关于这个问题，我想先借用钱学森的一句话开头： “科学研究方法论要是真成了一门死学问，一门严格的科学，一门先生讲学生听的学问，那么大科学家也就可以成批培养，诺贝尔奖也就不稀罕了。”（周林：《科学家论方法》第一辑，内蒙古人民出版社1984年版2页）。 一，从“科学方法”到“反对方法” “科学的万能，科学的普遍，科学的贯通，不在它的材料，在它的方法。”（丁文江：《玄学与科学——评张君劢的〈人生观〉》，见《科学与人生观》，山东人民出版社1997年版41-60页）。 丁文江的这句名言，实际上就是72年后方舟子在那篇抄袭而成的《科学是什么》一文的结尾莫名其妙地加上 “归根结底，科学是一种方法，是战胜愚昧无知的最有力的武器” 这句话的由来。方舟子的无知在于，在丁文江之后，在他抄袭自己的老师之前，所谓科学方法的命运发生了天翻地覆般的变化。 原来，就在“科学方法”如日中天之际，下面这几个关键问题也慢慢地浮出了水面：到底有没有“科学方法”？如果有，它到底是什么？它们对科学发现能起什么作用？ 早在1837年英国历史学家Thomas Macaulay就宣称培根的归纳法与人们日常生活中有意无意的经验总结是一码事儿。此后，著名生物学家赫胥黎也一再强调，所谓的科学方法，不过就是常识（common sense）而已。1854年，赫胥黎在一个讲演中说： “Science is, I believe, nothing but trained and organised common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only so far as the guardsman's cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club.”（Huxley, T. H. SCIENCE AND EDUCATION. American Home Library, 1902. p. 46.）（我认为，科学不过是经过训练和组织的常识而已。它与常识的区别就像是老兵与新兵，它的方法与常识的区别也只是像近卫军的拼刺宰割与野人挥舞大棒。） “So, the vast results obtained by Science are won by no mystical faculties, by no mental processes, other than those which are practised by every one of us, in the humblest and meanest affairs of life. A detective policeman discovers a burglar from the marks made by his shoe, by a mental process identical with that by which Cuvier restored the extinct animals of Montmartre from fragments of their bones.”（出处同上。）（所以，科学所得到的大量结果，并不是通过与我们每个人在日常生活中所使用的方法有什么不同的神秘能力和脑力过程。一个侦探通过脚印找到窃贼，其思维过程与居维叶用蒙马特山灭绝动物的残骸回复骨架是完全相同的。） 1877年，美国实用主义哲学的创始人皮尔士（Charles Sanders Peirce, 1839-1914）也说： “Everybody uses the scientific method about a great many things, and only ceases to use it when he does not know how to apply it.”（Peirce, C. S. Illustrations of the logic of science. THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, Nov. 1877. pp. 1-15.）（每个人都将科学方法用于大量的事情，他们只有在不知道如何应用之时才停止使用科学方法。） 如果说上面对神话、神化科学方法的否定还只是微弱的声音的话，那么，进入二十世纪之后，这个声音就开始逐渐增强。1933年，爱因斯坦在牛津大学讲演“理论物理学的方法”，劈头第一句话就是： “If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achieve-ments. ” （Albert Einstein. IDEAS AND OPINIONS. Translated by Sonja Bargmann. Crown Publishers, 1954. pp. 270-276.）（如果你们想要从理论物理学家那里学习他所使用的方法，那我就给你一个这样的忠告：不要听他们怎么说，而是要看他们怎么做。） 1952年，爱因斯坦在一封信中这样结尾： “There is, of course, no logical way leading to the establishment of a theory but only groping constructive attempts controlled by careful consideration of factual knowledge.”（R. S. Shankland. 1953. A. A. Michelson, 1852-1931. Nature 171:101-103.）（当然，除了通过构造性的尝试和探索——它们只受事实的制约——之外，并不存在一个建立理论的逻辑路线。） 1949年，诺贝尔物理学奖获得者Percy W. Bridgman这么写道： “It seems to me that there is a good deal of ballyhoo about scientific method. I venture to think that the people who talk most about it are the people who do least about it. Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other people or even they themselves may say about it. No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method. When the scientist ventures to criticize the work of his fellow scientist, as is not uncommon, he does not base his criticism on such glittering generalities as failure to follow the ‘scientific method,’ but his criticism is specific, based on some feature characteristic of the particular situation. The working scientist is always too much concerned with getting down to brass tacks to be willing to spend his time on generalities. ” （Bridgman, P. W. Reflections of a Physicist, Philosophical Library, 1955. p. 81.）（在我看来，关于科学方法有着过多的喧嚣成分。我冒昧地认为，宣讲科学方法最多的人，就是那些使用科学方法最少之人。科学方法是那些真正从事科学研究的人所使用的东西，而不是其他人甚至那些科学家们所说的东西。没有哪个真正的科学家在实验室设计实验时，会问自己是否科学，会是否使用了那个方法。当科学家对自己的同行的工作进行批评的时候，这是很常见的，他不会把自己的批评建立在对方没有遵循科学方法这样华而不实的一般化的基础之上，而是有针对性的，就事论事。真正搞研究的科学家总是关注基本事实，他们才不会去把时间浪费在夸夸其谈上面呢。） 到了七十年代，西方科学哲学“四巨头”之一、美国加州大学伯克利大学教授费耶阿本德（Paul Feyerabend, 1924-1994）的《反对方法》（AGAINST METHOD）、《自由社会中的科学》（Science in a Free Society）先后出版。费耶阿本德认为，根本就不存在什么所谓的“科学方法”。导致重大突破的科学研究，多数来自对传统方法的突破。不仅如此，他还认为，强调“科学方法”会限制科学家的创造力，因此阻碍科学的进步。看看他是怎么说的： “Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. ”（Feyerabend, P. AGAINST METHOD. 3rd ed. Verso, 1993. p. 5）。（从本质上讲，科学是一种无政府主义的事业：理论上的无政府主义，比起那些遵纪守法的其他选择，更符合人的本性，也更可能鼓励进步。） “This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes. ”（同上）。（通过考察历史事件和对思想与行动关系进行抽象分析，均可证明上述观点的正确。唯一对进步没有抑制作用的原则就是：无拘无束，怎么都行。） 虽然费耶阿本德有“科学死敌”之称（见：Horgan, J. 1993. Profile: Paul Karl Feyerabend – The Worst Enemy of Science. Scientific American 268:36-37），但据他自己说，他的“反对方法”思想来自1922年诺贝尔物理学奖得主玻尔（Niels Bohr, 1885-1962）。在生前接受的最后一次采访中，费氏透露，玻尔曾说过这样的话：“当你做研究时，你不能被任何法则束缚，连非矛盾率都不必在乎。一个人必须有绝对的自由。”（When you do research you cannot be tied down by any rule, not even the rule of noncontradiction. One must have complete freedom. ）（Jung, J. Paul Feyeraben: Last Interview. In THE WORST ENEMY OF SCIENCE? ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PAUL FEYERABEND. Preston, J. et al. Eds. Oxford University Press, 2000. p. 162.） 事实是，费耶阿本德的“反对方法”思想不仅与他之前的玻尔、爱因斯坦、Bridgman一脉相承，而且还得到了其他著名科学家的响应。1980年，美国《科学》杂志发表著名英国学者Kenneth E. Boulding（1910-1993）的文章，《科学：我们的共同遗产》。其中论及“科学方法”： “It is important, therefore, to try to detect possible illutions about science. One illution, held even within the scientific community and by many outside it, is that there is a single ‘scientific mothod,’ a touchstone that can distinguish what is scientific from what is not. “Within the scientific community there is a great variety of methods, and one of the problems which science still has to face is the development of appropriate methods corresponding to different epistemological fields. Methods that work in one field do not necessarily work in another. Ther has to be constant critique and evaluation of the methods themselves. Perhaps one of the greatest handicaps to the growth of knowledge in the scientific community has been the uncritical transfer of methods which have been successful in one epistemological field into another where they are not really appropriate. Furthermore, many scientific methods are not peculiar to science. The alchemists had experiment, the astrologers and diviners had measurement, the theologians had logic. These methods are not peculiar to science and none of them define it.”（Boulding, K. E. 1980. SCIENCE: OUR COMMON HERITAGE. Science 207,831-836.） （因此，尝试察觉关于科学的幻觉非常重要。在科学界内外，很多人都有这样一个幻觉，他们认为有一种“科学方法”，一种点石成金术，可以用来鉴别什么是科学，什么不是科学。 （在科学圈内，有很多种不同的方法，而科学至今仍旧面临的一个难题就是找到适合不同知识领域的特殊方法。在一个领域内管用的方法，到了另一个领域就不一定管用。因此，对于方法本身，要继续经常性的批评和评价。对于知识增长的最大不利因素之一，也许就是在科学界内，将某个领域内有效的方法盲目地转移到了一个并不合适的领域。并且，许多科学方法并不是科学所特有的。炼金术士也做实验，星象术士和算命先生也搞测量，神学家也使用逻辑。这些方法都不是科学所特有的，并且，它们也不能定义科学。） 1983年，著名科学哲学家波普尔的Realism and the Aim of Science一书出版问世。在其中，波普尔明确地说： “As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that scientific method does not exist.” （Popper, K. R. Realism and the Aim of Science. Routledge, 1983. p. 5.）（通常，我在讲授科学方法课之前，首先就会告诉我的学生，科学方法并不存在。） 当然，对于逻辑学大师波普尔来说，仅仅宣布科学方法不存在，而不解释为什么科学方法是子虚乌有，会显得十分浅薄。所以，他进一步说明道： (1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory.（第一，没有发现科学理论的方法。） (2) There is no method of ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i. e., no method of verification.（第二，没有确认科学假说真实性的方法。） (3) There is no method of ascertaining whether a hypothesis is “probable”, or probably true.（第三，没有确认一个假说能否成立或能否为真的方法。）（同上，p. 6.） 1995年，美国科学历史学家盖森通过研究法国科学家巴斯德的试验记录，得出结论说，巴斯德在从事自己的研究时，不仅没有遵循所谓的“科学方法”，他实际上连科学道德都没有遵守。（见：Gerald Geison. THE PRIVATE SCIENCE OF LOUIS PASTEUR. Princeton University Press, 1995）。对于这个严重的指控，英国科学家、1962年诺贝尔化学奖得主佩鲁茨（Max Ferdinand Perutz）大光其火，马上跳出来为巴斯德辩护。而他在为巴斯德辩护时，不小心一语道破天机：“事实是，科学家几乎从不遵守哲学家们强加给他们的科学方法。他们使用自己的常识。”（In fact, scientists rarely follow any of the scientific methods that philosophers have prescribed for them. They use their common sense.）（Max Ferdinand Perutz. The Pioneer Defended. The New York Review of Books. Dec., 21, 1995， ）。难怪盖森会反唇相讥说，“我对佩鲁茨的立场完全赞同……那实际上是我这本书前半部分的主要观点”（I agree entirely with Perutz’s position ……indeed, that is a major point of the first half of my book）。（见：Pasteur and the Culture Wars: An Exchange. The New York Review of Books. April 4, 1996， ）。 确实，到了20世纪末，“没有方法”、“怎么都行”几乎成了科学界的共识。1994年，英国谢菲尔德大学教授Jerry J. Wellington在一本面向中学科学教育的书中说： “There is no general consensus on what science is—neither is there a commonly agreed view of what constitutes 'scientific method'.”（Jerry J. Wellington. SECONDARY SCIENCE: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND PRACTICAL APPROACHES. Routledge, 1994. p. 41.）。（对于什么是科学这个问题，没有普遍的共识。同样，对于‘科学方法’到底是什么，也没有定论。） 1997年，著名生物哲学家、哈佛大学教授迈尔（Ernst Mayr, 1904-2005）说： “Although philosophers of science often state that their methodological rules are merely descriptive and not prescriptive, many of them seem to consider it their task to determine what scientists should be doing. Scientists usually pay no attention to this normative advice but rather choose that approach which (they hope) will lead most quickly to results; these approaches may differ from case to case. ”（Ernst Mayr. THIS IS BIOLOGY. Harvard University Press, 1997. p. 36.）。（尽管科学哲学家们常常说，他们的方法论规则只是描述性的，而不是硬性规定，但实际上他们之中的许多人似乎认为，他们的任务就是决定科学家们应该如何搞研究。科学家们通常对这些硬性规定视若无睹，他们选择那些他们以为能够最快获得结果的方法，而这些方法各不相同。） 迈尔还说： “The mechanists' recipe for the natural world worked even less well for the biological sciences. There was no room in the scientific method of the mechanists for the reconstruction of historical sequences, as occurred in the evolution of life, nor for the pluralism of answers and causations that make prediction of the future in the biological sciences impossible. When evolutionary biology was examined for its ‘scientificness’ according to the criteria of mechanics, it flunked the test.”（同上，p. 28.）（机械物理学家对自然世界的研究方法对于生物科学更不适用。它们不仅对于重建历史过程毫无涉及，它们还对于多元的解释和原因毫不相干。这就使它无法在生物科学中预测未来。当生物进化论的科学性被机械物理学的标准来检验时，它不及格。） “The working biologist does not ask whether he should follow the prescriptions of this or that school of philosophy. When one studies the history of various theories in science, one sympathizes with Feyerabend (1975), who claimed, ‘Anything goes.’ Indeed this attitude seems to be what guides the biologist in most of his theorizing. He does what Franois Jacob (1977) — with respect to natural selection — has called ‘tinkering.’ He uses whatever method will get him at the moment most conveniently to the solution of his problem.” （同上，p. 56.）（生物学家从不问自己应该遵照哪派哲学家开的处方。当你研究历史上各种不同的科学理论时，你就会认同费耶阿本德在1975时所说的话：怎么都行。在绝大多数情况下，生物学家在建立理论时，似乎确实是受这个态度的指导。他恰如Franois Jacob在1977年就自然选择所说的那样，因陋就简，修修补补。他使用他当时所能够使用的任何方法来解决他的问题。） 诚如迈尔所说，批驳“科学方法”得最为生动的文字，出自法国生物学家、1965年诺贝尔医学奖得主Franois Jacob笔下。1997年，Jacob在一本书中写道： “Most people regard scientific research as a purely logical process, a cold and rigorous activity, as cold and rigorous as it appears in science textbooks or in books about history and philosophy of science. For their part, the philosophers discuss the hypothetico-deductive method ad infinitum. They analyze the process of discovery in detail. They talk about truth and "verisimilitude." Meanwhile, the scientists describe their own activity as a well-ordered series of ideas and experiments linked in strict logical sequence. In scientific articles, reason proceeds along a high road that leads from darkness to light with not the slightest error, not a hint of a bad decision, no confusion, nothing but perfect reasoning. Flawless. “And yet when you look more closely at "what scientists do," you might be surprised to find that research actually comprises both the so-called day science and night science. Day science calls into play arguments that mesh like gears, results that have the force of certainty. Its formal arrangement is as admirable as that of a painting by da Vinci or a Bach fugue. You can walk about in it as in a French garden. Conscious of its progress, proud of its past, sure of its future, day science advances in light and glory. By contrast, night science wanders blind. It hesitates, stumbles, recoils, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything, it is forever trying to find itself, question itself, pull itself back together. Night science is a sort of workshop of the possible where what will become the building material of science is worked out. Where hypotheses remain in the form of vague presentiments and woolly impressions. Where phenomena are still no more than solitary events with no link between them. Where the design of experiments has barely taken shape. Where thought makes its way along meandering paths and twisting lanes, most often leading nowhere. At the mercy of chance, the mind thrashes around in a labyrinth, deluged with signals, in quest of a sign, a nod, an unexpected connection. It circles like a prisoner in his cell, looking for a way out, a glimmer. It vacillates endlessly between hope and disappointment, between exaltation and melancholy. There is no way to predict whether night science will ever become day science; whether the prisoner will emerge from the darkness. When that does happen, it's pure coincidence — a freak. It occurs without warning, like spontaneous generation, and anywhere, anytime, like lightning. What guides the mind, then, is not logic, but instinct, intuition. The need to understand. A passion for life. In the interminable interior dialogue, amid the countless suppositions, comparisons, combinations, and associations that work in the mind nonstop, a flame sometimes rips the darkness, suddenly illuminating the landscape with a blinding light that is terrifying, stronger than a thousand suns. After the first shock comes an exhausting struggle with the old ways of thinking. There is a conflict with the universe of concepts that direct our reasoning. Nothing yet entitles us to say whether the new hypothesis will develop beyond its initial, crude sketch and become refined, perfected; whether it will stand the test of logic; whether it will be accepted as day science.”（Franois Jacob. OF FLIES, MICE, AND MEN. Translated by by Giselle Weiss. Harvard University Press, 1998. pp. 125-127.） （绝大多数人都以为科学研究是一个纯粹的逻辑过程，一个冷酷严峻的活动，就像在科学教科书或科学史、科学哲学著作中所说的那样。哲学家们对科学发现的过程进行详尽的分析，讨论其中的假设—演绎过程。他们喋喋不休地谈论真理、逼真。与此同时，科学家们则把自己的活动描绘成一个井然有序的系列，想法和试验被逻辑贯穿始终。在科学论文中，推理过程沿着康庄大道高歌猛进，从黑暗到光明，没有错误，没有失误，没有迷惑不解，除了完美的推理之外，什么都没有。完美无缺。 （但是，当你仔细地观察“科学家的所作”，你就会惊讶地发现，科学研究实际上是由所谓的白天科学和黑夜科学所组成。白天科学的论证如同齿轮咬合，一丝不苟，其结果也像是铁板钉钉。它们就如同达•芬奇的油画那样悦目，如同巴赫的音乐那样悦耳。你就像是在法国花园中徜徉漫步。对它的进步了然于胸，对它的过去无限骄傲，对它的未来充满希望，白天科学在光明与辉煌之中向前向前。与之相反，黑夜科学则如同盲人在黑夜中游荡。它犹豫不决，它跌跌撞撞，它进退失据，它烦躁不安，它噩梦不断。它怀疑一切，它不停地寻找自我，质问自我，还原自我。黑夜科学就像是一个制造可能成为科学的建筑材料的车间。在那里，假设还含混不清，现象之间还毫无联系，试验设计刚具雏形，思想还在羊肠小道中摸索。全凭机遇的怜悯，大脑在迷宫内东奔西突，在潮水般的信息中寻找一个启示，一点确证，一线意想不到的联系。它像是一个囚徒在牢笼中那样打转转，寻找出路，哪怕是一线光亮。它在希望与失望、亢奋和郁闷之间永无休止地震荡。谁也不法知道黑夜科学能否成为白天科学，就像无法知道囚徒是否会重见光明一样。当那确实发生，那也完全是偶然的，像是一个精灵；没有预兆，像是自发；随时随地，像是闪电。所以说，指导大脑的，不是逻辑，而是本能和直觉，是对知识的渴望，是对生命的挚爱。经过无穷无尽无休无止的推测、比较、综合、联系，一束火焰有时会刺破黑暗，它那比一千个太阳还要耀眼的光芒突然间照亮了整个大地。在第一轮震撼之后，与旧传统的艰苦搏斗接踵而至：新思想与那些被普遍接受的旧观念存在冲突。没有谁知道新的假说能否从最初的草图发展成精致完美的理论，它能否经受得住逻辑的检验，它是否会被接受为白天科学。） 还是在1997年，一位编写科学方法专著的作者这么写道： “Those of my friends and colleagues who knew that I was writing a book about scientific method often expressed their surprise. Why, they said, should anyone wish to revive such a long-expired steed? People do not now believe in scientific method. ”（Gower, B. SCIENTIFIC METHOD: AN HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL INTRODUCTION. Routledge, 1997. Preface.）（那些听说我正在写一本关于科学方法的书的朋友和同事，常常表示他们的不解。他们说，为什么有人想要死灰复燃？人们不再相信科学方法了。） 2011年，德国出版巨头Springer出版了一本题为A SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD（《简明科学方法》）的书，其第一章第一句话就是： “Scientific method is not very different than what everyone does on a daily basis in coming to know about the world. Respect for evidence and reason are basic common sense and basic scientific method. ”（Kosso, P. A SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Springer, 2011. p. 1.）（科学方法与每个人日常生活所使用的方法并没有太大的不同。尊重证据和理性是基本的常识和基本的科学方法。） 通过这些证据来看，中国的一些所谓的“专家”和“名人”对科学的认识和美国人差了一个多世纪。 二，科学思维 “科学思维”是什么？关于这个问题一直没有人能给出确切的答案。 像科学网上的“逻辑专家”黄荣彬教授认为科学思维就是“三段论”和“归纳演绎”。对于这个论调我个人不想过多评论，我想说明的是三段论也好、归纳演绎也罢，这些都是小学生就经常应用的东西，这和一些人口中奉为神圣教条的科学思维似乎并不搭调。 在英国的历史上有学者是这么评价培根的演绎方法的： 1837年，英国历史学家Thomas Macaulay（1800-1859）发表长文，揭示了培根的双重人生：追求真理的天使，追逐权力的毒蛇。（The difference between the soaring angel and the creeping snake was but a type of the difference between Bacon the philosopher and Bacon the Attorney General, Bacon seeking for truth, and Bacon seeking for the Seals.）（Macaulay. T. B. CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS, CONTRIBUTED TO THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. Volume 1. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1854. p. 371.）不仅如此，Macaulay还对培根的科学方法嗤之以鼻： “The inductive method has been practised ever since the beginning of the world by every human being. It is constantly practised by the most ignorant clown, by the most thoughtless schoolboy, by the very child at the breast. That method leads the clown to the conclusion that if he sows barley he shall not reap wheat. By that method the schoolboy learns that a cloudy day is the best for catching trout. The very infant, we imagine, is led by induction to expect milk from his mother or nurse, and none from his father.” “We conceive that the inductive process, like many other processes, is not likely to be better performed merely because men know how they perform it. ”（Macaulay. T. B. Critical and historical Essays, contributed to The Edinburgh Review. Volume 1. p. 404.）（从世界开始之日，归纳方法就被每一个人所使用。它被最愚蠢的小丑所使用，被最没有头脑的学生娃所使用，被哺乳期的婴儿所使用。这个方法使小丑明白，播种大麦不会收获小麦，使学生娃知道阴天是捕捉鳟鱼的好时机。对于婴儿，我们想象，归纳法使他期待奶水来自妈妈或者护士，而不是他的爸爸。我们认为，就像其他许多程序一样，归纳程序不大可能仅仅因为人类知道如何运用它而变得更加有效。） 引用这些东西仅仅是想说明一些问题， 本人对没有对前辈大师的不敬之意，我只是认为归纳和演绎这类东西在今天根本不值得神化，只要你小学数学毕业了，基本这类方法的应用就没有什么问题了。一些人看不惯别人贩卖“中国传统”的大力丸，然而这些人自己却在卖西方传统的大力丸，真是很难理解。 三，相比科学，中国更需要的是哲学和文化的复兴 中国科学的发展问题就是一个社会问题，当中国人的素质、思想和观念的问题。这些东西都进步了，科学一定会取得大发展的，学习一些知识和具有工具思维的东西很简单。就像落后的清朝照样能搞起“洋务运动”来。然而洋务运动并没有拯救中国。新中国仅仅用了几十年就完成了西方社会几百年才完成的工业化，也很好的说明了这个问题。然而我们如何让国民在保持发展的同时，取得和西方人一样的尊严和自由，人文和环境呢？这才是一个大问题，解决这个问题可能还要100年。
冷空气频繁来袭内蒙古 (2011-11-02 11:39:48) 转载 var $tag='降温,降雪,冷空气,呼伦贝尔,休闲'; var $tag_code='23996a7568eef8c6a9d9b222a8970543'; var $r_quote_bligid='49a4812e0102dvso'; var $worldcup='0'; var $worldcupball='0'; 分类： 图说天下 11月2日清晨，内蒙古牙克石市街头，市民全副武装在刺骨的寒风中出行。当日，呼伦贝尔气象台介绍，根河市、图里河地区最高气温0度，最低气温将降至零下19度。 从10月31日起，有一股冷空气影响内蒙古天气。气温下降6~8摄氏度，个别地区气温下降8~10摄氏度。其中呼伦贝尔普遍降雪，尤其是林区普大雪，11月1日，满归降雪持续一整天，积雪深度达18厘米。为了安全起见，当地政府封闭了唯一的公路，唯一的铁路运行没有受到太大影响。 中央气象台消息，昨天5时至今天5时，新疆北部、内蒙古东北部、黑龙江西北部、西藏东北部、青海东南部、四川西北部降雪1-5毫米。 中央气象台预计，今天（2日）开始有一股新的冷空气开始影响我国，北方地区气温将会下降3-6℃，中东部大部地区将会迎来一次降水过程。 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49a4812e0102dvso.html?tj=1
前段时间收到美国朋友的来信，问我怎么看待内蒙古草原开矿及生态保护问题，并给我附了一份境外媒体对内蒙古5.11事件的报道，我看后给他回了如下这封信：As an environmentalist, environmental protection is not only local people's concern, but also ourresponsibility. We should condemn the coal company who damaged the grassland and thetruck driver who killed the herder. However, we should also blame those who want to raise the conflicts between Han Chinese and Mongolian Chinese through media. As you may know, Mogolian grassland has been reagrded as the ecological belts for central China.BothHanChinese and Mongolian Chinesewant to live in a clean and safeenvironments.In recent years,coal miningis increasing in northern China due to economic boom, the grassland envrionments in some areas have been damaged. Both Han (like me) and Mongolian (like many of my colleagues) are cooperatively making effortto mitigate the negative effects of coal mining on grassland Environment (such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Ecological Restoration). Some media says that local Mongloa people is buring Chinese textbook etc, I am afraid that theymay rasie theconflicts among these two ethnics.We need to calm down and have a clear watchon it. I am pretty sure the killer will be publised and the loser will be relieved by Law.
在去年的药械国际会议上做了一个报告《Pesticide residue control in China》，只是一个很简单的报告，报告完了也就过去了，算是交了会务组的差吧。当时有几个德国专家在场，报告结束后也有专家简单进行了交流，但基本没留下什么印象。当时中德示范农场的Bunge先生也在会场。 隔了不久，Bunge先生就与我取得了联系，中德农场在内蒙古甘河，他们遇到了一个比较麻烦的问题就是当地大面积土壤中除草剂残留严重，影响了后茬作物的种植。经过一些沟通，这几天我和何雄奎教授一起受甘河农场之邀，特意到内蒙呼伦贝尔参加大兴安岭农场管理局举办的中德示范场学术交流会，也算开了眼界，第一次走进如此广袤的土地。 示范农场距离齐齐哈尔机场还有四五个小时的车程，一路上都是黑土地，让我们这些看惯了黄土地的“内地”人很是享受！一眼望不到边的农田也是曾经记忆中的事了。 在农场做了报告“农药残留问题与后茬作物安全”，其他专家大多进行的是土壤营养相关内容，从这些报告中，再次体会到学科交叉的必要性。我从来没有考虑过施肥和农药残留还有联系，但施肥对于土壤pH或者微生物活动影响之显著，让我自然联系到农药残留的降解也间接受到了施肥的影响，甚至可以联想的是通过优化施肥方案是有可能在改变土壤性质的同时加快农残降解的。在农场的协助下，我们也就这一点开始初步试验探索，希望能在将来为农药残留的环境降解以及降低后茬影响做一点事情。 走出实验室，走进田间，也是很有乐趣的！
标签: 内蒙古
![[转载]核心期刊的地区分布](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201210/08/105232och7vxodcmkkhdd2.jpg.thumb.jpg)
![[转载] 哀殇吟](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201112/13/1146524dlc4oq3q4d47rnq.jpg.thumb.jpg)
