Three months back there was an article in Nature (Policy: Free Indian science dated Apr. 02, 2014) discussing the status of science in India and how it should be free from government and bureaucratic interference. This is a good article and points towards the right direction. At the end of the day, science like religion should be de-coupled from governance. This is just basics. This article also brings to the fore the legacy of good science pursued under prominent Indian scientists decades back which leaves us wondering whether the era of monumental ingenuity by lone scientists, are over. Contemporary science often presents itself as a collaborative enterprise devoid of towering geniuses. This is an upsetting view, especially for Indian science because there has not been a single Nobel prize or Fields medal winner after our independence, despite our success in collaborative endeavors such as space and pharmaceuticals. Here I attempt to argue that in science, the era of individual geniuses are not over so that we can hope to reclaim the past legacy (provided we take much needed reforms). In fact, far from it, I claim that in disciplines requiring extensive collaborations, towering geniuses are inevitable outcomes as much as in the disciplines of minimal collaboration. To see this, we need to analyze the structure and the philosophy of science.
Science is not one single entity. There are at least two main divisions: formal sciences and experimental sciences. Formal sciences can be typically characterized by analytical propositions, i.e., those propositions that are true by their inherent meaning and not how they relate to the real world. In formal sciences like mathematics, theoretical physics/computer science and logic, the progress is largely determined by individual efforts with little scope for collaboration. This is simply because of the structure of these sciences. In these sciences, a new progress cannot merely shelter known propositions. Any new theory should subsume old theories: not just reconciliation of known ideas but proper inclusion of known facts. It is not mere accommodation of known doctrines in the new framework but explanation of available actualities within the new framework. Special relativity includes Newtonian mechanics and not merely accommodates it. Any result that holds true for a vector space should hold true for a Hilbert space. On the other hand, collaboration involves exchange of ideas, although can aid in the formation of a grandeur theory, often works on the level of ideas than on intuition. Encompassing theories are invented purely on the levels of intuition where collaboration has minimal influence. Therefore, there are ample scope for geniuses, who can stand out from the ordinary, by building a better bigger theory. This doesn't mean the progress is linear and a great theory, as a giant leap in our understanding, can take its time to arrive. In these systems of thought, history determines who is great and who is not. Blessed are those scientists who were recognized during their lifetimes. Such recognition need not always happen and certainly we cannot expect them to happen during the short window of our times. Events that leave footprints in the history of science are separated in time far greater than the average human life. For instance, it took more than 160 years for special relativity at appear (it was proposed in 1905) after Newton passed away in 1727. In my opinion, Paul Erdos, the hungarian mathematician could easily be one of the great historical figures who died in the recent past. Currently, Terrence Tao is considered an extraordinary mathematician and history has the potential to elevate him to a genius like David Hilbert. Therefore, at least in the case of formal sciences, where collaboration is of limited importance, we can expect history to determine superiority. And often history repeats itself.
In the case of experimental sciences, it can be argued that today's science has increasingly become collaborative. Several reasons could be attributed to it, including availability of information, increased networking, abundance of scientists etc. However, it is important to recognize that the very nature of these sciences allow exchange of ideas at the fundamental level. This is because experimental facts cannot be derived from a well-defined and agreed set of axioms. Whatever be the reasons for collaboration in these sciences, it is not straight-forward to see why they should result in geniuses. Thomas Kuhn, in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions talks about normal science and paradigm shifts. Basically, progress in science proceeds in three distinct phases. Prescience that lacks a central paradigm comes first. In this phase scientists scramble to define a central defining principle. As an example, in the beginning of 20th century there was struggle to define a unit of inheritance until Gregor Mendel established its laws. This prescience phase is usually followed by normal science. Normal science is a puzzle-solving exercise proceeds by development-by-accumulation and attempts to refine and strengthen a central paradigm. This phase is extremely productive and keeps scientists in business. In this developmental phase, the works of professional scientists who conform to the central paradigm are acknowledged and honored. Scientific results that doesn't reconcile with the central paradigm are not considered as refuting the paradigm but viewed as a mistake of the researcher. For example, in modern times, any result that do not conform to the central dogma of molecular biology would be considered as a blunder of the researcher in designing an experiment. As results anomalous to the central paradigm appear in increasing frequency, there comes a crisis point in science when a new paradigm that accommodates the original framework as well as the anomalous results, emerges. This is a period of revolutionary science when contradictory theories and ideas are reconciled and merged into a broader framework. There have been several revolutionary periods in the history of science. In the recent times, negative experiments of Michelson-Morley in 1887 (that attempted to validate the theory of aether) and eventual emergence of special relativity in 1905, marks one such period in experimental physics. This phase also brings in towering researchers. These pioneering scientists are stalwarts who question the central and well established principles, just to come up with an inclusive framework.
Thus, regardless of whether science is formal or experimental, pioneers are bound to arise and the need of the hour for Indian science is to create an environment that works to this advantage. The rise of such glorious scientists whenever contradictions overwhelm normal science, reminds of the classic verse in Bhagavad Gita:
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāḿ
dharma-saḿsthāpanārthāya
sambhavāmi yuge yuge
In the case of experimental sciences, it can be argued that today's science has increasingly become collaborative. Several reasons could be attributed to it, including availability of information, increased networking, abundance of scientists etc. However, it is important to recognize that the very nature of these sciences allow exchange of ideas at the fundamental level. This is because experimental facts cannot be derived from a well-defined and agreed set of axioms. Whatever be the reasons for collaboration in these sciences, it is not straight-forward to see why they should result in geniuses. Thomas Kuhn, in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions talks about normal science and paradigm shifts. Basically, progress in science proceeds in three distinct phases. Prescience that lacks a central paradigm comes first. In this phase scientists scramble to define a central defining principle. As an example, in the beginning of 20th century there was struggle to define a unit of inheritance until Gregor Mendel established its laws. This prescience phase is usually followed by normal science. Normal science is a puzzle-solving exercise proceeds by development-by-accumulation and attempts to refine and strengthen a central paradigm. This phase is extremely productive and keeps scientists in business. In this developmental phase, the works of professional scientists who conform to the central paradigm are acknowledged and honored. Scientific results that doesn't reconcile with the central paradigm are not considered as refuting the paradigm but viewed as a mistake of the researcher. For example, in modern times, any result that do not conform to the central dogma of molecular biology would be considered as a blunder of the researcher in designing an experiment. As results anomalous to the central paradigm appear in increasing frequency, there comes a crisis point in science when a new paradigm that accommodates the original framework as well as the anomalous results, emerges. This is a period of revolutionary science when contradictory theories and ideas are reconciled and merged into a broader framework. There have been several revolutionary periods in the history of science. In the recent times, negative experiments of Michelson-Morley in 1887 (that attempted to validate the theory of aether) and eventual emergence of special relativity in 1905, marks one such period in experimental physics. This phase also brings in towering researchers. These pioneering scientists are stalwarts who question the central and well established principles, just to come up with an inclusive framework.
Thus, regardless of whether science is formal or experimental, pioneers are bound to arise and the need of the hour for Indian science is to create an environment that works to this advantage. The rise of such glorious scientists whenever contradictions overwhelm normal science, reminds of the classic verse in Bhagavad Gita:
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāḿ
vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
sambhavāmi yuge yuge
No comments:
Post a Comment