The Royal Society of London
Possibly we could trace the roots of this
unfortunate development of science in the charter of the Royal Society of
London. With its motto Nullius in Verba (Take nobody’s word [1]) the
Society stands for the “Improvement of Natural Knowledge”. Its enduring
commitment has been the empirical evidence as a basis of comprehension of the
physical world. In this formulation we discern the practical mind of the
British in its pursuit of wisdom. Promotion of scientific knowledge is
fundamentally to bring rewards to man. But the question is how to acquire this
knowledge. Francis Bacon answers it by proposing the principle of “critical
empiricism”. Inductive logic based on observation of nature and verifiable
deductions made from it become the guiding method. Kelvin did not accept
anything which could not be put in numbers. Thus, physics and metaphysics get
differentiated. There is meaning in the Aristotelian methodology but it
acquires another sense. While the search of the first is for the material and
efficient causes, the second engages itself with the formal and final causes.
But this also implies that science gets institutionalized. State financing enters
into the enterprise. Thirtysix years after Bacon’s death came into existence
the Royal Society. In it we have, as Sri Aurobindo would put, “human knowledge
for human use.” Not that we should deprecate it, but that cannot be the entire
purport of what we strive in human nobility.
In his account of
the Society (1645-1662) John Wallis tells us the following:
About the year
1645… I had the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy persons,
inquisitive into natural philosophy… what has been called the New Philosophy,
or Experimental Philosophy… Our business was to discourse and consider of
Philosophical Enquiries, and such as related thereunto: as physic, anatomy,
geometry, astronomy, navigation, statics, magnetics, chemics, mechanics, and
natural experiments… We would by no means be thought to slight or undervalue
the philosophy of Aristotle, which has for many ages obtained in the schools…
He was a great enquirer into the history of nature, but we do not think (nor
did he think), that he had so exhausted the stock of knowledge of that kind as
that there would be nothing left for the enquiry of aftertimes...
The first group of
men coming together to form the Royal Society included Robert Boyle, John
Wilkins, John Wallis, John Evelyn, Robert Hooke, Christopher Wren, and William
Petty. The main considerations that weighed in the minds of those Savants of
the Society were essentially about the investigative quest of the physical
world, as to
...how far more
importantly a good method of thinking, and a right course of apprehending
things, does contribute towards the attaining of perfection in true knowledge.
In this pursuit it
was further avowed that the “barbarousness” of the style of the Indians would
not be encouraged. While Plato was allowed “to be the chief Master of
speaking,” Aristotle “was esteemed one of the purest, and most polite Writers
of his time.” The thrust was on affirmative slant in the objective pursuit of
knowledge rather than matters concerning divinity. This certainly was an epoch-making
event in the advancement of the knowledge of the material world. That spirit is
well imbibed in the following letter written to the King of England urging him
to issue a Royal Charter of Incorporation:
EPISTLE DEDICATORY
To The King.
Sir,
OF all the Kings of Europe, Your Majesty was
the first, who confirmed this Noble Design of Experiments, by Your own Example,
and by a Public Establishment. An Enterprize equal to the most renoun’d Actions
of the best Princes. For, to increase the Powers of all Mankind, and to free
them from the bondage of Errors, is greater Glory than to enlarge Empire, or to
put Chains on the necks of Conquered Nations.
What Reverence all Antiquity had for the
Authors of Natural Discoveries, is evident by the Diviner sort of Honor they
conferred on them. Their Founders of Philo-sophical Opinions were only admir’d
by their own Sects.
Their Valiant Men and Generals did seldome
rise higher than to Demy-Gods and Heros. But the Gods they Worshipped with
Nor has the True God himself omitted to shew
his value of Vulgar Arts. In the whole History of the first Monarchs of the
World, from Adam to Noah, there is no mention of their Wars, or their
Victories: All that is Recorded is this, They lived so many years, and taught
their Posterity to keep Sheep, to till the Ground, to plant Vineyards, to dwell
in to work in Brass and Iron. And if they deserved a Sacred Remembrance, for
one Natural or Mechanical Invention, Your Majesty will certainly obtain
Immortal Fame, for having established a perpetual Succession of Inventors.
I am
May it please Your Majesty
Your Majesties most humble, and most obedient
Subject, and Servant,
Thomas Sprat
King Charles II put his Great Seal of approval on 15 July
1662 and the Royal Society of London came into official existence. The King
presented the new Society with a silver mace which has the emblems of England,
Ireland, Scotland and France on its head. That was a great event indeed.
The first president of the Society was
Viscount William Bouncker and the first meeting was held on 20 May 1663. In
that meeting 150 Fellows were elected. There are currently more than 65 Nobel
Laureates amongst the Society’s approximately 1300 Fellows and Foreign Members.
Throughout its history, the Society has
promoted excellence in science through its Fellowship, which has included Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Dorothy Hodgkin,
Francis Crick, James Watson and Stephen Hawking. It also tells us about the
objectives to which the Society is committed—to recognise excellence in
science; support leading scientific research and its applications; stimulate
international interaction; further the role of science, engineering and
technology in society; promote education and the public’s understanding of
science; provide independent authoritative advice on matters relating to
science, engineering and technology; encourage research into the history of
science.
Matter gets due Recognition
The strong aversion shown by the scientific
elite towards the articulators of faith as well as towards the learned ancients
who had only theoretic ideas of the world had a certain justification. No doubt
this world of thoughts has a charm, but the workshop of Hephaestus has also to
give to them the solidity of form. After all, it is the “thingishness” of
things that should matter. The constructive-productive role of scientific
societies in relocating the centre of gravity towards what is substantial and
gainful in that respect has undoubtedly a utility. Matter must be given its due
recognition.
We have in the British Museum Robert Hooke’s
statement, dated 1663, that begins as follows:
The business and design of the Royal Society
is—To improve the knowledge of natural things, and all useful Arts,
Manufactures, Mechanick practices, Engynes and Inventions by Experiments—no
meddling with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick or
Logick.
The Royal Society remains down-to-earth and
pragmatic in its pursuit of knowledge. Man is finally the measure of things and
all must be in accordance with it. In that pursuit the rising spires of
amazement and glory vanish into bluish tenuity of the nothing. Knowledge not
for the sake of knowledge, but know-ledge for the sake of power then becomes
the guiding criterion. It is a sort of paradox that the learned men of science,
the Savants of the Royal Society, should have lent themselves to issues that do
not behove the truer and profounder spirit of science. But then that is
precisely the character of the occidental mind. In this philosophy of
pragmatism we already see the large-sized seeds of rampant consumerism of the
American brand that is ravishing us all today. But science for commerce can
never be satisfying.
But there is another kind frightening danger.
The harshness of materialism of yesteryears had its birth in the scientific
tradition that got set in the wake of empirical rationalism. But by wrapping
ourselves in the virtue of rationalist empiricism we have closed our sight to
the possibilities of a subtler intuitive perception that can broaden and
greaten our life. When
The idea that space and time may form a
closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of
God in the affair of the universe. With the success of scientific theories
describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the
universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the
universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the
universe should have looked like when it started—it will be still up to God to
wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe
had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is
really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have
neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
The present understanding of science itself
does not warrant any such conclusion. In that sense
There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will.
If the Hellenic civilization was idea-based
and the age of religion proclaimed supremacy of revelation, in the tremendous
era of empirical rationalism physical things are becoming absolute. That is
making it ominous also. Add to that the arrogance that is displayed by this
fraternity and we have disquieting concerns.
The Ethical Dilemma
The foundational
principles of the Royal Society are now getting challenged. In some quarters it
is being realised that the criterion of assuring “perpetual succession of
inventors” is not after all such an ennobling happy proposition. Might be the
foundational principles will have to be reexamined. AV Hill says: “The best and
the noblest motive for the study of Science is the intense mental enjoyment and
the spiritual satisfaction that it brings. Science has proved and will continue
to prove useful, in a material way, in alleviating man’s lot, in curing
disease, in prolonging and beauty-fying life; and there are few investments
more profitable than provision for those who have the skill, the persistence,
and the ability to pursue the close and careful analysis of the ways of the
living organism; but let us, and them, not miss the pleasure, the enjoyment,
and the profit—in the end if you like the material advantages—of seeing the
picture as a whole. But humanity would never advance much, spiritually,
mentally, and materially, were the whole world covered only with small holdings
and potato patches; one needs occasionally to be selfish and to take the better
part, to reflect on the fundamental mysteries of the world, on life and its
nature and development.” (The Ethical Dilemma of Science, 1960)
In
Fragmentation
ad Infinitum
Let us take an example of this science—of CERN, the European
Organization for Nuclear Research. Founded in 1954, the site straddles the
French-Swiss border west of the city of Geneva. 20 European countries finance
the Laboratory. More than 7000 scientists from laboratories and universities
all over the globe work here to study the constituents of matter and the nature
of fundamental forces. It is proclaimed that CERN’s mission is “to create new
knowledge on subjects ranging from anti-hydrogen to neutrinos, to the proton's
inner structure, to the generation of mass and dark matter.” The World Wide Web
is a great spin-off from the CERN research to
which we should be truly grateful. 3000 employees see that the facility is
running smoothly. And what a piece of perfect machinery it is!
What matter is made of and what forces hold it
together are some of the basic problems that haunt this explorer of the
unknown. Entering into the graininess of matter and interactions amongst these
grains is perhaps reaching the foundational depth of matter itself. How do
fermions and bosons behave and is there something beyond them from which they
come? There is also the paradox of fermions becoming bosons and vice-versa. The
forces become particles and particles become forces. The discovery of what are
called Higgs particles is expected to provide answers to these questions. All
this has far-reaching implications for the professionals. But then it also
means that our view of the material world is just the-state-of-the-art view
which does not stretch too far beyond a decade or so. How much value can one
really attach to its provisionality? It is a step-by-step under-standing of the
world which may be safe and comforting, but can never be satisfying. And, could
this be the way the secrets of matter will be revealed to us?
Possibly there might be another point of view,
another way of exploring and comprehending matter. But that another way can
certainly not be in the manner of traditional philosophies which look down upon
this world of matter with disdain,—because it has been full of inertia and
obscurity, lacking self-awareness of any kind. For a scientist the Laws of
Nature are sacrosanct. In fact it is that belief which gives him the confidence
that she will not dupe him, that while he is building gigantic facilities to
study her product that is matter she will not prove capricious. That is a
well-founded faith, if faith needs foundation. But aren’t these laws of our own
mental making? Are they utterly infallible? We have not discovered Matter; we
have discovered our laws of Matter. That takes us a step away from Matter.
The focus of mind on matter
has richly yielded what the toiling centuries of metaphysical or dogmatic
religion could never achieve. But mind in its very nature is an instrument of
analysis and not of synthesis. It has been probing deeper and deeper into the
minuteness of matter,—only to see that it cannot return to get a unified view
of things. Atomicity is as old as Democritus, but today it has acquired the
keenness of the material tool itself. The larger the accelerator we build the
tinier becomes this ‘atom’. Molecules, atoms, electrons, nuclei, quarks are the
finer grains of this creation. Open the molecule and we see atoms, open the
atom and we have the constituting nucleons, and open the nucleon and we are
told that there are inseparable quarks. It is like a Chinese box within a box,
ad infinitum. The fragmentation seems to be endless. Breaking into bits, and
yet apparently not into such insignificant bits,—that is the characteristic
feature of mind. With this procedure we cannot arrive at the building blocks of
matter. The only truth we can get is that of reducing matter to a dust of
vanishing granularity. We shall never know how the quarks get together to
produce nucleons, and so on, to produce larger material aggregates, eventually
forming building blocks of life. But water droplets and the stream are two
different things. White light is not just a combination of spectral colours. In
fact the aggregate has features altogether different than of its constituents.
Every entity is therefore elementary and irreducible in terms of its
properties; every entity is an element. A house is not just brick and mortar.
It has its own personality, its own individuality. We must understand how this
personality or this individuality arises, this uniqueness of it.
The Newtonian-Cartesian approach has in it the
seeds of the glory and the fall and perhaps after the convincing triumph we are
at the end of this great Journey of Atomicity. We have gained much but we have
also drifted away from values that bring to life wholesomeness. Perhaps we do
not know why we are doing science. Isn’t
that strange?
It is good to concentrate on particle physics
and build gigantic machines. It is good to construct huge telescopes to probe
the secrets of nature. It has multifold rewards and they are always welcome.
But we have yet to answer the question: What for are these machines and these
experiments? The development of tools by themselves can never be the sole
objective; even the cave man invented them for the purpose of hunting. They may
have acceptable social fallouts, but that is another matter. Utilitarianism is
understandable, but it is just one small aspect and cannot be all-engrossing.
The truth, that something, which is hidden must emerge. The inquisitive spirit
of man must stand out prominently. When that happens what is obscure gets
light, what is death-bound overcomes the law of decay-disintegration-death,
what is inert breathes true spontaneity of will and action.
Indian Celebrities Abroad
It
is here that we expect authentic Indian contribution to come in a distinctive
way. It is often said that for doing science in
This does not get reflected in its real sense
in the works of even the winners of Nobel prizes who hail from the
subcontinent, particularly if we pride in them as individuals belonging to this
culture. We may include the names of Har Gobind Khorana, S Chandrasekhar, Abdus
Salam and, with a certain pertinence, Amartya Sen also. Their contributions are
quite significant in the respective fields, something which they could not have
done by remaining back home. The ambience, the academic or even the enriching
surroundings that are required for their kind of work are absent here,—which
also means that it is not just the question of facilities in the country.
True, science has its own life-style and manners and needs its own
greenhouse to grow and flourish. Yet what is basically important is the
overall attitude towards things. We must appreciate that genuine creativity
has to be always incontingent. A well-prepared and pioneering mind moulds its
own eventualities and its own harmonious accordances, produces its own
instruments and rich tools,—as was done by JC Bose and CV Raman. Perhaps it
is in our general psychological build-up that we should discover the causes why
there is no Indian science, be that in
Khorana began his career with proteins and
nucleic acids. He was the first to synthesise oligonucleotides, which have a
wide range of applications in biotechnography.
Chandrasekhar showed in 1930 that a star of a mass greater than 1.4
times that of the sun has to end its life by collapsing into an object of
enormous density. According to Hans Bethe, “Chandra was a first-rate
astrophysicist.” And Martin Rees: “Chandra probably thought longer and deeper
about our universe than anyone since Einstein.” These are high complements
indeed, acclaiming great professional advances made, but we do not know how far
has knowledge really moved forward.
Abdus Salam had Islamic convictions and
believed in the heritage. He saw that God created the universe with ideas of
beauty and symmetry and harmony, with regularity and without chaos. “The Koran
places a lot of emphasis on natural law,” he holds. His electroweak theory
combined weak and electromagnetic interactions—the latest stage reached on the
path towards the unification of the fundamental forces of nature.
Moving away from science to economics we have
Amartya Sen. The “impossibility theorem” of social choice given by Kenneth
Arrow had made a deep impact on him. But this was a pessimistic picture and
Amrtya Sen’s effort was to overcome this. But the roots of economics of the
Indian system are deeper and more vigorous, more life-nourishing. These find
their harmonious place in the fourfold organization we have in our system. Our
economist seems to be oblivious to it.
This indeed shows that we have not discovered
ourselves yet. It is pertinent to recall here what Sri Aurobindo wrote almost a
hundred years ago. It seems that when a culture that has fallen into a state of
comparative inactivity, sleep, contraction finds thrown upon it novel and
successful powers and functionings. But if there is only a mechanical
imitation, then that culture gets swallowed up by the invading leviathan. What
is needed is that we must go back to whatever corresponds to our culture, the
spirit which illumines its sense, justifies its highest purport in our own
spiritual conception of life and existence, and in that light work out its
extent, degree, form, relation to other ideas, applications. To live in one’s
self, determining one’s self-expression from one’s centre of being in
accordance with one’s own law of being, swadharma,
is the first necessity. That of course does not mean that an individual may be
born in
This law of one’s own being, this swadharma, is the sole criterion we have to apply to our
celebrities—professionals and Nobels—while evaluating the Indian-ness we are
looking for in their triumphant merits. The Indian tradition is to create
traditions. Assimilating all the gains of the Western world we have to rebuild
our own values that will fulfil our deepest longings, our aspirations. When
well founded, we will have followed the “Goethean methods, based on developing
intuitive holistic thinking for entering into a different kind of relationship
with life.” In the process even the quantum ‘fuzziness’ of physicists may
indeed turn out to be fruitful.
Ilya Prigogine showed that any open system has
the capacity to respond to disorder and change and this it does by reorganising
itself at a higher level. We have a similar possibility in our freedom to do
things. Will from our present-day “dissipative structures” arise a new order?
If we practise American science we run along the principal American warp and
immediately the answer to our question will be “No.”
RY Deshpande
[1]
Ac ne forte roges, quo me duce, quo
lare tuter,
Nullius addictus iurare in verba
magistri.
(Horace, Epistles I.i, 1.13-14)
You shall not ask for whom I fight
Nor in what school my peace I find;
I say no master has the right
To swear me to obedience blind.
(Trans. CT Carr)