Science and technology

October 9, 2015 ·

Science is not the only or even the best form of knowledge. Nor is science valid independent of human mind. Nor is rationality a direct or distinct offshoot of science.

It is for fact that science has swept away in one fell swoop dogmatic beliefs and made it possible to review the ways we conceive the world and reconstruct the means of our passage in it. It has opened our minds to the vastness of the world away from the idea of an earth lit by a football-size sun and moon appearing in a blue sky dotted at night by myriads of stars; and a heaven ruled by god according to the norms set by human mind. It has led us into the secrets of the subatomic world. The journey is on.

While we should appreciate science, we should not be overawed by it. When we go to a gorgeous feast, we eat just a small share. So with life. We occupy a small part and live it for a short while. Our instincts and feelings guide us largely in what matters to life; science has changed it infinitesimally.

May 27, 2014 ·

SCIENCE (My musings)

Science is a systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific discovery is complete only if a well-constructed theory explains it and known facts and extrapolations based on the theory vindicate it. There is no place for speculation as proof. It is not inviolable; it is subject to modification based on better understanding as more facts unfold. This is as opposed to dogmas that ruled society earlier. It has become the trend to present science and religion as mutually contradictory because of the dogmatic nature of religion as beyond the scrutiny of human mind.

Science is as much from human mind as art, religion and so on. There is a belief that science has rational answers opposed to other fields of human achievement and excellence. It is held widely that reason guides science and that science is objective. As with most things, such thoughts cover part and not the whole truth.

First, reason is also a faculty of human mind. It is as human as emotion. It is not reasonable to posit that reason is the only way to know the truth. All one can say is truth cannot be opposed to reason and an overwhelming body of facts. What we need is more of a scientific temper and scientific method, not a blind belief in the discovery of science at a given point in time, which is as likely to be wrong as any belief based on partial evidence. To quote Maugham, though not in context, all a scientist would venture to assert is, ‘All we can be certain about is only that we cannot be certain about anything.’ It is not lack of confidence, or skepticism, but that the components of knowledge are infinite whereas the power of human comprehension is finite.

Science has busted many myths and superstitions. It has demolished accounts of creation of this world as wide of the mark. While doing so, it has shown what is most likely to be wrong and a little of what may be plausible. It has not substituted right answers for the wrong notions, but has thrown open the field of enquiry which remained closed. It has cleared the obstructions arising from faith for good for the most part. A price had to be paid along the way for this achievement.

There has been a tussle between certainty and chance and a myth came about that science is about certainty. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle put paid to it. The position of an electron is now a stochastic model i.e. one can only venture to predict the probability of its position. That is the ‘position’ of anything which is changing its position i.e. anything which we can observe with our senses.

There has been a search for a priori solutions to all enquiries. Deduction as opposed to induction is preferable. But, the march of science has only accentuated the divide and the proof by deduction has been elusive.

In accountancy, we talk of the limitations of financial statements, but we do not give up preparation or use of financial statements. The knowledge of limitations guides us to what precautions to take and what risk-mitigatory steps need be taken. Likewise, we have to bear in mind about the nature of scientific knowledge while using it. Otherwise, we will be losing the scientific temper and method.

February 10, 2014 ·

From The Story of Physics by Anne Rooney:

..light seems to know how to behave to experiments. When an experiment is designed to test the behaviour of light as a wave, light acts as a wave. When an experiment tests the behaviour of light as a particle, light behaves as a particle. It's not possible to catch it out. (..uhm, we know where sychophancy originated.)

'You never understand quantum Mechanics, you just get used to it.' (..like God perhaps).

..the very act of making a measurement changes the situation (or system) being examined. This casts doubt on the whole premise of scientific method. There can be no objective observer if the act of measurement or observation itself affects the outcome. (Cf. Goodhart's law : "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.")

(I am tempted to draw an analogy with advaita which negates the objective world).

February 03, 2016

The beauty of science

To many science has overcome barriers of knowledge and thrown light on the causes irrefutably. Reason is supreme and all else is make-believe. My understanding differs.

First, I do not believe that, even if it is true that reason has revealed the secrets of life (it is a big IF), reason alone does not enliven life. Often, reason plays no part at all in life.

Second, no scientist worth the salt has ever held out that science has found out everything or that in the near future man will be the master of all that he surveys.

As to explaining ‘why’, listen to this candid talk by Feynman, a brilliant teacher:

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/…/richard-feynman-is-asked…

Knowledge expands exponentially that no single mind, howsoever brilliant, is able to cope with even a part of it. Says Russell, “ .. the synthesis that depends on coexistence of multifarious knowledge in a single mind becomes increasingly difficult.” The same idea is differently phrased by Poincare, “The scientist's brain, which is only a corner of the universe, will never be able to contain the whole universe;”

That said, the part of science must be acknowledged as the greatest work of human mind. The idea I like to emphasise is that the direction of science is not towards dogmatic certainty or any assertion as to what the meaning of life could be, which is a human issue and has nothing to do in the objective analysis of world of matter, particles, waves, forces, and the like.

The greatest contribution of science is not the wonderful gadgets we play around with (like say the internet that makes it possible for me to post my views for the perusal of a handful), but making us think, question and understand. Religion claimed to have done the thinking for all posterity and pushed down the throat ideas that are not tenable, and put a lid on thinking, forbidding eating the fruit of tree of knowledge. In the words of Poincare, “The thinkers in the past were of the belief that they have done all the thinking and there was nothing for future men to do.” Science has lifted the lid.

What does science aim at? To quote Russell again, “.. it is not results, which are what mainly interests the man in the street, that are what is essential in a science: what is essential is its method,” Is it better to be contented with, ‘we can never know’? That is not in the spirit of science. Russell clarifies that the scientist contends with “ .. the active, eager doubt that inspires a new scrutiny, not the idle doubt that acquiesces contentedly in nescience-“

Well, where will it lead us? One cannot be sure, but Russell’s take is, “..in virtue of the very rapidity of our progress, a new theory of knowledge has to be sought, more tentative and more modest than that of more confident but less successful generations.” The path may be towards tentative and probabilistic theories (like that suggested by the uncertainty principle or theory of relativity). It must be an exciting path and those who venture out must find it fulfilling.

Science likes precision. There is no space for poetic hyperbole in it. Our thinking has to conform to what is relatable to observable and testable phenomena, not wild imagination or sterile speculation.

Let us understand that science is about its method. In its spirit, let us be precise whenever we quote from it.

22/2/2018

Science

We are overawed by science and assume that we can lead a life based on the findings of science. There is a catch. Life is dependent on reason in a very limited way. Not that life is unreasonable or that science is away from life. We live life by instinct honed over a very long time and it is true for a scientist as for any life. Science has certainly helped us understand a lot and added to our comfort and variety. Science is also a source of joy to minds that want to know compulsively. But like all fields of knowledge that is humanly conceived, science is only a way of looking at reality, not vital or conclusive.

December 13, 2015

Technology

It is a mantra, which will facilitate development and deliver humanity into El Dorado. Look at the world of today and compare it with what it was even half a century ago. We travel fast, see distant things instantly from living, eating or sleeping room, talk to one another at every impulse from one end of the world to another, record and archive events for living it at leisure, can use drones to kill unwanted elements, and the wonders are endless. We are into creating virtual worlds where our fancies will have full play unlike in the god-given world. What a poor technician god must be! Why can’t he borrow ideas from man and create a better world where mind decides the outer world?

Old-fashioned Gandhi pleaded for a bullock cart world and Schumacher had the temerity to take a cue and argue small is beautiful. What luddites! See how we mass produce, increase consumer satisfaction and create jobs. What will small do in this modern world? Thank heavens no one ever took them seriously.

Is it true technology will solve the social problems and remove suffering? What type of technology?

The most important achievement in technology is speed. But speed has created many problems. The pace of organic life, of which human life is just a part, is self-regulated and is not suited to cope with the pace man has actualized. The many lifestyle diseases are a result of such unnatural pace. We hurry for no purpose and at a cost to our well-being.

The consumption boom that has resulted from technology advancement has entailed pollution, undisposable waste and harm to health. The pollution that was there before industrialisation was biodegradable and far less harmful.

The source of much of technology is from resources that deplete at a faster pace than the rate at which they are replenished. This could lead us to total breakdown unless hopefully we find a safe and sustainable technology. As things stand it may be a Micawberish hope.

When the wheel was invented, the first revolution was made. It was a silent, non-polluting technology. At that time, it was still biological energy that moved it. It did not cause much displacement or cause redundancy. What the world would have done wisely with is perhaps such innovation that does not engender upheaval, enlarge greed or make size matter.

The man-made technology is antagonistic to the plan of nature. An intelligent mind may not be behind nature, but nature rolls on patiently and produces variety and sustainable life and pace. There is a total scheme, whereas man attempts tinkering, without a clue to the impact it has on the whole. It is somewhat like modern medicine that treats different parts in isolation, or piecemeal criticism that is shallow and does not offer a holistic alternative. (This very piece is an example).

I have to end on a dismal note. As much as we complain of weather, there is as yet no total solution to making it serve our comfort. Much as we may read and peeve about the excesses of medicine, we have to rush to the doctor and run around the hospitals. Technology as deified today may lead us to a less safe world, but we are in it inextricably and will find company with each other in its journey enjoying the fruits that we admire and are addicted to.

September 19, 2015

Science and life

Science has introduced the idea of proof and is struggling. Anything worthwhile for life need not be proved. All that is needed is knowledge. Knowledge does not require proof, but ability to know (intelligence) and evidence (testimonial and experiential).

The purpose of science (and technology) is to analyse and go deep to the root of everything so that by knowing the make-up and structure or method of formation, we can reconstruct or arrive at a more elegant and useful structure (product, process). The progress of life is not touched by science, only the mode of its passage.

November 11, 2014

Science/Ethics/Objectivity

Science is 'objective' pursuit of knowledge by human mind. Ethics is an arbitrary code of conduct for human beings. Science is not the way to understand many things which impact life intimately. Science can never solve the ills and strife that result from human minds. You need an anchor for it, in one way or another. That cannot be provided by science. When we are into science, ethics has to be kept aside. When we try to put into use the products of science (nuclear energy), we need to bring in ethics. Science cannot be the guide on how we want to use science.

All knowledge we have is from human mind. There is no way we can have knowledge outside of human mind. Human mind carries subconsciously at least the impressions implanted in it willy-nilly. That a large number of sane people agree on a thing means nothing more than that the impressions are congruent. What we discuss is setting aside personal preferences or dogmas while exploring knowledge. It is still knowledge of human mind that has accepted certain impressions and invalidated others. This process of selectivity is not objective. Great minds differ on basic tenets, the minds are great because they want truth of whatever hue, but still they differ. The quest is on and we bring more facts and theories on the table. The process seems to be endless. Objectivity and rationalism are snapshots at the given point in time. Rationalism is as much a belief system.

August 13, 2014

Science is about observable things, spirituality is about the unseen. Science is analytical, spirituality is synthetic. Science is about parts, spirituality is about whole. The whole is not the sum of parts, like water is not just two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. The two will march parallel, science cannot deduce or disprove spiritual experience. We will see striking similarity, because we are trying to understand the same reality; and the best brains have been at work in both. But, we should not veer to the view ever that some scientific method can vindicate spiritual experience.

October 25, 2015

E= mc^2

When I was in Physical Chemistry class (1966), I asked what then appeared a naïve question, ‘What is the formula for atom bomb?’ Mr. Simon, the lecturer, went to the blackboard and wrote E= mc2 and looked triumphant. I knew that equation and wondered how an atom bomb could be made just from that equation. However, I did not want to appear more silly asking any further question. Now in Einstein’s biography, I read how Einstein pooh-poohed the idea in the beginning that it might be possible to unlock energy from mass. It involved many brains and experiments before an atom bomb would be made and its efficacy tested on the hapless Japanese.

September 11, 2014

Science

"What can be proved can be disproved..All our proof is in a conditioned world. If all conditions are removed, what remains? See carefully..a theorem proceeds from what is given. There is no proof without that. In other words we make assumptions. How valid are those assumptions? There is no proof for that. If you see carefully, physics is also the same. The universal constants hold in the universe we know of (or assume so). Science does not say that another universe may not exist where there may be different conditions where the constants are wobbly. If there is one thing Einstein's deduction points to, it is this: as we take more and more classes of facts into account and enlarge the generality (newton's laws are valid under more conditions), the fundamental truths shift subtly, which will not be apparent in normal experience. This is a call for caution, not a licence to predict bizarre things. For example, it does not prove, heaven, hell or soul.

"There are more things in the skies and earth, Scientist, Than are dreamt of in your science." That is Shakespeare distorted.

Let us make our experience, including what we have learnt, be our guide. Let us share that experience and sift disinterestedly. Actually, we have preconceived ideas, that there is soul or no soul, and make statements, the validity of which lacks conviction. The truth of the soul is not a matter of ordinary experience. There is nothing like we can file a habeas corpus petition about soul imprisoned in the body."

Afterwards I read Hermann Hesse write: "..the opposite of every truth is as true."

Scientism

This word was thrown at me when I wrote in a correspondence that Hinduism as it obtains today is quite different from Vedic religion. I did not quite bother to check on its meaning as a word is not an argument. People normally reply with such words as reactionary, obscurantist, etc. The description may be correct but some substantial point must follow or precede it. The judgmental comment is not enough to repudiate a point.

Coming across the word recently in a self-description, I sat up and looked for the meaning. I found this:

“Scientism (Noun RARE): thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists; excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." Wikipedia.

Interestingly, FB does not recognize the word.

I too think that science is only one way of acquiring knowledge and not the only way. There are areas like art, literature, love, etc. where science has minimal role to play. Moreover science is from the same human mind from which so many other ideas have come and made up life (not just biological living) as we live today.

But, we have to distinguish between areas where science may not help (soul and god, e.g.) and those where science has a crucial role to play. In areas where science can lead us to precise knowledge, it is vain to seek other methods like mysticism and scripture. If someone describes scientific approach in such instances as ‘scientism’, he is to be left to his illusions.

Infinity

There can be infinite discussion on this.

Is infinite finite or vague?

When a professor said that ‘infinity’ is relative, that seemed to contradict my understanding, but that was not critical to the idea he was setting out.

My daughter raised the doubt: ‘Does this explanation of infinity make sense to you?’, which is a euphemistic version of ‘What the professor says is nonsense.’

Independent of the above, prior to it, I raised the subject with two friends and their response:

RM:

“It is a nice parable. But it is not mathematics. In Bertrand Russell’s book,  ‘Principia Mathematica’, he discusses different infinities, each bigger than the one before. Aleph null is the infinity of all numbers, rational, irrational, etc...

Aleph 1 is the infinity of all geometrical figures regular and irregular and curves and squiggles (description mine, I don’t remember the original definition).

Aleph 2.........................

George Gamov explains infinity with the following story? Question: There is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms with infinite guests occupying the rooms. Another infinite guests arrive. How does the hotelier accommodate them? He vacates the guests from all the even numbered rooms and move them to odd numbered rooms which have to be available in a hotel with infinite number of rooms. The new infinite guests are accommodated in the even numbered rooms.          Zero works with three operators, +, -, and x, but not when it is division. Is it then a number that cannot perform one of the four arithmetical operations or is it not a part of the number continuum?    There is a definite difference between something small, minuscule, and something that is nonexistent. Physics has been upended by Quantum theory. But so far Mathematics stands its ground. But, who knows the professor may prove to be right.”

MA:

“Infinity appears to be relative, since, it can also be conceived in other terms than numbers.

Zero seems to be a null condition in all theatres.”

He recommends that I read this book:

https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/Eddington.2008.pdf

I in turn recommend it to others!

Both zero and infinity are a difficult concept to understand. Physically we know nothing that corresponds to them. We are not far better than the shepherd. And, believe me, mathematics does not really map the real world accurately. I say this on the authority of Hume and Russell.

Infinity is not ‘finite’ after all!

There is a difference between scientists and psudo-scientists.

Science deals with objects which have no mind as far as we know. They behave predictably, non-idiosyncratically. Thus we have laws of science that seem inexorable in a given framework.

Where human minds are at play and influence outcome, we are on shifting grounds or quicksand. That is the case with economics, stock prices, etc. Astrology is not a science, and even statistically, astrological predictions are unreliable because of human choice and decision, apart from the assumed role of planets on our lives. Psychology, though a science in its own right, is less certain because it deals with mind as its subject.

Even science becomes wobbly when observation is involved like in Q.M. The Q.M. theory veers to the view that the observer affects the outcome.

If we appreciate this basic difference, we will not put the economists on a pedestal even if some of their predictions became stunning reality, nor would we blame them when they goof up. We should not give them more attention than to the TV news and debate, esp. in Arnab show.

The subatomic particles behave in a way different from their aggregates. They are whimsical in a manner of speaking. You may say loosely that they have free will. We cannot fix them in a way they will obey our instructions like macro-level things appear to do, or we assume so.

The macro-level things follow the laws of classical physics which Schrodinger calls statistical.

It looks to me that the behaviour of an individual and a group will always be at variance. That is what we observe among human beings or animals or birds.

Why do we expect that we will find one day some laws which will make the behaviour of the two to be dovetailed into them?

Science - 1

Reason is always on the agenda whenever we discuss. It is a question of understanding what reason is and what its reach is, how much we really use 'reason' for basic life. Is reason within consciousness or beyond? If it is subject to consciousness, how do we place reliance on it if we do not know what consciousness is? If it is above consciousness with what faculty do we appreciate it? It is getting metaphysical. Higher science, esp. theoretical physics is reduced to metaphysics, speculation. I have no answer to any question. I am trying to find out whether i am asking right or useful questions. (VSR says that we must not waste our time on intellectually seductive questions, answers to which may lead us nowhere.” However, as i am not in serious pursuit, I am ignoring his advice!)

Reason is rarely a reason for finding something new. Much of it happens serendipitously. Kekule got a brainwave for the structure of benzene, and so on. We cannot believe in something like religion would bid us do. That is not the point I am making. We must make a genuine attempt to know, reason always being on our side even if unknown. When Mendeleev left a blank in the periodic table, he did it right on some intuition. He did not know that atomic number and not atomic weight was the fundamental property of an atom. There was a reason, but he did not know.

Consciousness is the basic thing to know, if we can. Understanding must be our goal whatever may be the route. One may be thoroughly logical without making any sense. (Possibly you may have a chuckle if there is logic here).

I am right now speculating that our understanding is defined by our consciousness, the way it has evolved and been fed on. A new understanding is a new dimension to the consciousness. What we knew earlier fitted squarely into our consciousness then. Likewise, something newer would make our understanding today silly. That applies to an individual and the humanity collectively. When there is a choice and ambivalent evidence, it becomes political as to what one chooses. If I choose steady state theory over string theory, I do it on some belief, not conviction. Conviction cannot come without examining the evidence, which many of us have not. We only read opinions of others and sway one way or another. That is not reason really. If I cannot test the validity of an opinion from primary evidence, I cannot claim that I am acting on reason.

Science – 2

Science: Is it the new religion?

Religion held sway for a long time and in fact does even now over vast sections of humanity. Its first serious challenge came perhaps from Karl Marx. Communism attracted a large number of people next to religion and became a quasi-religion. It became a more sombre, totalitarian, authoritarian and oppressive regime outdoing early religion.

Now, when I look at where science seems heading, I wonder whether science has become the new religion.

Reason is the altar in which everything must be sanctified. Human life depends less on reason than on values which reason and science cannot father.

One of the charms of religion was promise of immortality. People tried in various ways to make their earthly presence permanent, but none succeeded. Religion invented a lie that there would be a day of reckoning or some such thing when individuals would regain their identity in a deathless and painless life for the small fee of worship of a god. Now, I read scientists holding out hope that soon in a couple of generations, death would be a thing of the past.

(https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/30425/death-will-be-optional-and-ageing-curable-by-2045-say-genetic-engineers)

People believe it also, though they do not understand what is being talked about. That is the crux and bane of religion, blind belief which now extends to matters of science. A scientist says and so it must be true; the scientists have taken over from the prophets and priests.

The human tendency is to clutch at any straw and believe.

Evolution is an idea. Heaven is an idea.

Some ideas represent a ‘physical’ reality. ‘Physical’ does not mean ‘tangible’. Pain is ‘real physically’ but cannot be sensed by others in any way. It is the inalienable private property of the sufferer, forget mythological stories. One may argue that evolution is about physical reality while heaven is not.

Now, evolution and heaven are proposed based on some indications. It is in our bias that evolution is scientific and heaven is imaginary. But, how far are we grasping the scientific basis of evolution? Honestly, it is our belief that it is scientific. Do not get me wrong. I am not questioning evolution or supporting the existence of heaven. I am not that blissful. I am simply saying that in either case we are acting on belief impelled by either the result or the weight of ‘learned’ opinion. We become scientific only when we are able to appreciate the reasoning from primary evidence. In matters like relativity, QM, evolution, it is beyond the ken of ordinary people; degrees appended to one’s name do not make one extraordinary.

The idea of evolution has undergone many changes since Darwin. For a starter, read this article captioned, ‘Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution.’

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution?utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=IwAR0TXAxPD8m0nK4DsR3l5A3u-AdViConLDlNZl8pYNfncWx_DngHP47eDCU