Scientific temper and critical thinking

 

Scientific temper and critical thinking

 

Seventy five years ago, WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, made a “tryst with destiny”, with the Lokamanya’s dream of “purna swaraj” from colonial rule being finally achieved through two hundred years of struggle by our people, with sacrifices by millions. In this, there was a convergence of views amongst the different political streams that the new India should strive to be a land,

 

“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high

Where knowledge is free

Where world has not broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic walls

Where the words come out from the depth of truth

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit…” (Rabindranath)

 

This was thus to be a country where knowledge and reason “should be a part of life, a process of thinking a method of acting and associating with our fellow citizens.” This ideal is termed as the ideal of “scientific temper”, i.e. “the temper of a free man.” This concept had developed though our freedom struggle and was first expressed eloquently in Jawaharlal Nehru’s “The Discovery of India” which was published in 1946.

 

These ideas were widely discussed subsequently in independent India and several concepts emerged there from. It was observed that application of science not only gives humans basic amenities for advanced human material existence, but also that “it is through scientific approach and method and use of scientific knowledge that reasonable material and cultural (emphasis added) amenities and services can be provided, and it is out of recognition of this possibility that the idea of a welfare state has grown.” It was further observed that “science has influenced the basic values of life and given to civilization a new vitality and new dimension.” These were reflected in India’s adoption of the Scientific Policy Resolution in 1958. Behind this policy adoption we may remember Ambedkar’s view that modern scientific theories demand rational acceptance universally, as they are most systemic product of scientific attitude. Through modern scientific development, Ambedkar believed that, new knowledge will develop which will enable to replace all theological, metaphysical and supernatural foundations of knowledge with fallible, testable experiences of reality available to all. Ambedkar also envisaged science as a great democratizing force that makes knowledge available to all barring Hindu Brahmanism and casteism. According to him rationality was crucial to democracy.       

 

 

 

 

Further, in 1976, through the adoption of Article 51 A (h), All citizens were directed (h) that: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” This directive principle in the constitution directs the citizen of a duty. However, this provision does not explicitly spell out the same duties for the state (except by implication).

 

Though Article 51A (h) reminds the citizen of his/her duty, however,  an individual’s breach on this score cannot be considered as an offence that can be justifiable in a court of law. It can be brought to court if an assertion that violates 51A (h) also violates some other item in the constitution (for example, someone’s fundamental rights or causes social disharmony) which is justifiable.

 

We shall begin with one such example and this is an example that is most commonly cited nowadays. The episode concerns a meeting of physicians in Mumbai, held on 28^th October, 2014. In that meeting the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, asserted that plastic surgery existed in ancient India and he cited the case of Hindu god Ganesha as an example. According to Hindu mythology, Ganesha had human body but an elephant head was implanted on it. Such a mythological legend, if presented as “science”, will certainly create consternation (as was and continues to be so with the PSMs) amongst those who go by evidence (practicing Hindus included) and they expressed their views openly on this. There was another group, who did vehemently uphold the Prime Minister’s views, with equal enthusiasm.

 

Should one judge this episode, in terms of violation of Artilcle51A(h)? It can be. But constitutionally, no action can be taken. It can only say, debate it out- you have the full freedom for that, within the provisions of Article 19.

 

This also pertains to the fact that point and counter point are a part of social debate. But, what was most striking was that the Prime Minister’s statement had a cascading effect that went far beyond the science versus anti-science debate. Questions of national glory, pride in India’s heritage, nationalism, patriotism etc. got dragged into it, as if it was a part of a pre-planned script. It also harms the very concept of rationality on which democracy depends. And this was played out by those who campaigned to defend the PM’s statement.

 

Why science? What is science?

 

It is seen that in many of the official proclamations in India, a primacy used to be given, in the pre-2014 era, to science. It is thus necessary to ask: 'What is science'? Briefly, science gives us an organized and carefully sequestered arrangement of knowledge gained by our diverse worldly experiences, and from various experiments conducted by us, individually and socially. Now, one may ask, who is the originator of “science”? An anticipated answer can be ‘a scientist’. The answer is very simple and cannot be faulted. But one can further go ahead and ask: IS THAT ALL?

 

One may also give the answer: It is 'human society'. They are the creators of science. At this point one may ask why your answer is not ‘a scientist’. My answer will be as follows. At a certain phase of historical development certain problems arise. The whole human society gets pushed to finding answer the problem. These problems that the scientist sets out to tackle, more often than not, relate to these very issues of human existence, in the society in which the scientist lives. The solution may finally come through a scientist or through a group of them. Scientists are here to be seen as a part of the whole society, but what is more: the scientist has to be nurtured by the society: he/she has to be taught elementary ideas about science, well before he/she becomes a scientist and finally makes a discovery. A society that fails in this, fails to produce science and scientists of outstanding caliber.

 

Now let me come to the question of the purposes of science. Quest of knowledge by individual scientist is one of the processes involved in it. This definitely benefits the society too. But WE ASSERT that one of the main purposes of science is to empower and uplift the whole society, particularly the poor, the needy, dispossessed, the marginalized and discriminated. This is the view held by the People’s Science Movements in the country, a perspective that it shares with many other groups and individuals. We further proclaim, “Solving problems, for human benefit is its main societal role of science.  Science is for life. Science is for human being, to make human life easier, beautiful and longer. Science can unite people across cultures and borders”. Such ideas can also be found now in the United Nation’s Millennium Goals.

 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so satisfactory. Only a handful of people enjoy the benefits of science. Thus, science, a product of the entire human civilization is not coming to the benefit of the entire community. Even in some cases it is used in ways that are detrimental to human civilization, e.g. in promoting arms race, in denying modern medicines to the needy, etc. People’s Science Movement considers it to be its social responsibility to fight this battle along with our citizens, demanding science for people’s benefit. For this purpose the PSM’s have to fight bind faith, obscurantism, backwardness and superstitions. Ganesha idol is a case in point.

 

Social responsibility of science was first studied in detail by the eminent scientist, J D Bernal. In his famous book 'Social function of science', published in1939, it was noted that science is subservient to the interests of the dominant economic classes of the society and to their demands; and that the struggle of the society was always reflected in the path of science’s progress. These thoughts have served as the impetus for emergence of the concept of ‘people's science’, which the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) follows. Here, the movement is not limited to scientists alone. It includes scientists, but what is important that people are to collectively demand that science is to be put only for the benefit of the society. It is to be thus made bereft of profit motive and perpetuation of “man’s inhumanity to man”. Public consciousness on these issues had been raised in earlier times too. Examples of such activism are the 'Pugwash conference', 'Russell Einstein declaration', 'Anti astrology declaration' etc. People’s Science Movements took inspirations from these events and gave shape to ideas like 'science for the people', 'science for life’. A concept like, 'People's technology' also arose from this understanding.

 

Skepticism: Right to doubt and raising question are essential for science and scientific temper

 

For science to flourish, one needs a “democratic environment” of debate and discourse. Without this, both fundamental science and scientific temper cannot grow. And in upholding this spirit of debate and questioning, the courage and sacrifice of many a individual requires to be recorded from history of civilization. Examples of Socrates, Andre Vesalius, Mikhail Serventus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilee and many other names could be cited in this regard. In our country the ancient Susruta school faced persecution because they upheld practices like dissection of the dead bodies which went against religious practices. More recently in India, Dhondo Keshav Karve was criticized with dirty words when he campaigned for family planning. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule took all the social humiliation and castigation in his stride to introduce education to the commons. Vidyasagar confronted and marched against the whole society to introduce 'Widow Remarriage'. He was not satisfied merely with the enactment of the new act, but also took initiative to make it effective in the society. This fearless attitude and determination for travelling on the right path are very essential characteristics of a person having scientific mindset. Such acts generate social movements and create an environment that helps scientific enquiry.

 

Indian society still abounds with several social experiments by many unknown and unsung individuals who have helped the cause of scientific temper in the community in which they lived. We in the AIPSN would like its members to record such experiences from different parts of the country.

 

Inquisitiveness and quest for truth is an essential tool to nourish scientific temper

 

As an example of this, we shall now introduce the case of Aroj Ali and his contributions. We quote here the first paragraph of the article entitled "Aroj Ali, the Insurrectionist" that appeared in 'The Iconoclast', New York, September, 1982. The Para about Aroj Ali, a born quester, reads as follows:

 

"A Teacher was killed in the year 399 B. C. by the people of the ancient city

of Athens.

Why did they kill him?

-They killed him for a crime.

  What was the crime?

-He was accused of corrupting the young people of the city

  How did he do that?

-He asked questions.

  Why would that hurt anybody?

-By his questions he made them think.

  What's wrong with that?

-He made them think about things they believed.

  How could that do any harm?

-When people ask questions and think about things they believe, they may not believe the same after that.

  And the people of Athens killed him for doing that?

-Yes, they did.

  Why did he do it?

-Because, he loved the truth and he wanted to find the truth.

  Who was this teacher?

-He was a stone-cutter. He earned his living by cutting marble for the buildings and statues of the city. But in his free-time he was a teacher.

  What was his name?

-His name was Socrates."

 

Throughout his life Aroj Ali Matubbar, one of the iconic personalities of undivided India, cultivated this quest for truth. He wrote a book named 'Satyersandhan' or 'Quest for truth'. He tried to remain steadfast in his support of rationalist outlook and scientific reasoning rejecting faith or any beliefs. He did not give answers directly, but he asked a lot of questions, in typical Socrates style. These questions would arouse confusion about existing beliefs. In his famous article 'The quest for truth' Aroj wrote:

 

"To know the unknown is an eternal desire of man. With the first utterance of words, a child starts asking questions -What is this? What is that? As he grows up, similar questions continue at school, college and his place of work - What is this? What is that? Why is it like this? Why isn't it like that? In this manner, making enquiries about the whys and wherefores, man has built up the massive structure of science today.

The questioner always wants to know the answer to the question, what is truth? In fact, there will be no further questions once the truth is known.

An object or an incident cannot be true in two different ways. When an incident is described in two different ways then perhaps one of them is true and the other is false or both are equally false. Both of them cannot be true simultaneously, -the truth perhaps remains unknown.

Suppose a man calls a metal gold and another man calls it brass. In this case, is it true that the metal is gold as well as brass? If one says about a particular event that it took place at 12 noon on 15 April and another says it took place at 3 p.m. on 16 March, are both the speakers telling the truth? In this circumstance, the audience may not believe either of them. It is probable that somebody would believe one of them and similarly somebody else would believe the other one. Thus, what one accepts as true another rejects as false. Thereby, differences of opinion occur between man and man in determining the truth of the matter. And like these differences of opinion regarding particular subjects, there are conflicting views among people on matters social and political from time immemorial. The consequence of it is communal riots and nations at war which we see today before our very eyes".

 

Let us introduce a few questions asked by Aroj Ali Matubbar. In the very first question in his first proposition, he questioned: "Who am I?

 

One is struck by the similarity of Aroj Ali Matubbar thoughts and methods with those of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, independent India’s first martyr in the cause of Scientific Temper. Narendra Dabholkar also emphasized on curiosity and inquisitiveness as a basic requirement of scientific temper. This absence of the habit of asking questions is a serious negative feature in our society which prevents us from nurturing a scientific mindset. Dabholkar cited a specific example from a lecture of Professor Jayant Vishnu Narlikar. Let us hear what Professor Narlikar had described, as transcribed by Dr. Dabholkar.

 

"Our social structure and our educational system do not nurture the habit of asking questions. Once I had the opportunity of listening to Dr. Jayant Narlikar. In his lecture, he related an experience he had in England. He had taken his four-year old daughter along with him to England. Once her teacher met Narlikar and said, there is no doubt that your daughter is very intelligent. She is much more intelligent than other girls in the class. But she has one drawback. With a bit of anxiety Narlikar enquired about the drawback. The teacher told him that his daughter did not ask any questions at all. Later, he said it was not his fault that she would not ask questions but blamed an educational system that does not inculcate the habit of asking questions".

 

This shows that, we are given to believe whatever we are told. Such an attitude harms scientific temper. The most important attribute of science is the right to question. Science has no high priest who cannot be questioned. Science develops through purely worldly experiences of humans.

 

 

Discussion, debates and dissents are important for science to flourish

 

Science does not exist in vacuum, as it is based purely on worldly experiences of humans and these humans live in a human society. One important characteristic of science is its dynamic nature - enriching itself day by day. Perceptible changes can be seen only after a time lag; the process often goes on unnoticed, though it progresses with growing speed.

 

There are many examples that can be cited. For example, we may cite development of chemical science from alchemy and the emergence of astronomy from astrology. Let us now take some fact from twentieth century revolution in science. Even about 150 years ago, even much after several successes of the atomic theory, many were skeptical about the existence of atoms. This changed dramatically with the discovery of the electron, which identified to be an elementary constituent of all atoms. Sir J.J. Thomsosn, the discoverer of the electron was however wrong about the distribution of positive charges in the atom. He considered that the positive charges were uniformly smeared over a blob. But this was proved wrong by Ernest Rutherford, whose experiments proved that the positively charges were concentrated in a small volume and electrons (negative charges) went around it the same way as planets go in orbits around the sun. Rutherford's atomic theory was given a more complete form their skepticism notwithstanding the originators by Bohr and it was further modified by Somerfield. Earlier models accepted the suggested changes, on the strength of evidence. Also, the later improvements always acknowledged the works of earlier ones. Science proceeds in this way: it accepts that knowledge is always tentative. Similarly, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics was strongly contested by Einstein, though Einstein had in many ways paved the way for quantum theory to emerge. Again, Hideki Yukawa had first discussed his 'meson field theory' with Bohr, and Bohr had opposed the idea. In spite of that Yukawa published his paper and was awarded the Nobel Prize for that work. So, discussions, debates and even dissents are very common in science and are a part of it. It also helps to grow newer ideas and develop avenues & openings. We are commonly told that thesis and antithesis lead to synthesis. This is true in our society also. If we curb the right to speak or write, that will lead to an autocratic system, which is detrimental to nurturing science and scientific mindset. I am citing an interesting story to justify my point. This episode has its importance bearing with the question of nurturing science in the society.

 

All of us know that Prof Meghnad Saha, the famous Indian scientist was sworn as a member of India's first Lok-sabha on may 13, 1952. In his first two major speeches on education on May 20 and June 13, Dr. Saha demanded reforms in University and higher professional education. In this connection I want to remind ourselves that, Prof Saha was elected to the Parliament as a left supported independent candidate, defeating P Himmatsingka, of Congress. Naturally Saha criticized the general budget and the education budget of the Nehru government and demanded the following:

 

 "Firstly, University education should be on the Concurrent List. Under the present circumstances, University education is a State subject. The Commission found that this has led to a deterioration of University education standards and to many other unpleasant things;

Secondly, that the President of the Republic should be the Visitor of all the Universities of India;

Thirdly, it should be the concern of the Central Government to provide ample finance for the development of Universities; and

Fourthly, the money so provided should be spent through an autonomous University Grants Commission, which should be properly constituted".

 

Veteran parliamentarian Mrs. Renu Chakravarty has observed, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru used to listen with rapt attention whenever Prof. Saha participated in the debate in the Lok Sabha on any subject,– though Saha, a onetime fellow traveler had become a critic of many of Nehru’s policies. "Indeed, they seriously differed on many issues. But their personal relation was never bitter, despite sharp exchanges between them on a number of occasions", Ms. Chakraborty noted.

 

According to Mrs.Chakravarty, soon after Prof. Saha's speeches on May 20 and June 13, 1952 on Education, Pandit Nehru invited him to his chamber in the Lok Sabha for thorough and informal talks particularly about the reforms needed for the University level of education and about the entire gamut of problems, relating to scientific research. And, in his talks, Pandit Nehru had assured Prof. Saha that the constitution of the University Grants Commission would be in consonance with the recommendations of the University Commission.

 

This is the history of the formation of the UGC. It came through differences, debate and discourse. Nobody can deny its role in developing large human resources in India, especially of the science base. Scientific temper needs practice of science within the society. In earlier phases of post independent India this duty was discharged by the state.

 

The above episode has to be contrasted with the situation today. Our present Prime Minister hardly attends the parliament and never discusses anything with opposition leaders nor attained the press meets. These are the pillars of modern democracy. What portent does it hold for the future of India? This is a question that needs to be asked in the 75th year of India’s independence.

 

 

Attributes of scientific temper

 

An open public discourse on scientific temper was appeared in 1981. Following the basic tenets of Nehruvian ideology, prominent intellectuals gave a statement that read as follows:

 

"Spread of scientific temper in society is much more than the spread of science or technology. Scientific temper is neither a collection of knowledge or facts, although it promotes such knowledge; nor is it rationalism although it promotes rational thinking. It is something more. It is an attitude of mind which calls for a particular outlook and pattern of behavior. It is of universal applicability and has to permeate through our society as the dominant value system powerfully influencing the way we think and approach our problems—political, social, economic, cultural and educational.

 

Scientific temper involves the acceptance, amongst others, of the following premises:

 

A.    that the method of science provides a viable method of acquiring knowledge;

B.    that human problems can be understood and solved in terms of knowledge gained through the application of the method of science;

C.   that the fullest use of the method of science in everyday life and in every aspect of human endeavor—from ethics to politics and economics—is essential for ensuring human survival and progress; and

D.   that one should accept knowledge gained through the application of the method of science as the closest approximation to truth at that time, and question what is incompatible with such knowledge; and that one should from time to time re-examine the basic foundations of contemporary knowledge.

 

The method of science, therefore, constitutes a regenerative process for collecting information and processing the collected information to create meaningful patterns leading to an ordered understanding of nature of man himself, his natural and social environment. In this sense, the method of science encompasses all aspects of communicable human knowledge and cuts across all artificial compartmentalization like natural science, social science, applied science, etc.

 

The spirit of inquiry and the acceptance of the right to question and he questioned are fundamental to scientific temper. It calls upon one to ask the ‘how’, the ‘what’, and the ‘why’ of an object, event or phenomenon. It further calls upon one to exercise the right to question, provided of course, the questioning of an existing theory, hypothesis or statement or social situation is done in accordance with the scientific method and is not merely a bare assertion of one’s belief. Scientific temper is, therefore, incompatible with the acceptance of authorities of all kinds or of ‘high priests’ who may not be questioned. It leads to the realisation that events occur as a result of interplay of understandable and describable natural and social forces and not because someone, however great, so ordained them. These forces arc often complex and intertwined and have to be analytically disentangled.

 

Scientific temper is compatible with observation and insight, reasoning and intuition, systematic work and creative impulse. It gives rise to an attitude of mind which while being conscious of vast areas of ignorance, is nevertheless, optimistic about human ability to gradually unravel the mysteries that surround us. In this process, scientific temper becomes a part of a culture, a philosophy, and a way of life which leads to pursuit of truth without prejudgment.

 

Scientific temper implies the recognition that knowledge often progresses by disproving earlier ideas, beliefs, theories and laws. It considers knowledge as open-ended and ever-evolving. It lays emphasis on verifiability and repeatability, wherever possible, and on the fact that scientific theories, laws and fact allow one to make predictions which can be tested. It recognizes that answers to many questions that may be asked at any given time, may not be available at that time. It, then, demands the courage and humility to say, ‘I do not know’.

 

Scientific temper calls for recognition of the several major differences between the scientific attitude and the theological and metaphysical attitude, especially in respect of dogmas proclaimed in the same religion. There is, in fact, essential incompatibility of all dogmas with science. While science is universal, established religions and religious dogmas are divisive. Consider the divisions which exist between Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu denominations. Science, in contrast, transcends divisions and is universal.

 

Scientific temper has deep emotional content and has, within it, a sense of beauty. That is why considerations based on beauty and simplicity has been often invoked to choose between alternative theories that are otherwise equally tenable.

 

Inherent in scientific temper is a system of value judgments. The inculcation of scientific temper in our society would result in our people becoming rational and objective, thereby generating a climate favouring an egalitarian, democratic, secular and Universalist outlook. Consequently, scientific temper cannot flourish in a grossly in egalitarian society where 50% of the population lives below the poverty line and almost 70% of our people, especially females, are illiterate. Social justice, widespread education and unrestricted communication are, therefore, prerequisites for spread of scientific temper and for optimising the results of science and technology".

 

After 30 years of first declaration of scientific temper, concerned scientists, citizens and activists revisited the question of science and scientific temper, at Palampur and proposed the following as our future task. They said:

 

"We call upon the people of India to be the vanguard of scientific temper.

 

Use of religious symbols and ceremonies with religious overtones performed in the garb of cultural activities must be stopped in Government offices and institutions run with public funds.

 

A national monitoring system with powers to issue guidelines must be set up to continually monitor for unscientific content in the media channels and the education system, particularly up to school level.

 

Scientists and scientific institutions should not only function in a more transparent manner but also reach out to the public at large with an objective to instill confidence in science, scientists and scientific institutions.

 

A television channel dedicated to the spread of scientific temper should be operated with funding from the government.

 

Science communication activities mandated in the government agencies should focus more on rationality, inquiry and method apart from content".

 

How far we have progressed in these directions remain to be reviewed. One of the concerns in both the documents was related to the question of faith and this has to be dealt with first.

 

On question of superstition and blind faith

 

Let us recall again, the Prime Minister’s statement, invoking the question of plastic surgery being practiced in ancient India. His only “evidence” was implantation of elephant head upon a human body in a mythical scripture. Any scientific truth has to satisfy repeatability. Fortunately, those who supported the prime minister’s views never sought to repeat it for verification. The result, as we all know, would entail life risk to both, the elephant and the human.

 

Any issue which is devoid of any basis of cause and effect relationship is called superstition. Usually it was called "other peoples' religion". Haldane dealt with this issue by taking the case of astrology. Astrology had originated thousands of years ago to link up happenings on earth to those in sky. Babylonians recorded eclipses and various other celestial events which were of great interest for astronomers in ancient times. However, in the late Middle Ages, precise determination of positions of planets at any time became an easier task. This was used to prepare horoscopes, for several centuries. But they faced a shattering blow when two large and one moderate planet named Uranus (1781), Neptune(1846), and Pluto (1930) were discovered. They were never considered as planets by these astrologers as they will not fit with the prevailing rules of predictive astrology. Superstitious people never ask why the new planets were not included! They just follow the tradition. They never ask for any relation between the Sun's position during birth and how it could pre-determine a person's lifelong journey! According to Haldane, this is Superstition.

 

Dabholkar thus said, superstition is a belief which does not intend to judge causality. Usually superstition vanishes when sufficient scientific and experimental support is given. If it still exists then it is 'Blind faith’. Dabholkar cited a specific example in this context. According to him, existing faith in a family physician usually vanishes when successive cases of ill-treatment are generated from him. If the faith in that physician still persists, then it is obviously a case of 'blind faith'. With this story, Dabholkar concluded, “The important conclusion one can draw from this situation is: any existing situation that prevails even after being questioned on the basis of knowledge and/or experience, can be called trust or faith. If it ceases to be, after being questioned by knowledge and experience, it is superstition. The situation here is that your child is sick. Your experience is that earlier your physician was able to cure the child. The knowledge is that the doctor recently stopped being effective. Now you come to the conclusion that it is high time that you change your physician. Here we have obtained a method. We face situations; we got experience from life, i.e. from facing situations. We obtain knowledge; we then examine the situation with the knowledge and experience obtained. And then we take a decision regarding our faith.

Of course all this sounds very simple but is extremely difficult to follow. Taking decisions regarding one's faith i.e, deciding whether it is a faith or a superstition is extremely difficult as it hurts one's ego. So, one tends to avoid it".

To eradicate blind faith and superstition, imparting good quality science education under RTE-2009 may play an important role. Yet it is not legally enforceable right. We demand that this right be made legally enforceable to every citizen. As an integral part of universalization of good quality science education universalization of scientific temper may then be taken up.

 

 

On religion

 

As the religion also tries to answer questions of people's interest, we must deal with the issue. Primitive people lived on fruits of nature and later lived on meat from hunting. At that time they had to face unbearable heats, rains, thunderstorms, storms and high coldness in winters. Various questions haunted their minds. They did not know how to get answers to all these questions. Thus they constructed self -consistent systems of beliefs, and accepted certain premises entirely depending on faith. In this way different religious outlooks originated. This faith based system, abandoned questioning its premises. But as human knowledge grew, humans do not succumb to that. Questioning to fulfill human curiosity about nature and his society has continued. That opened up and expounded newer areas of knowledge.

 

Religion in the beginning originated as an agency to provide a world view. Based on the worldly knowledge, it ventured into the unworldly, when it failed to provide answer. But religion also became an instrument of state, would not question authority and hence would not question the existing knowledge system. This hindered science for several centuries. Later, in the seventeenth century, science was thus led to a clash against religion, both in terms of belief as also as an institution. The first basic difference between science and religion is as follows. Science accepts change but religions proclaim eternal truth.

Secondly, religion is bases itself on revelation. Here the truth was never discovered, only revealed to religious leaders, who propagated them. Religion soon would stand as a bulwark against science and tried to hinder science’s progress. Various examples are there to substantiate it. Servetus, Vesalius, Bruno, Galileo, are only a few examples, as are the Charaks and Susrutas in India. In more recent times, religion has rejected the Darwinian Theory of evolution, and even tried to denigrate it, and challenged it with creationism in different brands. But in doing so, religion is also forced to recast itself in different moulds. For example, nowadays it tries to blend Darwinian evolution with the concept of 'intelligent design' by God. To counter this Richard Dawkins expounds the recipe analogy in The Blind Watchmaker (1986, pp. 295-296)

"A recipe in a cookery book is not, in any sense, a blueprint for the cake that will finally emerge from the oven.... a recipe is not a scale model, not a description of a finished cake, not in any sense a point-for-point representation. It is a set of instructions which, if obeyed in the right order, will result in a cake. Now, we don't yet understand everything, or even most things, about how animals develop from fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the indications are very strong that the genes are much more like a recipe than like a blueprint. Indeed, the recipe analogy is really rather a good one, while the blueprint analogy, although it is often unthinkingly used in elementary textbooks, especially recent ones, is wrong in almost every particular. Embryonic development is a process. It is an orderly sequence of events, like the procedure for making a cake…"

 

It can be argued that, “Every religion is the product of the spirit of God in man”. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya told that this is true no doubt, but this was not the whole truth. He further added, "religion itself, - like the class society for which it is a historical necessity, - is a transitory phenomenon after all, coming into being with the emergence of class society and destined to wither away with the transition to the classless society of the future". Thus, while religion combines, “the father, son and the holy ghost” has also divided people and fanaticism has led to bloodshed.

However, we have to deal this issue very cautiously, as most of the people possess religious mindset. A large part of them are not fanatic, communal, and fundamental. We have to win over them in the issue of univesalization of scientific temper.  

 

Observation, Experimentation and checking the authenticity

 

One very important aspect of science is observation. We observe various things in our surroundings. We gather information about them through our sense organs directly or with the aid of instruments. Some indirect information can also give us some knowledge. We can sense fire at a distant place by simply observing smoke. Similarly after visiting a patient attacked with malaria we can easily say that, he/she must have suffered a mosquito bite in the past. Doctors prescribe penicillin for a pneumonia patient, and know that he will be cured within a few days. James Watt observed the up and down movement of the kettle lid many times. He felt that this was due to the power of steam. Later the steam engine was invented using this valuable observation. The Raman Effect was also an outcome of Raman's observation of blue sky and Blue Ocean, and subsequent search for the reason behind these phenomena. Science provided us with all this information. That increases our knowledge. To increase our observational skill several tools were invented which can overcome our limitations and increase the potency of our observation. Microscopes and telescopes are such tools. Microbial and celestial worlds are thus exposed to our observations, which were till then unseen. These are not revelations to selected few. These can be tested by others too. Science this gives universal truth, extending the boundaries.

 

Experimentations are also a special type of observation. That event can be conducted with the same or varied conditions and can be repeated as many times as we wish. Say, we are curious to know whether vitamin B deficiency can cause Beriberi or not. To check this we have to take two sets of rats of the same age and health status. One set was subjected to all the vitamins and minerals except Vitamin B and the other set was fed with similar food including Vitamin B. After a few days we will observe that the former set of rats was attacked by Beriberi. So, experimentation provides us with the true knowledge. Science does not depend on thought alone; it demands verifications in the real world.

 

These gathered knowledge when helped us to adopt a generalized conclusion, then it becomes a part of scientific knowledge. Search for cause and effect relationship guides a scientist to streamline his/her gathered knowledge to a generalized scientific knowledge. This knowledge is still tentative as later developments may disprove it or prove limits of its validity.

 

Whether Cow urine can cure corona or not can be verified through similar experiments. Those who claim such powers for cow urine have never given the results of controlled experiments. Also, those who seriously took the challenge to combat Covid 19 never considered cow’s urine of tulsi leaves etc as serious contenders for that. This is because, the structure of the virus is known and the constituents of cow’s urine and tulsi also known to us, NO serious scientist will even try a futile search in these substances.

 

One important point in science is its universality. This means that the results of these experiments should never depend on:

1. Who carries it out , the person’s age or sex

2. Individual wish of the person experimenting

3. Place of experiment

4. Time or day of experiment

 

For example, a litmus paper will always be red if we impregnate it with lime juice. It is independent on time, place and person. And no one can influence it. Neither an Angel nor a Devil! It can be repeated as many times as we wish. We will always get the same result.

 

These features clearly show us the universal nature of science. All scientific facts are applicable all-over the world, without exception. Force = mass× acceleration or E= mc² are thus applicable in all related situation and everywhere in the UNIVERSE.  Hence the question of Eastern and Western science never arises.

Rusts appear on iron if it has been kept in a humid atmosphere in presence of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Everywhere this will happen, even in interstellar space where these compounds get formed and constitute interstellar dust. Water will boil at 100 degree centigrade under normal pressure. Common soda, a base, when added to muriatic acid, carbon dioxide will be liberated and sodium chloride salt will be generated. A class 10 standard student can easily demonstrate the formation of starch in a green leaf of a plant due to photosynthesis in presence of Sunlight by doing a small experiment. These are all common experiments. With a small amount of germ of pox, a vaccine can be created which is capable of giving immunity against smallpox. These ideas were developed in Europe during epidemics, but have benefited humanity everywhere. Many of these examples are easily demonstrable and ought to be used for public demonstration with public participation, asking the audience to try it out in public. These ought to be methods to propagate rationalistic outlook sidelining the superstitious ones. It is to be kept in mind that success cannot come overnight. After the discovery of the vaccine for smallpox and the success of mass vaccination, leading to eradication of the diseases, nobody should go to worship a goddess of pox. People may not do that. But that does not mean that they have lost their faith in the power of the goddess.

 

Verification is another criterion of scientific approach. Let me follow one example from the writing of Dr. Dabholkar in this regard. He wrote: "Someone tells you that using enchanted ring will secure employment for the user within one month. You ask him to give you proof. He then says that he had used it and later his neighbor had used it and both got jobs within a month What you should argue with him, is that, if the same experience is repeated a large number of times, then we should make ten thousand such rings and distribute them among ten thousand unemployed youth. If they all get jobs within a month then we can accept that this ring does have some supernatural power of securing jobs for the unemployed. We can-not draw conclusions from just one or two examples. For drawing conclusions you need a very large number of such examples. This is the crux of the scientific outlook. Again this experience or verification has to be universal. It cannot be science without being universal. If you say that only the residents of that particular city will get jobs using the ring, it will not be accepted as scientific truth. If the ring really is capable of getting a job for the user, anybody anywhere should get a job within a month of using it. If a medicine is developed for a particular disease, it will cure any person suffering from that disease anywhere in the world. When the law of gravitation was proved, it could be applied anywhere in the world to verify it.

 

Critical outlook of science

 

 Let us start this portion with a story of science. Thales of Miletus (Greece), in 585 BC first successfully had forecast that solar eclipse was going to happen soon. That was a landmark in science because; it was first instance in history when a natural phenomenon was explained on the basis of natural and material objects. Thales said that this will happen due to occupying a specific position by the Sun, Moon and the Earth. But the same person could be wrong in another case. Thales also said that water is the fundamental element and from it all are created. But today we know that water is not an element, but a compound. Today we may say Thales was wrong. But during that time he tried to explain the formation of all natural things from a natural component. Not on religious, not on miraculous, no God or demon being considered in the back of creation. That is very important. So Thales can be considered as the first scientist and birthday of science could be declared as 585 BC.

 

One common criticism of science is that they change their theory very quickly. Hence some may consider it as worthless. For example one may give the example of an atom. Sometime ago, the atom was considered to be indivisible, but now we know that an atom can be split . Initially the idea of electricity was that electricity was a continuous entity like a fluid. But nowadays we know that changes are carried by discrete particles like the electron, ions etc. Though they are material particles, later developments (quantum mechanics and wave mechanics) showed that their dynamics is similar to those of waves or groups of waves.

Once considered as hereditary, tuberculosis, it is now proved to be caused by a germ. Because of this changing nature of science some people may argue, “Oh! There nothing fixed, here. So, why believe in it?”

Let us recall here what J B S Haldane wrote:

 

"A scientific theory may be nothing but the truth, but it is never the whole truth. Lenin said that the properties of an electron, the smallest known particle, were inexhaustible,-that is to say, there would always be something more to find out about it. So no Leninist should have been surprised when it was found to have previously unexpected properties”.

 

But this is not all. Scientific theories are always guides to practice, or at least to prediction. Chemical theory tells you how to prepare a metal or a drug. Astronomical theory tells you when and where to look for an eclipse, the old theories were certainly wrong. It was supposed that the sun went round the Earth and that when you heated iron ore with charcoal a stuff called "phlogiston" came out of the charcoal and united with the ore to make iron. Now, we say that the earth goes round the sun, and that oxygen leaves the iron ore to combine with the charcoal (or nowadays coke). But the old theories were partly right. They were right in saying that the sun was further away than the moon, and that the amount of charcoal needed was proportional to the amount of iron to be made. No doubt our present theories will have to be altered. But they are truer because they are nearer to what we observe from practice. One has to be open to the fact that one's theory is largely true and partly incomplete, and at the same time has to be sure that it is near enough to the truth to enable one to do a particular job.

 

This is the path of science. Science accepts those theories which can successfully explain certain observed facts of nature. When it fails to do so, it may be replaced by newer ones, by stating the boundaries of validity of the previous ones. As we know:  natural laws are nothing but laws of nature. This means that they are the very general relations among things that explain their behavior,- the sort of things that were said to lie in “natural philosophy”  at one time and nowadays we call them as the laws of physics, chemistry, and so on. Newton's laws of motion, Ohm's law of resistance, Hooke's law of electricity, and so on are such examples of natural laws.

 

An important feature of science is that “Scientific claims must be stated in such a way as to be testable”, i.e. be sufficiently detailed as to show observable consequences or testable predictions that can be verified. Even if the evidence is very favorable, experience shows that sophisticated well confirmed theories can be overturned by falsifying evidence found later or challenged by new competing theories that themselves are supported by the evidence in the way that the original theory is not. A scientific attitude requires being open to this possibility. If these testable claims are found to be refuted by experience, then this should count as powerful evidence against the theory, which may amount to showing the theory to be false. A scientific theory should be both testable and falsifiable. Are these different or the same? Karl Popper mentioned that, a theory could only be tested by attempting to falsify it. Success in passing such tests corroborates a theory.

 

However, on 24th Nov, 2007 famous science writer Paul Davies, wrote an article in the New York times. There he tried to explain that 'science is also faith based'. He wrote:

 

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence”.

 

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships".

 

Alan Sokal refuted the idea of Davis by writing the following letter to the editor of New York Times. The letter is self explanatory:

 

"To the editor:

 

Paul Davies' claim (op-ed, Nov. 24) that "both religion and science are founded on faith" is based on astoundingly sloppy reasoning.

 

Science is, indeed, founded on the working hypothesis—one amply borne out by four centuries of scientific practice—that the world, or at least some aspects of it, is ordered in a stable and intelligible way. But that tentative and partly testable working hypothesis is a far cry from religions' reliance on sacred texts and personal revelations. To characterise these radically dissimilar endeavors as both based on "faith" is to point out a superficial commonality while obscuring the fundamental difference. And at a time when humanity is wracked by conflict between incompatible versions of faith—in the genuine sense of the term—to muddy the distinction between religion and science is worse than philosophically misguided: it is irresponsible".

 

Sokal, a professor of physics of New York City College identified two important characteristics of science in his book. Those are, we quote, -

 

"The two most notable features of scientific methodology are its critical spirit - that is, a

Commitment to put your beliefs to stringent tests,and revising or discarding those ideas that fail the test; and fallibilism, that is, the understanding that all our knowledge is open to revision in the light of better evidence". (Alan Sokal, Archaeological fantasies, 2006)

 

Einstein identified this nature of science as follows- "In the most favourable cases it says 'May be' and in the great majority of cases simply 'No'. If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter May be, and if it does not agree it means 'No'. Probably every theory will someday experience 'No', - most theories soon after conception.

This critical spirit of science kept it ever growing, vibrant, and keeps it most modern.

 

 

Do not allow obscurantism outlook to invade

 

A conscious attempt to impose obscurantist philosophy as India's own philosophy of higher intellectual standard is constantly going on in the past few years. This is going on through a government plan to introduce revised text books for students, and through different Governmental policies and programmes, public institutional activities, annual science congress functions, and by capturing the media and the press. True facts of Indian philosophical outlooks are, however, different and have to be looked at in totality. In India also, like what happened in many countries, a strong line of materialistic thought existed side by side with idealistic thought. Debiprasad Chattopadhyay unearthed these materialist charvaka or lokayata line of thought from ancient manuscripts. He also proved that this materialistic line of thought remained present even at the time of Rig-Veda. In Chandogya Upanishad in the story of Aruni and Svetaketu, we witness the first ever experiment of the world. In this experiment it was proved that a material item like rice is responsible for vitalizing mono or consciousness.

 

Charaka and Sushruta Samhita are the actual mines full of materialistic thought. Charakas used matters as medicines. Sushrutas were capable of performing surgeries in human organs. For making their instruments they would often sit with blacksmiths to get the shape and size of required nature. But due to the advancement of the idealistic philosophy of Sankara, and the imposition of varnasrama by Manu, all these developments were stalled. Observation was then called as maya, and social intermixing of upper caste with shudras was stopped or even prohibited.

Hence all the developments in natural science reached a blind alley and further progress stopped. The dark era of science in India began, same way as it happened with Greek science, where a slave owning ruling class looked down upon physical labour and depended solely on thoughts and imagination. This is history of the onset of dark ages in science, in India and in the west. Prafulla Chandra Ray thus wrote:

“The very touch of corpse, according to Manu is enough to bring contamination to the sacred person of Brahmin…Anatomy and surgery fell into disuse and become to all intents and purposes lost science to the Hindus. It was considered equally undignified to sweat away at the forge line a Cyclops. Hence the cultivation of the ‘Kalas’ by the more refined classes of the society …has survived only a tradition since a very long time past….The intellectual portion of the community being thus withdrawn from active participation in the arts, and how and why of phenomena- the condition of cause and effect-were lost light of- the spirit of enquiry died out… and India for once bade adieu to experimental and inductive sciences. Her soil was rendered morally unfit for birth of a Boyle, a Descartes or Newton and her very name was all but expunged from the map of the scientific world.” 

If the present governments of India try to repeat the same history then we have to invite another dark era in Indian science. That will obviously hinder our journey in the realm of scientific temper also.

 

---------------