。宗教可以免去你人做任何思想准备的麻烦，反正明天车祸高位截瘫也是上天旨意，当然失恋都很高兴啦。真是应了一句话，少壮不努力，老大徒伤悲。

经过这几天我发现让太多人太了解自己真的很不好。一贯以来的收藏方针应该一如既往地贯彻下去。一下子就告别两人，马上就重新回到真正的一个人了。开学我是住哪儿来着？MSN没有聊天纪录，靠！不怕，我自己打电话去学院再问一次。然后找胡小波帮我问问研二楼下阿姨的电话。一切都自己解决，就可以免去“搭讪”或说难听点“犯贱”的嫌疑。做人光是问心无愧是没有用的，要做到连嫌疑都没有。

一可以入宿，我就第一时间收拾东西，第一时间call老爸，第一时间进去，第一时间交150块端口费，第一时间布置好我的小音响，第一时间播放勃一（钢协也好交响曲也好全部照杀）。为我重新回到一个人而庆祝！

想想可真有些兴奋！

Why science is like this, not that

Date:

Saturday, 30 Aug ust 2008 - 13:26 GMT

One day I came across something called ‘Null Physics’. I didn’t say that the following content is in any way related to ‘Null Physics’.

If a person creates a huge theory which unfortunately is not science, he/she cannot help it by defining a new science or by seeking supports from eastern philosophy before we agree with him/her and re-examine all the old science in the new way. The current cyclic experiment-induction-hypothesis-deduction-experiment rote of modern science is not the convention or interest exclusively of the west. This is not any nation’s own interest, but is for the sake of the reliability of knowledge. We (all human beings) now agree that knowledge is the most reliable it can be if it is the product of such cycle. If anytime we doubt about the reliability, a modification of the cycle or a new better procedure for more reliable knowledge is then expected, no matter from the east or the west. Currently we are well satisfied with this version of cycle. That’s why people don’t rely on TCM or ‘alternative treatments’.

The cycle must start with experiment. We don’t think about anything if we are blind and deaf and anything that’s paralytic. We think because we observe things. So thought starts only from observation, or experiment if human designed procedure is involved. We don’t start thinking from anything that’s not observed or practiced, for example, God, Zen, or anything alike. I mean we don’t do so as science. So if anyone do so it is not science. It does not prevent them to be philosophy or religion, though.

Even though we have a lot of the observed, knowledge should be a full name of judge if it is useful. In other words, the subject of the knowledge should be a collective noun, eg. ‘women’ rather than ‘my aunt, Jane’. But we never observe ‘women’. We only observe cases of women. So to bridge between experiments (flirting with many women) and useful knowledge (that says ‘All women are such an such’), we need different extent of induction. Here we have to first believe one thing, that the world works in logic, and to admit another, that induction is always illogical.

So the product of induction is not truth but what we called temporarily hypothesis which must subjected to further experiments. We don’t experiment on the hypothesis alone but also its deductions which are its logical products whose errors therefore immediately disprove the original hypothesis while whose correctness do not necessarily prove the original hypothesis. We are familiar with all these rules.

Therefore we know that we can never get the most reliable form of knowledge – truth. The product of the above mentioned procedure is still the most reliable ever possible not because we induce things from experiment in a safe way, but because we never stop testing what’s induced and always ready to disprove them. We do, however, care very much in the process of induction to maximize the possibility that the induction is widely applied. Bad inducing technique often produces products that are easily disproved. However, blaming the flaws in the inducing process of science does not harm the scientific conclusion if the latter is still standing against all experimental results.

Also, for different people to experiment on the one same argument, we need terms which is logically defined in an existing context so that when one argues about ‘women’ for example, all people should know what he/she is actually talking about, deduce correctly from that argument, and prevent experimenting on the wrong subject (men). If the terms in an argument is neither defined nor defined in an existing context the argument is neither understandable nor practical.

Maybe the only thing that is a belief in science is that the world works in logic. We define terms logically, induce logically, hypothesize logically, deduce logically, and design experiment logically. I cannot find any other reasons for this except that we believe the world works in logic. Anyone who doesn’t believe in this doesn’t believe in science, either, and is therefore impossible to ‘do’ any science.

大家好！我系郑裕玲。

理所当然的事情有两种，一种是自己做的，一种是人家做的。自己能做的理所当然的事情，为什么要看人家脸色才做？要人家做的理所当然的事情那个人没做，为什么不88？

“人家做的理所当然的事情”本身也有问题。人家做的事情理不理所当然当然是根据对方的标准了你怎么敢这么确定？或者既然你这么确定，那他没做的话你第一时间88就好了。

那种牵挂的心情是哪儿来的？就是在期望人家做并不理所当然的事情。于是我就不明白了，如果并不是理所当然的事情，那人家爱做不做，做了就做了，没做就没做。怨天可以难免，但怎好意思尤人？——好像那是理所当然的事情似的。如果是理所当然的事情，我说过了，那你就不会产生某种特殊的牵挂。

自然而然，神是为这种心理度身定造的东西。神专做像理所当然似的非理所当然之事，事既非理所当然，其理却一套套，“当然”得很。

使这一切变得这么无趣的不是我，而是那种心理。所谓宗教体验其实就是幻觉。在爱情中讲幻觉，反而最没有感觉，它使得世上除了对等的爱就是欺骗。

而世界上对等的爱几乎没有。

而如果说凡是和她人配对就注定是一方骗另一方，我才不希望是我骗对人。什么都可以让，道德制高点决不能让。怎么死都没所谓，只要问心无愧。和其他各种比赛一样，在“谁更爱谁”的比赛中，胜者为王败者为寇。

愿花一生等待一人为我打破这荒谬的爱情逻辑。