(Perspectives of a philosopher-poet)
Scientists
are noted for their persistent attempt to arrive at correct conclusions about
‘nature’. For every drive towards being correct there is an equal and opposite
anxiety about going wrong. The scientist would like to understand the universe
thoroughly and state precisely in a manner that would be consistent with the
implications and consequences which affect species at large. If you try to
question the theoretical assumptions of the scientist you tend to find a trail
of thought embarking on the speculative. You suddenly see that the basis of the
scientific versions of ‘truth’ is determined unusually by what works. If you
see it, it is not enough. If you understand what you see it is not enough
either. If you predict the behaviour of what you see and if the prediction is
met successfully you are half way done, but you are a scientist all the same!
If you manage to change what you see to suit yourself and those of your kind, you
are an inventor or a technologist.
Invention
does not always resonate with a scientist. The scientist may stay content with
the understanding that he/she is able to reach about the laws of nature. You
may not want to manipulate them to make human ends meet. A scientist depends on
instruments to understand the laws of nature. The instruments are in themselves
the result of manipulations. In order to understand fundamental laws you look
around your environment and arrive at generic conclusions through the frame of
reference that binds you. This could be a labyrinth! In order to step out of
the frame of reference you would have to defy it. To do so, you would have to
understand it in the first place. You try and use the scientific approach to
find your way out of the labyrinth. If you follow the trails paved in the
labyrinth you could well be on a royal road to a dead end.
The
scientist deep down is aware of this. You would have to start ‘somewhere’.
Where is this place that you are referring to as ‘somewhere’? Is it anywhere?
To what extent can you stake your efforts on man made rigors? Wouldn’t a
speculative dimension stop you from working your way to a corner? You find this
to be one of the major difficulties with the scientific approach.
In Science,
there can be no rules for asking questions. Can doubts have limits? Doubts not
only expose the limits of the nature of the subject but also bring to the
surface new perspectives opening doors to newer possibilities. While
exhibitions on Science are conducted, it would be imperative to highlight the
need to raise doubts and point out the absurdity of taboos with regard to
questioning. Those who popularize science ought to understand the fact that the
examination system in schools deprives students of scientific learning when
they fail exams altogether. It is utterly useless for all intellectual and
practical purposes to attempt to popularize science when the education system
is its real enemy. Empirical science is impossible to pursue without any access
to instruments and the necessary infrastructure.
Speculation
exposes the limits of science. The focus cannot be narrowed down arbitrarily
towards accomplishing a task for convenience. Speculation is the devil’s drug
as far as pragmatism goes. Philosophy is unhindered by speculation which
functions as the agent of intellectual intoxication. In philosophy, all you
need are thought, books and experience. Denial is an obstacle in science which
philosophy is insulated from. Philosophy can be pursued as a study outside the
university settings as well. Philosophic investigation can be used to generate
interest in science through witty narrations and presentations. In Alice and
the Wonderland (Lewis Carroll) the reader comes across a remark, “I see nothing
there.” How is it possible to see nothing? Although this appears as nonsensical
to the prosaic nature of common sense, it raises a pertinent question. Can
nothingness be defined?
Philosophic approach extends beyond the rigorous
barriers that limit the scope of science. It is said that you discover truth,
you do not invent it. It is correct as far as language is concerned because when
you invent truth, it is not discovery. The word ‘discovery’ implies that the
truth in question was always there but it was discovered by someone or
something later in time. In fact in an argument between two people, one
participant questions the other. The reply was rejected because the former
accused the latter for ‘inventing reasons’. There is indefinite scope for being
original. Originality and innovation go hand in hand. Scientific rigors when
adhered to dogmatically impede original thinking. Scientific discoveries and
breakthroughs are lost as they appear as loose associations confined to the
space of fiction when in fact they have the potential to transform banal
existence that has hitherto curbed progress and refinement in thought with
equal measure. This is where philosophy comes to the rescue. The limits of
artificial rigors can be exposed by the philosopher as it strikes a man over
the superstructure more than anybody else. The vocabulary of stale rigors is
inadequate to communicate novel insights. Please reconstruct the glass!
You need
both the thinker and the executor. It is rare to find a thinker. A thinker struggles
to execute because the space of thought implies significant investment of time
which implementation cannot afford. The executor cannot afford this and his/her
dexterity comes in handy while implementing. It is practically impossible to
find an executor with some potential for original thinking as a result of the
time consuming nature of implementation. The philosopher, as a result of not
being stifled by instruments, naturally can make a better thinker.
Implementation often is not the philosopher’s cup of tea but to get the sword
out of the stone, you need the mind of the thinker and the hands of the doer.
Every
scientist has a philosopher in him/her. Without the dimension of thought what
can the scientists hope to find? No questions can be raised. Without asking
questions you cannot get answers. The philosopher and the scientist share the
same curiosity. This curiosity inspires scientific advancement.
Science as
history has it is the extension of philosophy. At the time when Sir Isaac
Newton pursued studies, Physics was referred to as ‘Natural Philosophy’.
Instruments that are available to us are enablers. They are hopeless
substitutes for human thought and imagination. Retaining the essence of what
Sir Isaac Newton once said: If a scientist has discovered significant truths,
it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Science
begins in philosophy and ends in philosophy.
Published in IIT Newsletter(Journeys)
-
Ajay Seshadri
No comments:
Post a Comment