Category: General blogs

#22 Science as just another inter-human barrier – Guest session by Prof. Radhika Seshan

Subir / / Society & Science

Here the well acclaimed professor and history scholar discussed how science itself creates barriers through the claims to ‘universality’ of knowledge, what is right and what is not. A fantastic session, but how to capture it in so few words of a blog post written by someone who only sat in for 1 class ?

#20 Science and wars (incomplete)

Subir / / Society & Science

Motivation

Wars – the favorite pass time for power-monarchs – either to express existence of power, to expand power, to consolidate power or to preserve power – are a part of human nature. Like it or not we are affected by it, sometimes we want war and sometimes we dont and so on. This huge complicated endeavor often uses and improves sciences and technologies – tools to ‘help’ humans get on with lives in a ‘convenient’ way. So needless to say this must be explored.

Session

science and wars

  • First we explore why we fight in the first place? We may be fighting for resources of food and shelter, or over mates – physical stuff. Or we may be fighting for our group which has some threat from diversity (another group). The un-digestible diversity maybe over myths or traditions or our sacred symbols. However, the basic pattern in all fights is the prelude – the justification that goes on before fights begin, that hatred that grows against the ‘other’ group. We break the character of the ‘other’ down, demean them to unworthy of stuff, stereotype them into some bad image and so on, all the while forming an ‘us’ of superior qualities, fantastic values and ideals. We do this so inherently, at least i find myself doing this when i am not so stable. I wonder how wide-spread it is. Why do you see this happening even now between India and Pakistan, Hindus Vs. Muslim, etc and etc? ‘They’ (Pakistanis or Muslims or Christians or Westerns or caste people, or any one else) are doing something wrong and we have a moral right over them, we would like to teach them a lesson because they deserve… We do this on an individual level as well as national levels.
  • …

#19 ‘At the tri-junction of fragility and vulnerability – the Andaman and Nicobar story’ – A guest Lecture by Dr. Pankaj Sekhsaria

Subir / / Society & Science

Dr. Pankaj Sekhsaria has been a journalist (see TheHindu articles) for many years in the domain of ecology and environmental advocacy (through NGO Kalpavriksh). Recently he has also been researching and writing about how science, technology and society operates in India. Currently he is an Assistant Professor at Center for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas at IIT Powai, Mumbai.

At SoS we wanted to invite Pankaj for two things 1) to speak on the topics of his PhD- how STS (Society, Technology and Sciences) work in India and 2) About the ecological story and challenges faced in Andaman and Nicobar islands. Due to shortage of time and also the pressing needs of the time, the latter was chosen for this session.

Guest talk

I would not be able to paraphrase everything here, but only those that i took notes about and which stuck me. This was a presentation. The point-wise noting here (sorry its dry and no where compares to the engaging and lively 1.5h talk):

  • In the first few slides Pankaj introduced why and where A&N islands lie, what constitutes this place, the ecology and human populations there. Striking is the ecological diversity within the island chains as well as the ecological uniqueness because of being remote islands.
  • Next mainland india’s political and strategic interests that treat the islands as a ‘real estate’ and its native population as an ‘infestation’. This part, which Pankaj emphasized through the showing of what language the mainstream commentators/politicians/governments use while describing the A&N islands, is actually very tragic. How language can already bias a knowledge piece being transmitted was very evident through these examples.
  • The ecological impact of various flora and fauna due to the mainland India’s mainstream interests of tourism, real-estate, etc was elaborated.
  • Also the impact of tsumani and the very high possibility of such natural calamities occurring again and again and this region is right at the ‘ring of fire’ – the clashing of two tecktonic plates. There’s also a live volcano – Barren Islands on the A&N islands  chain.
  • And in the last slides a very interesting concept indicating technology classification as  polytechnic and monotechnic by Lewis Mumford way back in the 1930s was shown.
    • Polytechnic is one that classifies technology of types that cater to solving multitude of human problems and is life-oriented instead of work centered (work for the sake of work) and power centered (for more concentration of power).
    • Monotechnic – “Monotechnic, which is technology only for its own sake, which oppresses humanity as it moves along its own trajectory; based on scientific intelligence, quantified production, directed towards economic expansion, military superiority (eg. Automobile)
  • And another classification:
    • Technology of hubris – which basically is technology to create consistent demands, and then address them technologically – a cycle of technology for the sake of technology. This being the center-point, opresses human beings, small communities, and of course nature.
    • Technology of humility – which acknowledge the complexity and smallness of human knowledge and hence gives way to humility- does not intend to overpower/control the human-animal-nature biosphere, which is the intent of the ‘technology of hubris’.
  • And then the final conclusion – which explains the tri-junction of the following aspects A) The vast flora and fauna and the ecological live museum that exists there B) The high propensity for earthquakes and tsunamis C) and the existence of a very much thriving but at the same time very vulnerable communities of native inhabitants that have co-existed within the ecology for thousands of years – what kind of situation arises especially when either of the three are threatened? When profit and exploitation driven interventions are carried out, we might as well expect many things to collapse and be gone forever.

There were some student questions thereafter. Unfortunately i am not able to remember much. What lasts with me is that such a tri-junction could be true for any place and that defines the precipice of that place. With the possibility of large movement of resources and technology, the tri-junction’s considerations no longer find any relevance to the global forces and thus we don’t even realize the consistent damage we carry out every day, through every action of our lives.

Student questions

  • MJ
    • Why is there very little awareness about the condition of A&N islands?
    • What will the consequences of urbanization of the islands be to the economy of India?
    • How can the government prevent further extinction/destruction of the A&N islands?
    • How can different technologies help preserve the islands rather than destroying them?
    • How should the government maintain the balance between preservation and tourism of the A&N islands?
  • SD
    • What would be important and helpful ‘science’ for A&N islands?
    • The kind of ecological diversity that the islands host. do they have a chance to evolve to survive the climate change?
    • Would one imagine for science to have a language bias?
    • Can science be equipped for resistance?
    • What are the SDGs for islands around the world?
  • KG
    • Since tourism affects the ecology of a place to sych a large extent, how should researchers conduct their study for the development of that area alternatively?
    • What can be done to develop the tribes and communities in the A&N islands? (A: Why ‘develop’ them, who are we to do so to them? Have we thought about this thing enough?)
    • Had the Andaman trunk road not been built, how would the tribals connect to the mainland India?
    • What can be done to protect communities from the constant natural disasters such as weekly earthquakes?

 

 

#18 Science and Morality – Einstein the scientist-intellectual

Subir / / Society & Science

Motivation

So we discussed why we can consider a scientist to be powerful and if so then morality becomes something of concern. We also saw how if a scientist’s work and some of life’s most important things (status, dignity, social value) depend on who funds it, the scientist becomes a tool at the hand at the funding body. So on one hand a scientist can have immense power (power of knowledge and sanction of society to discover and disseminate more + a growing number of people look up to them for direction and purpose and as heros) and on the other can become a stooge of the funding – that could be a situation that can lead to many problems. In this session, we explore one such scientist, Albert Einstein, who was great in his own right but also thought about the society, repeatedly showed that he was self-aware of his cult – an intellectual example for many – all the while not playing stooge to anyone.

Session

science and morality 2

  1. First we begin by discussing the significance of Einstein
    1. Most of classical world was already pretty set. Our day to day experiences do not require any more than the classical physics of Newton and Maxwell and basic non-statistical thermodynamics.
    2. However, there were outliers which the physicist could see and could not explain with the classical physics. There were patchy jobs made to explain some, but then patch job is a patch job – example:
      1. How blackbody radiation was dealt with before Max Planck’s quanta theory – the Rayleigh-Jean’s laws that could explain the radiations at larger wavelengths but could not account for the complete blackbody radiation spectrum as one went to shorter wavelengths.
      2. Light, when treated as a conventional electromagnetic wave was by theory required a medium through which the electric and magnetic fields could express themselves and pass on. This was a heavy argument which was much debated upon but could not rejected either for the want of a better theory. See Luminiferous aether.
  2. In this vacuum of the world awaiting a paradigm shift (T.S. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions), in 1905, a 26 year old patent office clerk publishes 4 papers in a german scientific publication, single authorship. Using my scant knowledge about the content of the papers, i skimmed through it only on the surface – enough for a class of snoozing art students (those who did not fit into this category soon changed their minds). But one can read in-depth online, even on Wikipedia! This slid further lists some other achievements of Einstein.
  3. The scientific storm Einstein created shook the world. But many argue that the time was such that a hero was made out of Einstein. This fellow, obviously great in his subject was not understood outside – sign of a potential genius candidate. He also fitted the underdog hero that everyone wants to be and so that could also have made him famous. However, the question still remains, why? Why so excessively famous that even now we consider him one of the greatest of scientist for sure, but also one of the greatest intellectuals?
  4.  Comparing to other contemporary scientists, who were also great minds and achieved equivalent (if there were a way of comparison) breakthroughs, none could stand up to the cult following of Einstein. Why?
  5. In the fantastic article by Susan Neiman ‘Subversive Einstein’ she explains why. Describing her own initial bias as not being a fan of Einstein’s to exploring the why of this human being, she describes the various philosophical takes, the writings, the self-awareness, down-to-earth approach to life and so on. Some passages are read out in the class.
  6. Next we discuss the obvious reasons behind Einstein’s power and relationship with the masses. How he would not mind going against the mainstream trends while in significantly authoritarian Germany of the WWI to the almost fanatic anti-communism days of McCarthy era during the end of WWII. He would be known to host and support many African-American artists or students. All this, was written by him through letters and books and created an immense ‘serious work’ rather than hobby as per Susan Neiman’s analysis. Also some discussion on the involvement with the atomic bomb and its eventual disagreement were discussed.
  7. Finally some of Einstein’s philosophy in his own words are quoted with the discussion open to “Do we need Einsteins?” pointing to the main questions behind all this story –  does and scientist A) Agree that she/he is powerful enough and B) And thus is bound to reflect on her/his morality and choices to be a stooge of the funding forces or an intellectual of her/his own right?

Criticism

Explaining the physics was a bit difficult because A) I had to brush them up and may have goofed up on some parts and B) The students may find it all very abstract. The remaining was OK, probably they didn’t buy or were not convinced that Einstein was as great as other world leaders or philosophers of the humanities’ standards. In this presentation style session, sleeping in class has become very normal and achieved a status of being socially sanctioned. Of course there’t the ‘preaching’ one-way delivery mode at fault, but also that my pressure to complete the 10 slides and content by the end of 2 hours with a small break inbetween makes it very rigid with no place for the flowers (discussions) to bloom.

Submitted Student questions

  • SD
  • PK
    • Why morality has to be understood through scientists?
    • Can one reflect on morality in society directed by sciences?
    • Does popularity of Einstein also has logic of fame of what gets picked up by society?
  • MG
    • Scientific discoveries and inventions progressed at a very fast pace in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Compared to that these days its relatively slow. Why is it so?
    • What will happen if a new theory comes up which invalidates the existence of a former theory that has been into existence for a long time?
    • Why are people usually afraid of talking about the notion of a multiverse?
    • Why do scientists mostly stick to their scientific domains rather than stepping out and addressing social issues? Do you think, given their position of power, their opinions and political standing might have more impact on the general population?
    • Why is it that despite a large number of scientists working towards finding alternatives to non-renewable resources (including Stephen Hawking proposing nuclear energy to curb pollution and climate change) no concrete solution has come up? And if it has why has no change been made?
  • RR
    • Maybe Einstein was famous because of luck, circumstances in his times made him the center of conversation?
    • E=mc^2 is the stereotypical expression used to represent scientists in mass media, could that contribute to his fame?
    • He helped invent the nuclear bomb so maybe that’s why?
    • Isn’t a scientist more powerful than a schoolteacher? He/She can shape opinions that schoolteachers teach?
    • Wont scientific progress be hindered by morals?
  • SV
    • How was the first ever classification of science created? Who decided this classification?
    • How does one account for the heat emitting from the sun? Is it just unlimited energy or will it one day loose its energy emitting power?
    • Whats the 1st question? How do you approach something that we don’t know, ‘scientifically’?
    • In order to prove and discover something, things and even people are sacrificed. How moral is that? Is it justified?
    • The aim of finding our own identity and understanding where we come from – is it more of a boon or bane?
  • KG
    • What does vacuum contain inside it? It must be composed on something but what?
    • Are there waves that can be described through observations or are all of them light waves?
    • While one is discovering something, do they think of the negative consequences of its usage such as the scientists who discovered the use of infra-red rays for defense?
    • Why is a period of the time in science always defined by the most famous/popular discovery?
    • Some scientists do not follow ethical and moral manner of a monk, how do they become ambassadors of human rights such as Einstein?
    • Can ownership of highly advanced technology make someone powerful and in what sense?
  • JP
    • Is the power of a person rooted in his/her ability make decisions? or is it more than that?
    • Does power of media dominate the power of a scientist?
    • Why does the scientist have as much power as a politician?
  • MM

#17 Science and Morality?

Subir / / Society & Science

Motivation

  1. Does science fall in the moral domain?
  2. What is moral domain in itself? What does it say?
  3. Does morality change with times, is it a fashion driven thing?
  4. What is science again? Is it a way of thought, a tool or a body of knowledge just as religious texts or is it a simple method of verification of knowledge or is it a part to get knowledge that is consistent?
  5. Take the question of wars and guns development? Science is used in it. Lot of science comes out of it, then is science bad?
  6. How long can scientists claim to be innocent of their science’s outcome and end use? Does the inventor/originator have no role in the ultimate destructive uses even if she/he knows the power of his invention?
  7. Main question is – is a scientist powerful enough now to be an intellectual in his/her own right? or is she/he still one of those stuck in the vicious ‘survival’ struggles?

Presentation

science and morality 1

  1. The first discussion is the whys and whats of morality. What is this word, why is it relevant and so on. No expert opinions here, just knowing it among ourselves. Our preconditions and biases and naive understandings come out in such discussions, maybe because no one asked us before what we think – outcome each one of us realized we hadn’t thought much – including the instructor!!
    1. The core point to be driven here was :- morality becomes very important when one becomes powerful. Else dose one think about ants and mosquitoes having morality? Does a predator (shark, tiger) when it eats a young helpless baby of some animal have morality? Should it have morality? Although most humans will think in the same way in response to the above questions, here’s an interesting work indicating something else (this was not shown in the class unfortunately). In case of humans, what technology has done is amplified (hence the multiplication) our innate responses to our own insecurities leading to significant impact on each other, on animals and nature. As an example, imagine 2 people having a fight over some petty thing say 2000 years back – they would use sticks and stones to hurt each other, and hopefully in some time realize that the hurting has been too much, its not worth anymore. However, in today’s world such a fight with the availability of guns and long distance shooting, there is simply no time to realize that hurting was not worth it! Wouldn’t it be interesting here to show a statistic of how many crimes are originating from petty fights? Though not a statistic, but a article about such gun violence in the US.
    2. But thanks to social sciences, sciences and mathematics, we are now about to see the impact of powerful technologies on the social world. Social studies are rife with works on why we are aggressive, happy or ‘dont mind’ and so on. All this because the human world has become top heavy and too powerful for its own good. Only recently we acknowledge that we have been devastating for the earth from the time the first ‘Out of Africa’ migrations of Homo Sapiens took place (ref: Harari’s book Sapiens, Ch.4)
    3. So morality’s task could be to prevent one from hurting the other or stepping into boundaries that help maintain order in a society. This is a limited view i know. But in this session, we were interested in the power bit of all this. Moral views and understanding has and will evolve, but the power bit remains common, doesn’t it? And what if one does not realize that one has immense power and is using it on a daily basis?
  2. In this slide, i venture beyond the sanction of the class. I mention what my little imagination and knowledge can conjure up on the core of moral thoughts. The ones that are self-generated rather than received. This was received with some inhibition and resistance by the students, which is about right whenever someone preaches uninvited.
  3. We discussed next some examples of mosquitoes and hunting and the roles of entertainment in our society, if some moral discussions could be held on those topics. This could have been better conducted with more graphics and stats, but that was not the point here. Especially for entertainment, this could have been studied more by the instructor as it was something that needs to be elaborated. Entertainment as a medium of moral education/mis-education, as an addiction of our society and hence in moral purview and so on. We discussed a bit about addictions, drugs and so on and the response i perceived was that addictions were bad and the people who were addicted were enjoying themselves at the cost of others and were bad people. Very feeble expression but more or less in that region as to how society judges addiction. I talked a little about Gabor Maté’s counter to this judgement and how addiction could be a psychological escape mechanism rather than one’s conscious choice.  Although this is bang in the middle of skewed morality, science and social sciences are helping us correct this. Here’s a nice short video on Gabor Maté’s  take – unfortunately didn’t have the foresight/experience/cofidance to discuss this in class.
  4. Next we come to the important relevant questions of the moral aspects of pursuit of knowledge.
    1. We talked about the real possibility of 3d printing guns and making nuclear weapons as the information to do so is readily available. The latter is discussed here and talks about how 2 physicist in the 1960s who were unaware of the methods could nonetheless make atom bombs using publicly available knowledge. There’s a small cath here, the fission material is not so readily available 🙂
    2. Everyone agreed the motivation is important as to why a certain information is desired. But then the next points discuss as to who judges what knowledge is good and what is bad, who’s the gatekeeper? Isn’t this similar to the Brahmanical system of consolidation and hoarding of knowledge from others?
    3. Finally we discussed with a population with curiosity but withheld of knowledge Vs an enlightened population. The latter could be seen here right now! Any engineer can get herself/himself a design of a gun and make it. And use it, right here in Pune. I could do it myself. But am i? Does it interest me? And this is true for other technologies too, destructive or beneficial.
  5. So, if pursuit of knowledge is kind of controversial, guided by motivation behind them and so on, then does science also come in its pursuit? By science what we mean was discussed. And since we are talking of morality in terms of power, does science have the power? And then who uses science with what intention determines the moral domains of sciences and so on…
  6. Thus, the mother question of this session arises – Can a true scientist, who is well intentioned in the pursuit of science and sticks to it, be considered as morally responsible for the science she/he creates? But first it must be established if a scientist is a powerful person by her/his profession? We establish the various powers a modern scientist has which at times can truely be seen as powerful enough. Some students weren’t convinced that a scientist has any powers and just plays the same survival game as everyone else. Anticipating this excuse, the ‘survival as who’ moment in “Judgement at Nuremberg” movie becomes very interesting. Here is a section where the Nazi judge on trial for sending many Jews to their death accepts his wrong doing:

    And here is the final judgement by the US judge holding the trial of 4 Nazi judges:

    The two must be watched in that sequence, or better the whole movie must be watched to realize how common humans, unaware of power, can be played and converted into something harmful to others.

  7. Since we kind of established that a scientist could be a powerful person, we can also establish the kind of scientists we have, in fact any geeky technical is also included. Being a geek of some type myself, this slide is a confession of how a technically able and passionate person can fall in as a great tool utilizable for any end. We love to play with technology and sciences and numbers. We love to solve problems and search for new ones – this runs strong in our day-to-day thought and we at times are obsessed with problems! Give us problems and time and tools and money and some dignity and viola – you’v got us as complacent partners in any crime you want. So along with the stick of survival, the carrot of “socially important work” is dangled in front of us and we scientists in hordes are ready to walk along. That is what is referred as an automaton in this slide – a person who is mechanistic and very well ‘driven’ by external circumstances. We know from the previous session on science funding as to how the social powers of the day, be it the government or private funding bodies decide what kind of science happens. We know how significant an impact funding has as it moves masses of scientists in one direction or the other and can easily be constituted as a great and powerful tool. I myself am participating in a defense related project because i need the money for my survival as a industrial scientist. No matter how much sugar coating i do, or my friends and mentors in the industry do, that what we are doing is good for India and eventually its civilian outcomes will benefit society as a whole, i don’t buy it.
  8. This bring us to the last question – is a scientist an intellectual rather than a simple automaton? If so what would that scene look like? I elaborate only some things i know and appreciate in the scientists i love as a public figure – Einstein for example. Students, especially MJ were not convinced and thought this was too ideal and hard to buy.
  9. An old saying from Socrates concludes many things of this session. There is no value in rephrasing here, its apt in the original quote.
  10. Last we discuss some example where such morality of power could be seen happening/discussed.

Critical comments

This probably could be seen as a ‘lecture’ on morality by someone who’s himself on a fidgety platform as to what constitutes a moral being. And there was heavy bias in the instructor’s delivery, which is contradictory to the discussion mode promised for this course. Also, examples were lacking and a vast number of points were thrown about but there was not many attempts to help them being appreciated and allowed to be sinked in.

Questions

  • MJ
    • Why aren’t there enough studies about how most insects are affected by humans? Even if there are why are they not acknowledged more like the bee crisis?
    • Do you think certain moral values get promoted more over others? why does it happen? (Fro example – if you see someone getting followed and they ask you to lie to the stalker , helping them will be more important than being honest).
    • What happens if a scientist decides to abuse the power they have? Who takes responsibility?
    • Why do you think people associate morality with religion?
    • Science has already destroyed so much (in terms of ecology) but isn’t science the only way to make it better or to find an alternative?
  • MM
    • Who sets the line between moral and immoral?
    • Why do we have laws that are derived from the basic source of morality, because morality can differ from person to person. It is like the number 69, it depends on what a person chooses to see.
    • What is the exact definition of power?
    • According to your definition, can a farmer be an intellectual?
  • UB
    • Has the changing of science and technology actually brought about any positive change to ecology?
    • Is power really the base for everything? Should power be the base for morality or anything else?
    • Everyone does something, some activity they enjoy doing for recreation. Is that questionable? How is that questionable or related to morality? (A: This probably refers to the mention of Netflix/entertainment in the morality discussion. Well i would argue that our need for externally derived recreation is universal and innocent, but that need can become an addiction of sorts and then we risk becoming automatons. And when that happens, our morality and thinking are ‘outsourced’ and easily programmable by the powers that feed us our fix of entertainment. Too dark a view point i know – you can call me paranoid!)
    • Does difference in opinion and difference in perspective make an action or anything morally right or wrong? Can morality be justified and defined?
    • Different people have different reason and motivation for the pursuit of knowledge, but judging and inspecting for every perspective are they not free to do whatsoever they want? Do they not have the right to gain knowledge in spheres they decide to?
  • MJ
    • What is the basis of morality? How can we prove with certainty that morality emerged from a particular event/time?
    • How does one know what is moral and immoral? Where do we draw the line in society and personally?
    • What role does science play in defining morality?
    • How can one decide the amount of power scientists have? To what extent can he/she exercise that power?
  • SV
    • Humans have the extra sense that animals and other species don’t have. Is it justified that we take decisions only because of this?
    • If we never put in time and effort into research, would science never have been discovered?
    • Would the world be a safer and healthier place if science didn’t evolve upto today’s standard?
    • With so many conflicting views on everything, what decides what is morally right or wrong?
    • Who defines morality? Has its meaning evolved? Does it depend on the situation?

#16 How society affects science? (Funding and problems within scientific community)

Subir / / Society & Science

Motivation

This session was part of “Is science systematic?” wherein, i presumed that, some aspects of the  structure of sciences as they are conducted today need to be discussed. In the same spirit was the last blog, how science research works and so on. It isn’t very apparent that its society that commands where science will go. This was brought to light in some ways from a discussion i had with Sumithra S. and Priyadarshini K. , and it struck me as new and interesting. Although a subject that could be very deep, philosophically as well as technically, i only skim through in here.

Content

systematic knowledge 2

  1. The first thing to distinguish is the difference between science and technology. This was asked around and as expected, this is hard to distinguish between then, given that they have so intermingled over the past couple of centuries. So, in my naive point of view, technology is a soup that has many ingredients, of which one of them are the sciences. A relatively new one too. For all history, this tool making species (not the sole one though – Incredible tool use in the animal kingdom) has significantly lived with tools by the bedside. Technology, the art of making tools and achieving something more than one can do either in terms of access, processing and simply efficiency, is the foundation of development. But why certain things work better and certain do not, the why was not always been easy to access. Technology was driven by observation primarily, thinking and manipulating objects around. Why a wheel should be round was not an idea based on static, dynamic and rolling friction concepts but on observation of which design works best. Surprisingly, even today a lot of engineering does happen in this same way, the archaic but well proven way of Observation & Trial & Error (OTE). However only recently, the since the why was pursued (sciences), both technology and sciences developed so much so that we have been able to use the foresight from scientific understanding to cut down on the OTE and make significant disruptive advances in the technological domain. All this was kind of discussed in class, i am not sure how much of it got conveyed. Surely more examples could have done this job better, definitely better!
  2. Then we discussed what are the core driving needs of sciences and tried to see who is willing to share “my precious” (money) for such causes. The ‘spiritual’ was an interesting point in this list. Many disagreed that science has anything to do with the spiritual business in the first place. PK and i were of the opinion that the questions of wonder, those that can be classified as not-practically-relevant, such as why we are here, what is beyond this universe, what is time, and this endless line of Qs – could be seen as similar to what a spiritual quest would also juggle about. The routes may be different, but nonetheless the directions may overlap. Truth, it seems, calls for many ways, one of which are definitely through the path of the sciences. Coming back to who can fund these? It is obvious that scientific yearnings which promise leading to utility and profit in the market economy, or political currency or address the common population’s immediate needs gets well funded. However, the ultimate quests, the whys of the universe or whys of the life and so on, could be a very tough thing to get funded. Earlier, in the Europe and India and probably elsewhere, astronomy and mathematics had a religious role of figuring out dates and help in doing the rituals right – so they had religious patrons. But now, these sciences have to search for secular funding. Science for the sake of science or for the sake of understanding human context does happen surprisingly! Example: the CERN experiments, all the astronomy we do, GMRT and Hubble and so on.  I think there is a significant overlap with spiritual quests and answering these neutral and innate ‘queryscape’ of the conscious human being. Maybe all this could have been more acceptable if ‘spiritual’ wasn’t used to describe the core questions – but hey it was to spark the discussion!
  3. Next we talked about why patronage (money and social sanction) are required for sciences to develop and add to human society. The last bit, freedom from market pressures was not so easy for students to accept. More examples here could have helped rather than doling out abstract concepts such as job pressure, marked driven scientific direction, etc.
  4. In the next few slides we discuss the funding trends in the US – a major source of scientific work for past 100 years! Social sciences (blue line at bottom) get one of the least of funding relatively as compared to the other sciences  – why? This doesn’t make sense if one can see that most of human civilization’s problems are due to the lack of understanding of the human being and its immensely complex network of collaboration (Y. Harari’s words) called the society. It maybe a very interesting and pertinent question and may lead to fantastic insights into our world! Other slides talked about other trends and India’s GDP marked out for sciences.
  5. In slide #9 the breakup of R&D funding in India is very interesting. A significant portion goes into defense research expenses followed by department of space and then by atomic energy. Its not wonder that ISRO has been so successful – money does work! However could the same be said for DRDO the outcomes of which have not be spectacular. To be fair, DRDO, DoS and DAE need significant capital investments in often rare and exotic imported technologies at a significantly higher scale than those used by other divisions – so that could occupy a good portion of the assigned budget.
  6. Again a summary of ‘why’ of funding from the funding body’s point of view.
  7. We also discussed the various difficulties arising out of reduction or instability in funding. These points were discussed in brief, but i am sure much deeper could be explored.
  8. And finally, a small look at the challenges scientific community faces now. The referred paper (see footnote on slide) studied some huge chunk of scientific literature published to come to the conclusion that large teams usually follow established lines of inquiry and improve on them, develop them further. However small groups tend to be more ambitious and have higher probability to create disruptive new science. The plot shown describes how different subjects perform under this lens of size of the team and amount of disruptive knowledge created. Interestingly computer sciences are oblivious to team science change – that maybe because they are of highly collaborative nature and the internet does make the communication extremely agile and free.
  9. Another paper discussed the many issues with science not progressing as it was before the past 20-30 years. Here also the authors mention team size as an important factor. Scientific investments are high, but in terms of well defined discoveries the paper argued were not so many. They used the Nobel prizes as the yardstick, which could be an arguable point. Although i spoke with reference to the paper, in retrospect my stance could have been more realistic and proper. I could have read a bit more on this subject to give a better picture. Instead of giving the impression that sciences have ‘dried out’ – which was not intentional at all- i could have elaborated the differences in past ‘golden days’ and modern sciences harboring on the complexity modern sciences are dealing with and the consequent increase in team sizes and hence the lack of ‘spectacular’ single person discoveries and so on.
  10. The last slide, we discussed the ‘cheating’ that is now becoming so hard to distinguish from unintentional mistakes, based on this article.
    1. Simply by the shear number of research papers published due to the ‘publish or perish’ model – it has become nearly a matter of luck if each of those works will be repeated by some other research group. This unverified work, evaluated through the well-intentioned checks of peer review, but significantly weak measure as compared to the timeless check of repeatability by unconnected groups,  is getting added into the body of scientific knowledge. When the luck strikes and someone tries to repeat the past published works, they simply don’t stand as claimed.
    2. Often the work published is not repeated by the same group itself to have sufficient statistical power to make conclusions. This measure is different for different experiments and needs to be implemented by the peer review process, but….
    3. A lot of researchers, as mentioned by the article, claimed that data that matches the agenda of the paper were reported in the paper to make all fit into a nice story. Francis Bacon’s line about it is especially stinging – “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true”.
    4. And a recent example of a significant number of papers of a reputed institute in India that turned out to be either plagiarized or fraudulent.

Critical analysis

It seems all this was ‘doled’ out with emphasis to accept since the instructor is telling them. Examples and student observations as a response to the examples and conclusions could have been the alternative and better way to conduct this session, but that amount of in-depth study didn’t exist in the instructor’s mind, neither could it cover so many aspects in a 2 hour session. As compared to previous session, less images were used to convey the idea and more text, that could have made this very boring as was evident from the sleepy faces of the poor souls. Also some of the conclusions seem to be shallow and say more about the instructor’s point of view (opinionated) than from general observation. Can this be changed for better?

As an instructor i realize the ‘goal’ in my preparing and delivering a session now has become more of conveying the session contents (and hence my ‘duty’) irrespective of if they simulate and excite the listener’s minds. That is a serious degradation and surprisingly so because i have complained the same about my teachers very vehemently! It has been noted in the hilarious paper: “Incidence of and risk factors for nodding off at scientific sessions”  where a lecture is “a means of transferring notes from the pages of the speaker to the pages of the audience, without going through the mind of either”.

Questions

  1. UB
    1. How intertwined are science and spirituality? There would be a number of people who believe that spirituality is based on science and science is ‘responsible’ for (fulfilling) spiritual needs and beliefs. Is it true or even partially true?
    2. Can freedom from market pressure actually be possible (for scientific research)? The funds are dependent on market values and pressure and aren’t there market pressures enough to keep the funds being given on edge? as long as market forces are stable, the funds being supplied should be stable if the market becomes unstable will the economy and the government have enough to fund these scientific bodies/institutions?
    3. If our country starts importing material and instruments for scientific purposes illegally, will it be justified? If caught this could be bad for international relations. Should any country be denied funds or resources for these experiments while other countries are being allowed? (A: I guess this is with response to atomic energy developments?)
    4. As the rate of discoveries is decreasing, is this going to or already affecting science? Is this disruption going to cause problems for scientists as they spend their lives dedicated to finding more and knowing more but ultimately not making much progress?
    5. Does bad science not cause problems in funding and progrss in the field of sicnes? Are back sciences causing the slowing down of progress in science towards obtaining results and are they becoming reasons for problems in funding for these experiments? (A: Good tangent, didnt think of this angle. Must be explored…)
  2. PK
    1. Do you think patronage for making science a public entity? I feel science to become for people’s body, government needs to build science parks, develop programs for science exhibitions and science fairs. (A: Interesting, but government is already doing that in someways. But one needs to be also aware of government’s agenda for this popularization of sciences, could it be to only feed the enlightened crowed again into the same old power consolidation game? For eg. see Kishore Darak’s article: Prescribed marginalization)
    2. Isnt it important to look at narratives that India built through mass-media around S&T since independence if we don’t have statistical data?
    3. Is entire social context of science limited to funding, people’s achievements and bad sciences? (A: It should not be, but i thought these are the most pressing forces in India now: money for a career in science, heros to inspire the scientists and avoiding doing bad science when many around are cutting corners.)
    4. When you talked about “breaking of community” (due to funding issues) you said that scientific knowledge is between the community – isn’t that the exact problem then – the nature of scientific community?
    5. What happens to caste/class/gender and others that determine social context in the age of science? How do they interact with science?
  3. MM
    1. Can technology exist independent of sciences?
    2. Do you think science is purely derived out of human curiosity?
    3. Is science a mass appeal?
    4. Why do people/government dont fund social sciences? (A: wish i had the answer, but its a question worth studying very deeply).
    5. Does philosophy help in development of scientific attitude? (A: Great questions. In fact it does tremendously. But sadly i do not have much clear understanding of it or a good concise reference for this question.)
  4. SD
    1. In an environment where the government and its representatives are believers of pseudo-science but funding for technology and research is good, what way science would develop? (A: Often, there are good visionary scientists and bureaucrats in-between the political powers and the common on-ground science work, so that cushions out such direct infringement to some extent i guess. But one never knows how well this performed and whats the future.)
    2. What is the main motivation for scientists? market or quest for knowledge?
    3. How is democracy related to the progress in science? (A: Interesting, should be studied.)
  5. SV
    1. What is the absolute definition of science and technology?
    2. Science is about asking questions and finding answers. Doesn’t that mean science had begun since time immemorial?
    3. For a long time, we believer earth is flat and that atom was the smallest particle because scientists said so and we didn’t know better. How much can we trust scientists today?
    4. Why would people fund long term research with less possibility of successful outcome? so not, how do researchers face this obstacle? (A: As we saw in case of ISRO and DAE, funding pays and all these were very long term projects! So its a matter of vision by the top leaders ultimately and the conviction of the scientists to give sufficient reasons to fund long term work.)
    5. With so much fake news (pseudosciences) floating around, lots of chaos arises among laymen (non-experts). Are there ways to tackle this?
    6. Science has caused conflict, violence (maybe) and brought peace too. So discovery of science is it a boon or a bane? (We really underestimate the disadvantages and negative consequences). (A: Therefore we distinguished science and its use in technology in this session. That should more or less answer.)
  6. KG
    1. When in the process of invention of particular object, something else gets invented – is the project then a failure or success? Can you give more examples such as the microwave?
    2. If science starts explaining spirituality, where do we draw the line between observed and experimented science and the theories that define human existence and psychology but have no scientific backing?
    3. If there is a huge capital invested in long term research and the experiment fails, then how is the funding behind science justified when same capital could be used for more productive activity?
    4. If science is to be protected from larger part of the society (market driven funding supply) then how do we expect science and society to integrate?
    5. How does India as a country expect to become one of the major powers in science if they invest such small part of national income in sciences? what can be done to increase india’s role in scientific developments internationally?
    6. if political forces impact scientific development in a country, how could scientific development and progress possibly be estimated in pure terms?
  7. JP
    1. isnt science (just) a method of explanation?
    2. how does technology meet spiritual needs and how does it matter who funds S&T?
    3. is there a way to separate sciences and its funding from politics?
    4. How can government policies help to eradicate “publish or perish” ideology and mediocrity that it leads to ?
    5. Why aren’t the investors who fund ‘bad sciences’ concerned about the production of pure/accurate knowledge? (A: How will they know what is good and bad science if the next replication efforts by other groups take place 5-10 years later? No one funds bad science deliberately!)
  8. MG
    1. Can you explain little more about spectral absorption (with reference to microwaves and water and cooking)?
    2. You mentioned space tourism. Do you think in a couple of decades normal people would be able to travel to space for a short trip. If yes, how?
    3. We saw certain graphs relating to the US government’s funding for sciences. Do you think more spending on space research as compared to environmental science and development of alternatives for non-renewable fossil fuels means that it is widely believed people would rather establish a new civilization if they find an inhabitable planet instead of trying to fix damage that we caused to our own?
    4. Why is research and development not good enough in India? What can be done to promote it?
    5. Do you think its always essential to have a ‘problem pressure’ for developing science and technology? why and why not?

#15 System of science & systematic knowledge – I (How science research works?)

Subir / / Society & Science

The idea of this session was to give an overview of how scientific knowledge is generated, in a broad sense. Then in the forthcoming session, to expand up on how society effects science in terms of funding, driving questions, etc.

Here’s the presentation.

systematic knowledge

  1. First a simplistic model of scientific exploration was laid out:
    1. We begin by coming across abnormal observations, and how we react to it.
    2. If it were interesting to us, we’d try to study it more using ‘thought-works’ or experimentally and get more details about the particular observation. I gave an example of how we react to mosquitoes. While most of us will shun the very thought about them or kill as many we can afford to spend our energy on, only a very few will be interested in studying them more. A lot of interesting stuff can be found if one digs in. For example, a 45 million year old mosquito with blood like content in it.
    3. We’d ask questions, refer to previous studies, do more experiments that verify the observation, some cause-effect systems, etc.
    4. Then, but this time we would have so much overwhelming information that it may seem to be interesting to form a judgement on what the observation could be a part of – a pattern or a model. This model is a hypothesis and this gives a benefit of creating more focus on what to study in deep. The most plausible hypothesis gets the biggest effort and others are not much studied. Through a hypothesis we could also begin to use it to ‘predict’ future related observations, and if we are correct, then it adds more credibility to the model hypothesis.
    5. However, sometimes an original hypothesis is often limited in the scope of ‘tweakability’, so much that it must be dropped in favor of a better hypothesis that encompasses or atleast has the scope to encompass as the reason behind the a larger set of available data.
    6. Then a joke, saying how scientist could feel once they have gone too deep into the subject 🙂
  2. That was about how it works – knowledge generation. Following slides looked into how the teaching of science occurs in India, which we have a problem with. Students agreed mostly here, but all were first year students and MM was the only 2nd year student. The dissenting 4th year ones (PK and SD) were missing. It would have been interesting to have their views as well!
  3. Then we touched up-on how science works in reality – a fascinating and often quoted work by T.S. Kuhn. And outline of his work can be found here but i didn’t read the whole thing, not presented the whole. Only a snapshot in the slides.
  4. Then again a joke on how scientists see the world and an un-joke about how it really happens. I recounted an event while i was driving to SSLA that morning – it involved a girl driving in front of me with her long hair open and subject to air currents. The two branches of hair were counter-rotating as she sped through the wide road. This was so fascinating. My friends would sneer that i am following/stalking women, but in my defense i must say it was only for the sake of science (see Richard Feynman’s interview section on science and beauty)! By the way, these are called Von Kármán Vortices, after the scientist who described the physics of it. An example here: NASA image of cloud patterns formed on canary islands. Here’s A fantastic video showing how these are formed on aircraft wingtips.

Analysis

Here again there was not much discussion and discovery. It must have felt like a public lecture where there are some jokes, graphics on screen and so on and not so much as reflection and discussion on the subject. Also, i realize that the flow of the course has been very turbulent and that the students must be totally confused as to where this all is leading. Next time i must make a chart of what happened and where we have to go.

Student questions (see note from last blog post)

  • UB
    • When one forms a hypothesis, how does one know if its true and worth investing time in verifying? Is it all trial and error after that? Does this approach not lead to waste of time? (A: There is no new discovery without taking risks, often much time is lost and could be considered waste, but in retrospect nothing is wasted but only built upon.)
    • By simply studying science in school, is it really going to awaken the scientific spirit? Is it taught the right way? seems to be driving people away from it more and more!
    • Are all phenomena in this universe interrelated in one way or the other? (A: wouldn’t it be fun to find one core physical law that can explain everything? See GUT)
    • Have we reached an irreversible stage on earth where there’s only natural disasters and catastrophes in future? We are searching for new planets and places to settle outside the earth, instead of trying to repair the mess we’v created.
    • When a new theory is discovered, is the old theory still relevant or is completely redundant? Does the new theory completely become the basis for all future explorations?  (A: see here for some explanation.)
  • MG
    • In 2nd class we talked about traditions, how they govern large masses and why people conform to them. Is there any way to change people’s mentality? (A: If you read Harari’s ‘Sapiens’ you will see how important culture and traditions are to humans to become as strong and as dominant a species on the Earth. We also looked at how they are important in our lives. Only as times progress, traditions need to be replaced by new traditions better suited to the contemporary understanding of the world and universe. Its here that science and technology has been playing a big role for past few centuries.)
    • In the science model slide, there were multiple processes of gathering information. Can you explain how they are interrelated and go in parallel or series with one another?
    • Do you think science teaching can be changed in India? And what could be the opposition to this change? For example, wont the school authorities oppose conducting more experiments or giving students more ‘hands-on’ time? Are there better practical alternatives to teaching sciences?
    • Why are patterns essential to human thinking? Why is it that even when in places where there aren’t any patterns we imagine patterns there? Can you explain science again as an accumulation of patterns (bricks-building example)?
    • How is it that with every hypothesis scientists get closer to reality?
    • Do you think science fiction (books and movies) are a good way to generate interest in sciences?
  • SV
    • Science is questioning things in front of us. At what point of time do you stop questioning?
    • We discussed about necessity and better ways to teach science. How to implement these obvious things in real life?
    • Is scientific temper/interest is something you are born with? Or it depends on the method through which you are introduced to the subject?
    • Is it fair to put science at a pedestal? Ans isolate that part of the society?
    • Everything has exceptions and grounds on which the theory will fail. So is there anything called absolute truth?
  • RR
    • How do patterns help in understanding something? Wont it just be more confusion (because there will always be outlier data) ?
    • What is the line between prediction and affirmative bias? (A: See Taleb’s Black Swan or his video talk here.)  
    • Isn’t science teaching killing curiosity?
    • Doesn’t science need to be studied as a serious subject to be viewed as beautiful? Because you have to understand something for finding it beautiful! (A: But you also need to find it beautiful so as to take the pains to understand it further!)
    • If teachers and parents perpetuate that one needs to focus on math and science just so that one can have a cushy life, is that bad?
    • Isn’t science tough because it is taught to people who don’t wanna learn it (like having a mental block or things like it)?
  • MM
    • Why is gravity a wave? (A: see this funny and light video here.)  
    • Is there anything useful about mosquitoes? (A: Do you mean to humans? A mosquito may ask the inverse, “Is there anything useful about humans? – except food ofcourse, but apart from that?” OK to answer-here’s one. But the question you pose is very interesting and hints at anthropocentric world view – this could be an interesting read!)
    • Do you think science has a solution for every societal problem? (A: No)
    • Do you think science itself will be replaced by another idea in coming future? (A: Fantastic idea, wait and watch!)
    • Is there any way to come up with scientific theories purely based on past theories but not experimentation?

#14 Religion, Technology, Spirituality and Science – An overview of conflicts

Subir / / Society & Science

Personal Qlists

  1. Background deeper and wider questions –
    1. What makes members of human kind conflict with other members?
    2. What are the statistics of differences between communities in general and when do certain differences raise to a level of conflict? Eg: class (economic), religious (Hindu Vs. Muslim), intra-religious sects (Shia Vs. Sunni, Hinduism Vs. Lokayata), thought (Capitalist Vs. Communist), religious vs. atheism, religion vs. sciences, technology vs. science (Global warming?), gender (man Vs woman, mainstream Vs. LGBTQ) etc.
    3. What is the role of tradition in the above conflicts? There could be:
      1. Conflicts due to past traditional contempt of the other. – ritualistic conflict?
      2. Conflicts arising between traditional and new.
    4.  How many of the above can be categorized as significantly identity related conflict Vs. significantly abstract concept (from religion, spirituality, or any other thought level scriptures) Vs. scarcity of resources (economic, geographic, etc).
    5. Has science had a unifying role in the conflict landscape? Did science create pan-community linkages?
    6. How are conflicts solved and over what time scale this happens?
    7. Is science used to rationalize the divide – us vs other – or otherwise?

Session Outline plan

  1. Aspects of human society – find out associated words – find conflicts
  2. Conflicts of science Vs society
  3. How science can help reduce conflict in Society.

 

What actually happened –

Aspects of human society and contradictions if any

Nature Tradition Social stratification Religion Identity Daily Work Trade Leaders / Public administration / Government Utilitarian tools Science Spirituality
Population dogma classification dogma Nationalism survival barter system law and order fashion wonder personal
Over exploitation of resources blind following caste rituals caste farmer money borders new! questioning sacred
One’s waste is other’s waste no thought necessary rich/middle/poor mass following tradition technician travelling health of population survival discovery pilgrimage
changing nature ritualistic us vs other crowd religion teacher exchange of ideas infrastructure practical logic mysticism
climate change glue of society gender specific places of worship gender what one does 50% of time marketing housing power material world thought
pollution of resources binding elitism money profession survival as who? consumerism economic regulation and growth mass-production Development of tools questioning
migration touchy communism see beyond senses through inference economic status identity artificial scarcity dealing with other governments market see beyond senses through experiment wonder
agrarian crisis entertainment capitalism god-men/women principles tradition economy of growth consumerism self-righteous wander
community spirit aspirations traditions historical roots social stratification economy of conveniences/luxury innovation understanding of the world through experiment self-reflection
familiarity by profession value to poor geographical affiliations full-time occupation jobs wars universal world-view
crowd-mentality age easy knowledge transfer historical narrative need for escape – entertainment entrepreneurship fake news method
inertia = # of practitioners + time from which practiced hierarchy not-accomodative self-image news documentation
rigidity tradition peace social-class entertainment peer-review
culture self-restrain against greed language believer-free difficult learning process
mine is better than yours mine is better than yours using science readily arrogance
Makes it easy to ‘understand’ the un-understandable – through inference and imagination rigidity god-less
belief ethnic reductionism
forgiveness right and wrong with proof
respect and care for nature falsifiability
humility

The above classification activity was proposed in the class, but could not be elaborated due to lack of time. I have expanded extensively based on my thoughts, the things i feel could map out the conflict zones. PK and RR and JP had an interesting discussion on the questioning not being sole reserve of the sciences. PK mentioned the traditions of questioning the authority as evident from the development of Buddhism and Jainism religions reacting to the dominant Vadic orthodoxy. Sufism was also mentioned here. RR and JP opposed saying that questioning resulted in aggressive reactions and will often do so even in current times. Modifying the question to “the reaction to questioning” rather than “freedom to questioning” helped ease the disagreement somewhat, with science theoretically winning the lead here as opposed to religion and tradition. But PK made an observation that everyone agreed – that if questioning is questioning the power structure and traditions of either science or religion – the reaction will be aggressive rather than welcoming. I wish i can find examples of such happening in the sciences, but it seems there will be plenty. Also at this moment it would have been nice to consider the type of questioning – A) Questioning with an intent to challenge authority B) Questioning with an intent to improve the practices of the past and becoming more logical and reasonable. If latter is the case what could be the reactions in both religion and sciences? Also PK mentioned that none of these aspects, religion (hindu mostly) or science, do not in themselves call for authoritarian structures. But this is more true for the latter, in my opinion.

Anyways, then followed the following presentation.

conflicts

  1. After the word activity, a slide summarized the principal differences that science has from other activities of religion and traditions that may create conflict.
  2. Another slide mentioned some selected examples of conflicts between science and our the religious society, both in historic times and currently in India. The latter was linked to the very recent (2013 onward) killings of intellectuals and rationalists in India, a trend that is alarmingly being accepted as OK by common people. Similarly, witch-hunts are not a rarity too here in India with killings just this year (eg. BBC article)! Surprisingly, except PK, no one knew about Dabholkar, but thankfully knew about Gauri Lankesh.
  3. Then, we moved on to a classification of the relationship between science and religion as seen by Barbour (book : When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? Year 2000) and as summarized by a biologist and educator here , there are following ‘models’ ( interesting relevance here to Narashima Roddam’s article on ancient Greek model and axiomatic style of viewing the world)
    1. Conflict – The conventional and simply popular view that there’s only one winner between sciences and religion. A view that begins from right and wrong and ends there itself – with wrong outcomes. A quote from Rumi makes this type of argument disappear –
      “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing,
      and rightdoing there is a field.
      I’ll meet you there.
      When the soul lies down in that grass
      the world is too full to talk about..”
    2. Independence – Exclusivity of subjects between science and religion. No overlap, no interest in overlapping. Again too narrow and good for theoretical experiments.
    3. Dialogue – Both points of view on a subject are valid and welcome as long as one tries to understand and accommodate the other, while commonly acknowledging that truth about the subject is immensely bigger than each viewer can ever comprehend. Also requires mutual respect, mutual interest in searching for common ground. A great study in the process of dialog itself – where yearning for learning overcomes any petty attachments to a set of viewpoints.
    4. Integration – both are necessary to understand anything.
  4. And then finally we moved on to “Why Do We See So Many Things as ‘Us vs. Them’?” by David Berreby – an article on how science could be used to understand and resolve conflicts between communities.

 

Analysis

The session seemed typical – a person (aka teacher) talks about some aspect of the world to students and the latter just sit and attempt to listen. I am not quite happy with this. The challenges here were:

  1. Deliver a set amount of content to students, hoping they would find it interesting enough to remember and make sense.
  2. Give them food for thought so that they process and reflect and question and get involved. That didn’t happen much.
  3. The instructor, it seems talked about too many things, but without depth and conviction (because of lack of depth and insight within himself that only comes through sufficient reflection). This could have been apparent to the students.

The last is the most difficult part here. How can we improve that? I am still struggling to find out how to approach any subject from a platform that i have experience in – engineering research. It sounds more like preaching now, and that any sane thinking person must not be OK with.

Questions

As an exercise and mark of attendance here’s an activity that can help release the inhibitions to questioning (with intent of wonder) – make students ask 5 questions about the course topics and in particular current session content as well as teaching methods employed or agreement/disagreements, etc. It is declared that there’s no guarantee that there will ever be an answer, simply because A) I don’t know much B) I don’t have much time either. However, through this process there is A) Knowing of what students are thinking or wondering, that could help in future lectures and correcting past ones B) Simulating the mind because once one asks a question, one is more keen on discovering the answers!

  • JP:
    • The mention and quoting of advanced technologies in the past could be a figment of writer’s imagination as well as interpreter’s creativity and ‘greatness’ bias. So how to go about confirming or disproving such claims?
    • How do we quantify or qualify authority in science or society?
    • Blind faith and sciences oppose eachother. But in a community, authority is important to whom members must submit with blind faith. So blind faith is more of a problem to society or only to the practice of science?
    • Climate change is condemned in some communities, despite insurmountable evidences. Then how this relates to the claim in the presentation that science has universal appeal?
    • Can the conflict of science Vs religion is based on power? Whoever has more knowledge or can explain things much better is given more power. With this show of knowledge power, many people turn blind. So what role power plays the conflicts of science and religion?
  • UB
    • Why is questioning considered negative, when it is directed towards religion or traditions?
    • Humans have lead to major problems, like climate change, etc. Shouldn’t we focus more on awareness (read science) and try to return earth to a healthy state?
    • Is conflict necessarily a bad thing? It seems pretty obvious given that each member is unique and diversity is important. Is it ever possible to achieve complete peace and harmony?
    • Can society, which has benefited from sciences immensely, survive without science and without knowing? Are there other things, apart from the science, that can help society progress?
  • MJ
    • Will science-society conflict be perpetual?
    • How can scholars from either science or religion or traditions can ever come together and find common ground about the world?
    • What are the ways in which one can systematically understand society and its structures with a scientific perspective? – (A: history?)
    • In a course like society and sciences, which encourages debate and discussions, wheat is the final outcome of all this in terms of self-development and intellectual progress? – (A: If one realizes that complexity is everywhere and there are no straight clean answers and that one needs to ask better and comprehensive questions and then put in effort for complicated but elaborate/encompassing answers, then the objective of the course is met Does it lead to self-development and intellectual progress – i dont know, but does it lead to awareness about the world – that could probably be true!).
    • Science and religion have more commonalities than differences, and yet they are arch rivals. Why is it so?
  • RR
    • Is the concept of ‘identity crazed’ wrong? it is a basic survival instinct!
  • PK
    • Lack of learning centers – the only reason for no-science in Indian past?
    • How do you address the claim made against science- for its instrumentality?
    • What happens when living being are treated as subjects of science, if you say that science is more relevant with deterministic patterns?
    • Does history of science in India only find its roots in Vedic and colonial times? How do you think medieval India stands in the history of science? (A: I admit my take on it was based on poor reading and that too a colonial-influenced reading of science histories as well as colonial-inspired understanding of sciences in India in general. This must be corrected, so i am working on it. Meanwhile, there’s no clear answer to this unfortunately now, maybe a few weeks later!)
    • Isn’t it important to define science, religion, tradition, technology and identity before we understand the conflicts between them? (A: true, but that is homework 🙂 )
  • MM
    • How can reasoning be applied in religion?
    • Why is technology always attached to ‘modern’ society? (A: i guess you mean ‘attributed’ rather than attached?)
    • By saying everything is falsifiable, do you mean that life/existence/ideas are meaningless?
    • How can science give the best predictions as compared to religious studies?