1
发表于 2012-10-28 08:20:46 由 jake
 

时间: 2012年11月11日 周日 14:30 - 17:30               

地点: 叁号会所

讲稿: ../files/201211130821_talknov11.pdf

视频: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDg2MTMxNDU2.html,http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDg2MTI1NjYw.html 

主讲人:Bertrand Roehner (法国巴黎大学)

主要内容:
首先,我们需要清楚的是,科学进步和技术进步是不同的。科学研究的一个主要特征是:需要用恰当的实验向自然询问简单的问题。

如果我们清楚了它们的区别,就会发现,实际上在历史上,这种真正的科学进步没有发生过几次,也就是古希腊以及16世纪的欧洲的科学革命。

为了展示我们应该如何询问自然问题,我将现场给大家展示一个球型摆的实验(也就是,这个摆锤的质量保持在球面上)。如果试验精度足够高,我们就能测量出地球运行的角速度。事实上,地球运转的角速度有多种旋转构成,例如,如图所示的两种方式。

总而言之,如果试验设计合适,自然会给出清晰的答案,这将会给我们提供更深刻的洞察。相反,如果试验设计得不合适,那么不会有清晰的答案浮现。在这个方面来说,一个重要的因素就是相对于信号层面的“噪音”有多大,如果噪音太大(例如对于很多社会现象正是如此),那么我们不会得到清晰的规律。

中国非常适合进行科学研究,有三个主要原因:
i) 有很多的人接受过高等教育;
ii) 很擅长团队合作和协同;
iii) 从历史上来说,中国人很擅长作细致而认真的工作。
这最后两个因素对于试验研究特别重要。然而,现代西方科学界的组织方式却是朝着相反的方向努力的,也就是说一方面强调个体的、竞争而不是合作的方式,另一方面强调理论而非试验。这就是为什么我一直强调在西方国家的“游戏规则”设定下,中国人很难发挥他们的全部优势的。

也许在我的讲座结束的时候,我们可以对这个问题进一步进行探讨。我不得不承认我非常希望听到你的想法。


First I will explain why, in my opinion, one should make a distinction between technical and scientific progress. One of the main features of scientific inquiries consists in asking Nature simple questions through appropriate experiments.
If we keep this distinction in mind, we will see that in the course of history there have been only few periods marked by real scientific progress. Basically, they were limited to Ancient Greece and to the
period following the so-called scientific revolution in Europe in the late 16th century. In order to illustrate how we can submit questions to Nature, I will perform an experiment involving a spherical pendulum (i.e. a pendulum whose mass remains on the surface of a sphere). When done with high accuracy this experiment allows us to measure the angular velocity of the Earth. In fact, I should rather say, the angular velocities for the Earth has indeed several movements of rotation, two of which are illustrated below.
Earth-Sun system: T=365 days Rotation of the Earth’s axis: T=20,000 years This is part of an ongoing research which was started by Prof. Yang of the “Beijing University of Post and Telecommunication” and about which I would be glad to get your advice.
In a general way, Nature will provide clear answers to well designed experiments which in turn will give us a better insight into the phenomenon under investigation. On the contrary, if the experiments are not well designed nothing clear will emerge. In this respect an important factor is the level of “noise” respective to the signal-level. If the noise is too important (as is so often the case for social phenomena) no clear law will emerge.
China has three major assets for scientific research.
i) A highly educated population.
ii) A wonderful aptitude for teamwork, cooperation and synergy.
iii) A long tradition for meticulous and careful work.
The last two factors are especially important for experimental research. However, the present organization of scientific research in western countries is based on principles which go in the opposite direction, namely individualism and competition instead of cooperation on the one-hand and predom-inance of theory over experimental work on the other hand. That is why I have the feeling that by accepting to follow the rules of the “game” set by Western countries, China may not be able to take full advantage of its own assets.
Perhaps we can discuss this point further at the end of my lecture. I must confess that I would be curious to hear your opinion.

主讲人介绍:
演讲人简介:
Bertrand M. Roehner教授1982年在巴黎大学获博士学位,1982年-1994年任巴黎大学讲师和高级讲师,1995年至今任巴黎大学教授,在理论物理、统计物理和金融物理相关领域是国际著名的专家。他很早就致力于物理学和社会、经济领域的交叉研究工作,在经济物理学和社会物理学领域做出了不少有影响的工作。进入社会和经济物理学交叉研究领域后,他曾经成为多个世界著名学术机构的高级客座学者,包括以下主要学术经历:
 1994年和1998年,美国哈佛大学经济学系;
 1996年,丹麦哥本哈根经济学研究所;
 2002年,美国Santa Fe研究所;
 2002年,美国哈佛大学社会学系;
 2003和2005年,美国布克海文国家实验室(Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL))
2012-2022 www.swarma.org, all rights reserved