Science and technology have
shaped and transformed our society to such an extent, that even their utmost
critics find it very hard to contradict their description and explanation of
this material world. It does not mean however that we, as members of this
society, have accepted them (scientific facts and reasoning) in our day to day
affairs, in our professional, social and cultural life. On the contrary, we
observe increasing influence of conservative religious faith and beliefs over a
great many people. It is not only the backward section of our society, because
of their lack of education, subscribes to those views and faith, but also, the
educated advanced section, by and large, is influenced by unscientific theories
and practices in various degrees. Some of them actively become their protagonists.
Some passively submit to prevailing practices due to social pressure, and
obligations to our near and dear ones.
Sometimes, a zealous rebel
against these unscientific beliefs and faith relies heavily upon a conspiracy
theory for this conflicting state of affairs. He (she) may attribute this irrationality
to a few conspirators, who are economically benefitting out of these unscientific
practices and beliefs. No doubt, there are material incentives to a select few
for influencing the population with non-materialistic and meta-physical
world-views. It is natural that they would try their best to put resistance on
introduction of any new scientific theory and facts to the society, which may
affect their business and economic interest. But, their success largely depends
upon the active and passive acceptance of those unscientific views by the
greater populace, who need not be coerced to follow the dictate of a few. The
greater masses do it willingly in most cases, and even actively (and very often
violently) oppose any change to their rituals and practices, however harmful, undemocratic,
oppressive and irrational they may appear in this twenty-first century.
We need to assess rationality of
an individual with this perspective. If we assume that the basis of our rationality
is the adherence to scientific thought processes and our faith in scientific
knowledge, we find that the rationality of an individual does not solely depend
on his (her) willingness and determination to observe this strict adherence. It
is not only the social inertia and backwardness that may blur a person’s world-views,
but also, many a time, our judgment on different matters gets skewed and
confused by claims and counter-claims of different schools of thought, all supposed
to be champions of science. Such a power the word science has today! No
doubt labeling any obscure view with this magic word puts an aura around it and
its proponents! So it is necessary for a rational individual to judge the
boundary between science and non-science. Our discussion is aimed at
understanding how our rationality revolves around this judgment.
The very first question that
arises out of this discussion is what science means to us. To some it may be
deemed as a collection of facts, laws and theorems about this material world.
To some it is just another way of describing worldly phenomena out of several
plausible alternatives. Some may
consider that it is limited by its effort to understand this material world
only. But beyond this fragile reality, there exists a realm beholding spiritual
and supernatural phenomena, which should be left to other schools of human
thoughts such as theology, mysticism, etc. To them any apparent contradiction
in explanation and description of this material world between science and other
schools of thought is nothing but a reflection of our limited understanding and
experiences about this world.
So is there any clear and precise
definition of science, which imparts a distinct identity to it? Some years ago,
I was going through a book written by Carlo L Lastrucci (ref. “The scientific approach: basic principles
of the scientific method”, Schenkman Pub. Co., Inc, 1967). I couldn’t agree
more with the short definition he outlined there. According to him, “Science
may be defined as an objective, logical and systematic method of analysis of
phenomenon, devised to permit the accumulation of knowledge.” According to
this definition, science is an analytical process or a study for deriving
knowledge from this physical world. This study is characterized by various
attributes, which are briefly mentioned in the definition. Let us get more into
them.
First, and foremost, a scientific
study has to be objective. The objectivity in a study implies that its outcome,
if any, should be demonstrable fulfilling the conditions of the study, and
moreover should not be limited to experiences of a few individuals. Any person
following the same methodology adopted in the study, should have similar
experiences. The other facet of objectivity is that science only deals with
phenomena which are related to this material world. They should be observable
and measurable. A non-scientific study very often lacks this objectivity. It
merely summarizes an individual’s experiences, and fails to demonstrate or
repeat them to a larger audience.
Scientific study should be
logical in the sense that arguments and logic used in the study should not
contradict any of the established scientific facts, laws, and theorems. If
there is any iota of deviation, scientists need to relook at them. Scientists
have developed universally accepted and a self-critical framework for placing
these arguments. There are different branches of logic and mathematics that a
scientist has to learn and apply in presenting them. Often we hear the phrase
“zero tolerance” from a top administrator or a politician, on the face of a
sudden disclosure of unethical practices in their organization or departments.
There may be skepticism (in many cases justified too!) against their pledges.
Science, however, has to truly maintain “zero tolerance” against any anomaly or
deviation from its established laws and facts, while examining any argument in
favor of certain explanation or observation. If it allows or accepts such
deviation, it has to keep the debate open till its logical resolution, in
consistence with its complete spectrum of knowledge. For example, at the end of
the nineteenth century, it was thought that the mystery of nature had almost
been solved, except two unexplained phenomena; namely, absolute or non-relative speed of light in vacuum, and the nature of black body radiation. However,
the quest for solving these riddles revealed a new set of laws of nature to us
in the forms of theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. Those theories,
in turn, threw many other new questions to us, which demanded examination and
explanation. This characteristic also reaffirms the “logical” character of
science. It is “self-critical”. It does not merely observe or state a fact. It
also takes the responsibility of explaining a new observation within its
logical framework, and if the explanation fails, it tries to examine it again
and again with different evidences and arguments, till it gets a consistent
resolution either within its established laws and theorems, or supplementing (or
replacing) it by new laws of nature.
Today’s scientific world-views
have not grown from random studies of a few individuals or organizations. These
are fruits of systematic observations and their explanations over the
centuries. Individual contributions were always made from experiences and
knowledge accumulated in the past. No
one should ignore the historical development of any scientific concept. Our understanding
of physical world has been enriched and refined at different stages through discoveries
made by Galileo, Newton,
and Einstein, a continuing effort in advancing human knowledge limited by their
era. The special and general theories of relativity have not been proposed all
on a sudden by the genius Einstein. They were product of accumulated knowledge in
that era. Neither do they reveal the ultimate truth. They are continuously
tested with new evidences from different phenomena, and in the event of their
failure in explaining them; they may require to be modified. For example, there
is a gap in our understanding of how gravity works in atomic and sub-atomic
scales. Though gravitational force of macroscopic bodies is partially explained
by the general theory of relativity, it is not yet explained by quantum
mechanics. These questions are arising due to our progressive understanding of
nature, and their resolution also depends upon our systematic study using these
accumulated experiences and knowledge.
Very often unscientific and
pseudo-scientific claims defy this characteristic of pursuit of knowledge. Persons
making such claims may dazzle us by their tricks and propaganda without any
scientific argument and explanation of their methodology and outcome. Even they
may fool scientific community for sometimes. For example, a few years ago, news
of invention of petroleum production from herbs was widely circulated in media.
Even the Dept. of Science and Technology (DST) initially accepted the claim.
Later it was found through careful examination of their proposed methodology that
the claim was false. Even at the outset of such announcement (of the invention),
someone should have been doubtful, as there was no prior history of such
possible conversion; neither the person was known to have scientific knowledge
in related areas.
Let us discuss what challenges we
face in recognizing such non-scientific claims, ideas and thought-processes.
Many of them may take the camouflage of scientific terms and processes. They mostly adhere to a pseudo-scientific
school of thoughts. These disciplines were nourished in ancient times as a part
of scientific studies and they were consistent with the limited knowledge that
we had in those times. But, later they were historically rejected (e.g.
palmistry, astrology, etc.), as they still retained their fundamental premises, which have
contradiction with the scientific findings and theories. So, we can identify pseudo-scientific
ideas and claims, when we find even a slightest deviation from any of the
characteristics of science. They could be devoid of objectivity, may lack explanation,
or may ignore a systematic study. There are also some schools of
pseudo-science, where even today there are partial efforts in carrying out
objective study. But, they still use their obsolete logic
and explanation, which are contrary to scientific discourse. Many of our traditional schools of medicine
such as Ayurveda (traditional Indian medicine), Unani (traditional medicine
practiced by Muslims), and even relatively modern school of medicine, Homeopathy,
fall in this category. They mostly rely on empiricism, rather than explaining
the cause of a disease and the functioning of a drug in physiological and
cellular processes. I must admit here, that I am not disputing their partial utility
in our society. Some of their practices may have been found effective for treating
certain diseases, but reasons (according to these schools) for their
effectiveness do not necessarily subscribe to scientific explanation. Neither these schools are capable of
developing and enriching themselves with new scientific discoveries. They
remain as traditional as they were centuries ago. In fact many such
pseudo-scientific therapies attempt to exploit the limitation of scientific
knowledge in certain areas of medicine. More often, we may find advertisement
of these therapies for treating incurable diseases, such as different types of
cancer, or chronic diseases like asthma. Even if a treatment exists for such a
disease in modern medicine, it may come with a tag of high price, unaffordable
by many of us. In such cases, we may tacitly compromise our faith and belief in
one of those pseudo-scientific therapies. Pseudo-scientific practices are also
prevalent in commercial advertisements, as companies or manufacturers cite
various surveys and scientific study in favor of their products. But these
studies are driven by their commercial interest, and are prone to be biased and
incomplete.
Confusions also exist due to
limited scientific knowledge in various domains. There are living debates on
various topics in the scientific community. For example, how this universe was
created? Whether it came from a huge explosion popularly called ‘big bang’, or
it had the steady state from the beginning, is a burning question to the
scientific community. It is difficult for a common man to form an objective
opinion on such a matter. This example may look benign as it may not have any
direct implication to our livelihood. But there are many other debates, which
demand people’s involvement in the decision making process. For example, how do
we solve the energy crisis today? How do we avoid the danger of destroying our
environment? Should we go for nuclear energy or should we not? Are wind-mills
environment-friendly? Should we build
dams in a river? Everyday we face various such questions, and require taking a
side.
Not only confusions around
pseudo-science and scientific debates affect our rationality, but in many other
ways, non-scientific views also influence us. Unless we are aware of their
nature, we could be very easily swayed by those arguments and beliefs. After
all, we live in a society; we grow in it. Our daily habits, cultural and
religious customs, social pride and prejudice, history of our national identity,
etc., may shape our opinions on different matters, which may apparently look
quite natural and justified. However, they may lack objectivity in their
assumptions, and professing of different facts and figures. Often we get swayed
by the propaganda of Government and political parties in favor of their program
and sectarian outlook. In particular, this gets aggravated during a war against
another country, and suppression of any popular movement within.
So a very relevant question on
maintaining our rationality is that, how do we judge ourselves under this scenario?
How do we place rationality before prejudice? Undeniably, a rational person
needs to be self-critical and to be disciplined enough to examine objectivity
of facts and arguments placed before him (her). However, as we discussed before,
the struggle for its sustenance is not merely confined to an individual; it is
also a social struggle. There lies the importance and significance of any
social movement and revolution championing the secular scientific outlook. It
is not only the era and knowledge that determine our rational behavior, but the
present state of social movement against unscientific ideologies also checks
our rationality. That is why, it is difficult to say whether the masses in the eighteenth
century carrying forward the French revolution were less rational than the present
generation, equipped with all the modern gadgets, and
enjoying the fruits of technological innovation and invention in their daily
life; yet, many of them are swayed by religious sentiments, and sectarian intolerance.
28/07/2013
