NEWS CENTER

新聞中心

The way to choose scientific theories: discard the false and retain the true, and only then can one follow the right path

發布時間：

2026-04-18

The way to choose scientific theories: discard the false and retain the true, and only then can one follow the right path

 

Zuodong Sun
Ya'ou Brain Science Institute of Heilongjiang province

 

The original intention of science is to explore laws and pursue truth, not to navigate social conventions, let alone engage in "academic united front". Many people mistakenly believe that new theories must fully embrace old theories, otherwise they are considered radical or outright negation, which is the greatest misunderstanding of science. Theories that can withstand the test of history have always known how to make choices: inherit the reasonable, discard the fallacious; retain the truth, eliminate the falsehood. Eliminating the false and retaining the true is the right path for scientific progress and the inherent meaning of paradigm revolution.

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn pointed out that scientific development is not a linear accumulation, but a revolutionary process in which the old paradigm falls into crisis and is replaced by a new paradigm. Old and new paradigms are often incompatible. The new paradigm does not patch up, tie strings, or forcefully round up the old paradigm, but provides a simpler and more self-consistent logical framework when the old system is self-contradictory. It will absorb rigorously verified experimental facts, but will never accommodate far-fetched explanations, conflicting models, or "accommodate" untenable hypotheses for the sake of authority and dignity.

The correct attitude toward old theories is always to absorb the essence and discard the dross. We should neither practice historical nihilism by totally negating the contributions of predecessors nor adhere to dogmatic conservatism by regarding the old framework as sacred. If the old paradigm were perfect, scientific revolutions would be unnecessary. It is precisely because the old system is full of loopholes and lacks explanatory power that new paradigms have value for existence. A theory claiming to be scientific is no longer science but a self-deceptive word game if it dares not deny obvious errors, forcibly explains questionable data, or deliberately covers up logical contradictions.

There is an unhealthy trend in the current academic circle: to avoid offending authorities and maintain cliques, people "fudge" everything. When the old model clearly cannot explain new experiments, they fabricate patches like springs, hinges, and ties to cover up contradictions forcibly. When a new path is more concise and predictive, it is marginalized and stigmatized merely because it challenges the existing pattern. It seems that criticism is destroying unity and correcting errors is arrogance. The pursuit of truth in science has degenerated into maintaining the paradigm, and theoretical innovation has alienated into protecting interests. Many people talk about "respecting history and embracing data" but avoid a key question: Are all past experimental interpretations inherently correct? Must all conclusions be unconditionally accepted? Should content that is inexplicable, logically inverted, or violates physical laws be fully accepted for the sake of "inclusiveness"?

This unprincipled inclusiveness is particularly prominent in ion channel research. Roderick MacKinnon's resolution of the static structure of potassium channels in 1998 was a landmark contribution that deserves inheritance as the essence. However, on the core issue of the dynamic switching and gating mechanism of channels, subsequent models such as the paddle, hinge, lever, and spring coupling are essentially layers of patches. They not only fail to be self-consistent but also become increasingly complex and far-fetched—requiring ten additional conditions to justify one hypothesis, which is typical dross.

Experiments in 2025 have clearly confirmed the cooperative movement of four subunits, fundamentally shaking the old gating logic of local bending. Even so, the academic community still clings to the outdated framework of more than 20 years and dares not face up to the underlying deviations.

In contrast, the origami windmill model has adhered to discarding the false and upholding the true from the very beginning: inheriting reliable structural discoveries and abandoning far-fetched dynamic misinterpretations. It does not practice unprincipled compatibility, make excuses for loopholes, or use complex patches to maintain the old system. It only restores the real operation law of ion channels with a concise physical image. This is precisely a paradigm shift in Kuhn's sense—not a minor repair, but a reconstruction of underlying logic, returning science to the pursuit of truth itself.

Science never needs nice guys. The true scientific spirit is to dare to uphold truth, face fallacies, and stick to the bottom line of logic in the face of authority and inertia. Tolerating errors is betraying truth, and embracing far-fetched ideas and fraud is trampling on scientific conscience.

The vitality of a theory never lies in whether it can please old theories and authorities, but in whether it can refine the crude, discard the false and uphold the true, clearly explain reality, and accurately predict the future.

Every leap in the history of science is a brave sublation: retaining the true, abandoning the illusory; inheriting the correct, correcting the fallacious. This is the underlying rule of scientific progress. Only by sticking to the bottom line of discarding the false and upholding the true can we constantly approach the truth and endow theories with vitality that penetrates time.

Do not tolerate errors, do not accommodate fraud, and do not maintain rigid paradigms.

This is the great way to choose scientific theories and the unshakable right path for scientific researchers.

Copyright © 2023 哈爾濱奧博醫療器械有限公司   中企動力 | SEO標簽   營業執照   醫療器械生產許可證  互聯網藥品信息服務資格證書   (黑)-非經營性-2016-0017