Category: Society & Science

A viva was declared as a part of the final exam of SoS students, comprising of 10 marks out of the 40 total. My co-examiner was Dr. Vasudev Menon. The viva task was simple: view and reflect on the following video:

5 marks were assigned to view the video in detail and 5 for criticizing it – this was to be verified through a discussion with the student and two examiners.

Why this particular video?

In the video the presenters discuss how the general public opinion is lopsided when compared to facts. And that the mass-media, which generates the common public opinion is equally lopsided when it comes to facts. The presenters come to this conclusion through sampling through events using questionnaires about opinions groups hold and comparing them with facts collected from various organizations. Then they try to identify why this is so. This could be summarized as follows:

• Commons can’t and wont really want to go through scholarly academic and government reports to get to real facts, due to lack of time, interest and prerequisite knowledge base.
• So they depend on their intuition to make some tangible and relatable sense of the world. This worldview is however significantly biased by one’s personal history, schooling, interactions with peers and mass-media. The latter, because the presenters find the media drives stories that sell than truths that matter.
• So, how to make things look truer than conventional media and conditioning and intuition can deliver? The solution, according to the presenters is to counter the negative intuition (which the presenters showed to not match facts) through positive interpretations of observations.

My criticism of the video :

The major problem facing the earth is A) large scale ignorance due to knowledge gap and B) massive and dangerously choreographed population of humans practicing self and environmentally harmful ways of life. To this the presenters react by suggesting viewers to reject the negative worldview and replace it with an optimistic one.

First, the use of selective facts to bring out the pre-determined outcome of a general public and media opinion being lopsided is skewed and gives an untrue picture. A very agenda-driven survey method was used – A) Find interesting positive facts from various organizations B) Find which of these facts go opposite to general public opinion and C) Conclude that public intuition, media is not factually aligned. The latter could be true, but the part A is faulty.

It does not solve a problem just by reversing the way its been looked at and avoiding what’s uncomfortable. I understand that a positive outlook helps us to get out of helplessness and into action. However, is more of action needed or reflection? If we are all pleased with our world then why would we want change? Why would we want to think about it? Wont we want to remain ignorant by not looking at inconvenient truths about the world – just like we do in the way we drive our cars and bikes, or use energy, or eat fast food despite the gloom of permanent climate change, life-style diseases and so on?

The video neglects the above important issues and plays on the opinion field, shifting from one to the other but not looking beneath the surface. The question of how to address ignorance directly remains unanswered. So the question raises also on what is ignorance in the first place? Nonetheless, this video has an interesting hidden message that making people hopeful can help people think freshly and maybe actually free the mind from unnecessary guilt into much necessary thoughtfulness. A lot many times if we have given up hope about a certain issue we don’t mind participating in the perpetuation of the problem rather than helping solve the problem. In this light i agree with the positivist tilt.

This video is important in the context of these important questions – A) How to deal with ignorance and B) How to make the masses behave in healthy ways. Optimist or pessimist, the movement of fact into culture of a people is the fundamental intervention, all else seems just like patch work, or is it?

Why is it relevant to Society and Science course?

We discussed rituals and traditions in this course and how they seem to have been designed for passing from one head to another. For example: the tradition that a local forest is god’s abode helped preserve it for many centuries, however a more factual and scientific understanding of sustainable forests could have been more truthful but not as effective. Why so? As we discussed this in class, we are more aligned when we can relate to the information we come across. Scientific facts are dull and dry and require some abstract ‘non-feely‘ thinking and so we have less of ourselves relating to them. However, when a piece contains warnings and drama and emotions – like those espoused by the presence of a god and supernatural – that sticks well! Myths are designed with the objective of spreading a message as much as possible for immediate affect, but this may not be the case for spreading the dull and dry truth from where the myth originated. A similar myth making happens very commonly now and then- have you seen a child being threatened with ghostly intervention if it does not behave as per the parent’s warning? It works, and works quite effectively! It prevents the kid from self-harm, till the time the kid grows up to learn of the reality of dangers. Thus myths could play an important role as a safety reaction, with the assumption that truth and logic will follow later. This latter section gets lost unfortunately, so much that the kid actually starts believing in the ghosts even into adulthood!

Why is this important? Because science and logic and observation have been at cross with traditions for many centuries now. Scholars and scientists often find alarming trends and practices in the world that go counter to the well-being of the population or the environment (and population indirectly), and yet find it so difficult to convince the population to change course. We can see this in the aspect of global climate change, our own body health, etc. This is the real dynamic of Society and Science – when science has the responsibility to shape society and the vice-versa – what happens in between? Should we modulate the emotions of the public and get the deserved outcome using fake sentimental ‘memes’ or should we take the slow but definitive path of educating the population with abstract, dull and dry aspects of truth? The story of this society-science dynamic where ignorance and learning are involved as non-negotiable characters – is the most interesting aspect. The above video touches this aspect with some ‘interesting‘ observations and suggestions, which one may or may not agree with.

The pertinent theme in SoS was to be able to reflect on the confusing and complicated world – not to find the rights and wrongs. Because once in either of the camps, the search and reflection is negatively hindered. Much of the TV and news channels and population engage in the right/wrong binary, while the real problems are neglected. Just in the way science espouses evolution of all concepts, including itself as the unhindered way to truth, the dynamic of society and it’s science must also evolve. It maybe be said that the right/wrong approach makes us egoistically (as part of identity) vested in the future of a concept, thus making us a hindrance to its evolution.

I expected the students to reflect on this video, not classify it as right and wrong. Even now, after seeing the video a number of times and hearing 10 reactions to it, its relevance (good or bad), the general idea of ignorance and so on, is evolving in me.

So, how did the students fare?

To summarize, the students’ responses were mixed. Some revolted, not understanding why this video was relevant, some took it in their stride. I for one feel i may not have explained the essential task of reflection well enough to the students and the point was more or less lost on some of them.

Many students did good. They found the video interesting because it had interesting structure, was funny and entertaining and was insightful but also pointed out the limitations of the video – some seemed to be rightly confused, the desired effect. Some of them detailed the video and its contents well and also articulated their reservations about it very well. The ones with more detailed recollection of the video (equivalent to how much one studied the material) and reflection (equivalent to how much one grappled with the content and implications of the video) were given more marks.

A few students decided to give presentations on their view of ignorance. Only one did well, articulated the ignorance issue widely along with much detailing about the video and reflections on it. For others, through it was well intended, but not the stuff asked for. They quoted works by great others on knowledge and ignorance in its context, on nature of science and facts and so on. Great content with a lot of scope for discussion. However, what was missing was the personal reflection on ignorance and its problems within the Society and Science debate, what one really sees within and around oneself. A reaction to the world here and now! But it may not have been clear to them as to what was expected by reflection in the first place. In a previous version of this post i had thrashed the students for lacking reflection, but now i take it up on myself that i probably didn’t do my job well in the first place – of conducting the course more firmly based on reflection and secondly of explaining well of what was expected of them.

Conclusion

It was an interesting video, but somehow the objective of the viva fizzed out. Also, reflection is something we must train ourselves in, it may not dawn upon many of us that we go about our daily lives without much reflection. And I am fully guilty here, often finding myself ashamed and shocked due to my severe lack of it. To reflect is to think before reacting, that sitting on the fence between the temptations to jump to conclusions and opinions. That is a difficult space, but being there leads to more understanding. To talk about ignorance, must one not first accept the real possibility of the ignorant self? This is fundamental to science – discovery only begins when one accepts that one does not know!

Here’s a nice joke from PhD Comics, which is a beautiful take on ignorance of another kind – the intellectual kind.

Next we discussed the results of the 5th Nov. 2019 paper supported by 11k+ scientists worldwide on climate change:

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency

Diwali

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 ?

citizen-sciences

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.
• …

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?

 

 

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