Science and Society
Though modern science is of relatively recent origin in human history, it has made very rapid progress and transformed outwardly the manner of our living. It is said that our life outwardly has changed more in the last one hundred years than it did earlier in thousands of years. And this is largely because of the scientific knowledge accumulated over the last three centuries, and its application in the form of technology. The impact of science on society is very visible; and the results of progress in agriculture, medicine and health care, telecommunications, transportation, computerization and so on, are part of ourdaily living.
Despite this progress in science, and the consequent development of technology and industry, with the attendant comforts as well as power, in no part of the world are human beings happy and at peace with themselves, living without violence. It was hoped that the development of science would usher in an era of peace and prosperity, but that has been belied. On the contrary, if we look at the level of violence throughout the world during successive ten-year periods since 1900, in every decade, in every country, the crime-graph continues to go up. What we see on the one hand is greater economic prosperity, but on the other, greater violence, sorrow, anxiety along with acute ecological imbalancesand new diseases.
Krishnamurti raised the question: Has there been any psychological evolution at all in the last several thousand years? Have we progressed at all in wisdom, or the quest for truth, or inwardly, in our consciousness? Science has generated tremendous power; knowledge always gives power and is useful because it increases our abilities. But when we do not have love, compassion and a feeling of brotherhood, which are all by-products of wisdom as self-knowledge, then power is used destructively. Sixty-five percent of all the scientific research being done currently is directly or indirectly meant for developing weapons and is supported by the Defence Ministry in every nation. In the last century, several million people have been killed in wars, which is without precedent in anyprevious century.
So, does humanity have the capacity to handle the knowledge which science is generating? Are we not like children playing with fire? For, without wisdom, might we not set the whole house on fire and burn ourselves? There is hatred in our motivations; we are badly divided into groups—caste, national, linguistic, religious and other groups. We have been at war for thousands of years; and we now have nuclear weapons making war a million times more disastrous. Is the new knowledge taking us in the right direction? Through genetic engineering we might develop new power, but can we ensure that we will use that power for the benefit of mankind? All the nations of the world are spending huge amounts in developing scientific knowledge as if that is our priority. Are the problems of humanity today caused by not having sufficiently fast airplanes or computers or are they because of the psychologically primitive state in which we find ourselves due to a lack of the understanding of ourselves? Is it then responsible of us to pursue greater knowledge, giving more and more power, without the wisdom to use it rightly? Responsibility from a holistic point of view is universal responsibility. We are responsible for the whole of society, all ofhumankind, and also the earth.
The purpose of science
It is said that Einstein regretted the fact that his equation e=mc square—which stated a great truth about nature, that mass is just another form of energy—led to the development of atomic bombs that killed large numbers of people in Japan. So, why do science? Here we must distinguish between science and technology. Science is the quest for truth about nature. Its aim is not to produce technology, but to understand how nature works and discover the order and intelligence operating around us. If nature were chaotic, if on being released a stone sometimes went down and sometimes up, then there would be no science. But definite causes produce definite effects, and that is why science is possible. The scientist does not create order; he merely studies it. Newton only discovered gravitation, which existed a million years before him and will exist a million years hence. The laws of Nature are independent of the scientist. If we ask why Nature is ordered, the scientist cannot answer that question. He can only say, ‘I am a student of nature. I observe and find that it is very orderly and I am studying the laws that govern that order.’ The technologist takes the knowledge that the scientist discovers and uses it to make guns, or a motorcar, or generate electricity. Technology is a by product of science, but science itself is thequest for truth about Nature.
Before Faraday, who discovered electromagnetism, it was thought that electricity and magnetism were two completely separate things. But he discovered that if you push a magnet towards a loop of metallic wire, a current is generated in it as shown by the deflection of a galvanometer. He was very excited about this new discovery. After he demonstrated this in a big hall, somebody asked, ‘All this is very well, but of what use is this discovery?’ And he replied: ‘It is a newborn child. Of what use is a newborn child?’ Today we know that that discovery made it possible to have electric lights and fans, motorcars, airplanes and so on. But that was not the reason why Faraday discovered electromagnetism; he was juststudying nature.
Humanity has succeeded in its quest for discovering the order in nature, because that order is already there. We are living in a very intelligent universe. Our own body is an example of it. A million things take place in perfect order within our body without any conscious voluntary effort on our part. But we have not discovered order in consciousness, which is virtue, peace of mind, love, happiness, compassion, freedom from conflict, non-violence. Socrates wrote that there is only one virtue, which is order in consciousness, though we may describe it in different words in different situations. And the quest for truth, and wisdom, which is the essence of self-knowledge, is the quest for order in consciousness. If there is wisdom, we will not use knowledge for destructive purposes. And if there is no wisdom, we are violent and selfish and we use the knowledge in a destructive way. So is there anything we can learn from science as people interested in wisdom, in coming upon a deeper understanding of life and of ourselves? Science, or scientific knowledge, does not deal with values per se, with what is right and what is wrong. It does not say that you should be kind. Scientific knowledge is said to be valueneutral. And yet one must discover what is called the scientific spirit, for this may have something to teach us. The spirit is always more important than the technique, the knowledge or the method in any activity. Although in society we have valued scientific knowledge and its application as technology, we have not really valued the scientific spirit, without which it is wrong to call ours a scientific society. We are really a very unscientific society. Science tells us that we all have originated from one common source, that all life on the planet is interdependent, and that the whole earth is one. Yet we divide ourselves and say, ‘This is my culture, this is my country and I will work only for this.’ We give tremendous importance to where we are born, which is just an accident of birth, and cultivate nationalism as a virtue. Then for the benefit of our nation we have armies to exploit other nations. This is not scientific. War is not scientific in spirit though it may use the gadgets produced from scientificknowledge.
What is the scientific spirit?
What can we learn from science that is precious? To understand this, let me take the example of physics. It begins with observation, for understanding any phenomenon in nature requires careful observation, honest documentation, measurement, and recording. Then having collected a lot of data about the phenomenon, a scientist looks for correlations among them. From empirically found data, correlations between two variable quantities are first established. Then the scientist guesses a model of the underlying reality, which would explain those correlations. That is where his insight or his genius manifests, for he has to guess what is unknown. Whenever scientists talk about a theory they are talking about an imaginary model of the underlying reality. Nobody has seen electrons actually going around a nucleus inside an atom. That is a conjecture, a model, about the underlying reality. To this model they apply logic, using the existing known laws determined from previous work and a peculiar form of logic called mathematics, which is a product of the human mind. With all this they develop‘a theory’, and try to explain all observedfacts and also predict new facts that havenot been observed until then. Then thescientists go back to observation and doexperiments to check if their predictionsare correct. If the experimental values donot tally with the theoretically predictedvalues, they either modify the model, orthey discard it altogether and start all overagain.
It is a deep quest because they are not accepting reality as they see it. They are saying there is an underlying reality that is not visible, and we are going to describe it. But since it is not visible, we have to guess, to imagine it, and that constitutes the model. Sometimes people argue that scientists keep changing their models so why not wait till they have made up their minds and only then read what they have to say! This view is incorrect because the successive models are closer and closer approximations to reality. Thus Einstein’s model of the universe is a better approximation to reality than that of Newton but Newton’s model still applies and is used in circumstanceswhere it is valid.
So a scientist begins with saying, ‘We do not know the truth about nature. We are making a conjecture and we have found a method by which we can test whether this conjecture is correct or not and to what extent it is correct.’ That is how science has progressed—without accepting truth on authority. A young student can question Einstein, and point out an error, and Einstein will agree and thank him if indeed he is right. So nothing is accepted on authority. Science demands proof, observation, testing with experiments; and the truth must be something which is universal, which everybody can be convinced of. However, scientists limit themselves to studying phenomena that are measurable.
There is also much in life that is not measurable, which is the field of religion. But there are a number of values that are inherent in the way science is done, which we can learn from science. The spirit of science is one of great humility. Scientists are not humble but science is humble! It encourages observation, testing what is observed, questioning, doubt. And the truth is the same for everybody. There is no such thing as an American truth and an Indian truth. There is no Indian mathematics and American mathematics. So, it is a global activity, a dialogue among thousands of people who have never met, because the experiment is repeated in another country by another group of scientists who write down their results and publish them, and everybody reads them. Thus there is a process of international dialogue, constant re-examination, testing and correction going on all over the world and the ultimate truth is always posited as the unknown. There is a beautiful definition of science given by Feynman which emphasizes this:‘Science is a body of knowledge some ofwhich is nearly certain, some that is quiteuncertain and none that is completelycertain.’
A scientific approach to religious truths
Truth is global, universal; it is not the private property of any individual. It is the same for everybody. These are values constituting the scientific spirit. In order to settle a dispute, violence is not used, nor authority. So the spirit is one of non-violence, of dialogue. It is also a truly democratic endeavour, based on cooperation, humility, and mutual respect. All scientists may not be true scientists if they do not work with that spirit, but that is the way of science. Unfortunately, the scientist adopts the scientific attitude as a policy in the laboratory but does not extend it to other areas of life. Krishnamurti once made an interesting statement related to this. He said: The religious mind has no beliefs; it has no dogmas; it moves from fact to fact, and therefore the religious mind is a scientific mind. But the scientific mind is not a religious mind. The religious mind includes the scientific mind, but the mind trained in the knowledge of science is not a religious mind. To discover the truth about nature, this scientific mind is competent. The same spirit is also valid for discovering religious truths since religious truths are also universal, not different for different people. But the scientific method of experimentation is not possible in this inward inquiry, since the observer is not separate from the observed and truths cannot be demonstrated to all and sundry. However, we can in the religious inquiry too posit the truth as the unknown, rely more on observation than on assertion, enquire together with humility and conduct dialogues about our perceptions, doubt 10 *Honorary Scientist, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi. them and attempt to discover for ourselves what the truth is. The true essence of religion is the quest for wisdom, and wisdom means seeing the deeper inner nature of how our consciousness functions. That is precisely the spirit of the scientific quest with regard to nature.
As educationists we must inquire whether science can be taught in such a way as to inculcate the scientific spirit in the student and not merely the knowledge of science. That would require a very different approach to the teaching of science than what we have at present. Unfortunately, science is taught as a technique, to carry out our narrow purposes. Science has become the servant of society and not its architect. The politician illogically, irrationally and in ignorance decides to go to war; and scientists, as employees, help to do whatever the government wants. The same kind of mistake is made in regard to religion; we have not imbibed the spirit of religion. When we really care for the spirit—whether of science or religion— and delve deep, we will discover that the true religious feeling and the scientific spirit are not separate. Indeed, great scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger have come to the religious feeling through science, through the perception of beauty in Nature. Whichever aspect of the earth or this universe you explore deeply—whether the human mind or the tree—you will discover marvellous beauty there. When you go deep, truth becomes beauty and beauty, truth; and that is also wisdom. The form without the spirit belies wisdom. Only in the depths is there truth, wisdom and therefore peace and harmony.
The true religious quest is a quest for wisdom and any feeling of antagonism between the scientific and religious quests is a product of a narrow vision. To quote Schroedinger, the founder of wave mechanics, who was also a serious student of Vedanta:
I consider science an integrating part of our endeavour to understand the one philosophical question which contains all others: who are we? I consider this not one of the tasks, but the task of science, the only one that counts.