This is something I couldn't understand. The math seems simple: in a simplified situation, if each couple makes two children, that is, every two people making two people to fill in their share in the population once they die, the population will stay constant.
That also means, the young population halfs if each couple makes only one child. Two generations later, the young population will be 1/4 of their grandparents' generation. Therefore, the one-child policy is obviously wrong and even dangerous!
The authority then must have been smart enough to see this, then why did they still implement it? Am I missing something, at least mathematically?
For each scientific theory we don't really know for sure where the boundaries lie even if we know what they are. A needed prediction may need to cross these boundaries.
It still doesn't make any sense. The model I presented above is cetainly wildly simplified, but it doesn't lose any generality. The core logic is there. Anyone with a clear mind should recognize it let alone mathematicians or statistcians.
The so-called computer result seems more like a gimmick to mislead the dicision makers.
Unless I am really missing something here. But I doubt it.
相信科学，相信专家，大多数时候是对的，但有时候可能是错的。什么时候呢？出现新的情况的时候，出现明显问题的时候。比如新冠疫情，比如挑战者号和哥伦比亚号航天飞机出事的时候。
这句话是拜登总统说的，意思是川普总统不相信科学不相信专家，那么川普总统相信什么呢？相信直觉，因为直觉告诉他有问题。
细辨起来，相信科学与相信专家有时候是不一致的，甚至是相反的。费尔曼就说过，科学是什么？科学就是专家的无知。
在中文的语境里，科学有时等同于正确。当然，所有人都相信正确的东西，这话等于废话。
在这里，科学可以理解为科学家得出的结论，就是排除了艺术和经验。只信科学，而排除艺术和经验，是非常有局限的。
拜登总统说相信科学相信专家，大致可以理解为相信主流专家，具体来说就是相信福奇，因为福奇是主流专家的代表。而川普总统凭直觉觉得福奇不靠谱，甚至扬言要开除福奇。但真理在开始的时候，一般只掌握在少数人手里，往往只掌握在一个人手里。所以，不能盲目地相信科学相信专家。
不相信专家，那怎么办呢？在挑战者号和哥伦比亚号航天飞机出事的时候，都组织了外部人员来调查事故，就是外行在更高层次上来看问题，帮助内行。不管是谁，都要接受事实的验证。
下面举一些例子。爱迪生可以凭直觉估计特斯拉的体重，与用秤得到的数据完全一致，直觉与科学一样有效。很多人做菜可以加盐少许，而不是用称量的方式，也是直觉。
广播电视的天气预报是科学预报，看天是经验，有时看天比预报要准。
中国的计划生育策略是一个相信科学的重大失误。
战略是艺术而不是科学。
对于新冠疫情，主流专家出现战略误判。我说压平曲线美国在两年内新冠死亡60万至100万人，验证。我说群体免疫不靠谱，验证。
更多我的博客文章>>> “相信科学相信专家”有什么问题？ 外行与内行 传言：中国十二月一号可能全面开放 新冠战略的战略目标是什么？ 怎样验证健康人感染新冠的死亡概率？
This is something I couldn't understand. The math seems simple: in a simplified situation, if each couple makes two children, that is, every two people making two people to fill in their share in the population once they die, the population will stay constant.
That also means, the young population halfs if each couple makes only one child. Two generations later, the young population will be 1/4 of their grandparents' generation. Therefore, the one-child policy is obviously wrong and even dangerous!
The authority then must have been smart enough to see this, then why did they still implement it? Am I missing something, at least mathematically?
For each scientific theory we don't really know for sure where the boundaries lie even if we know what they are. A needed prediction may need to cross these boundaries.
他说，“只有专家才有一点点的知识，我们一般人则一点也没有，实际上一无所知，所以要有哪一方面的知识就要向哪一方面的专家请教，这样一来其实都推诿给专家，这不是一无所知吗？……要得到知识是很不容易的。对知识要有清楚而明确的观念也不是容易的。”（牟宗三《中西哲学会通十四讲》第二讲）
“听专家的”，有毛病么？
国家还专门拨款买了计算机，机算机算出来的。
计划生育委员会里只有一个人持反对意见，没有用。他试点表明适度晚育，一家两个孩子，可以达到相近的人口数量而保持合理的人口结构。但人们更相信计算机，计算机更“科学”。
It still doesn't make any sense. The model I presented above is cetainly wildly simplified, but it doesn't lose any generality. The core logic is there. Anyone with a clear mind should recognize it let alone mathematicians or statistcians.
The so-called computer result seems more like a gimmick to mislead the dicision makers.
Unless I am really missing something here. But I doubt it.
But not impossible. CCP likes to go to extremes.
美国也一样。美国政府相信华盛顿大学的新冠疫情预测，计算机算出来的，是错的。
中国政府当时是花巨资购买了计算机做人口预测，其实纸和笔可以简单地算出来。
华盛顿大学是比尔盖茨捐了巨资。
而已。
不能证伪的就不是科学。
(发自我的文学城离线浏览器)
(发自我的文学城离线浏览器)