“Intellectual integrity made it quite impossible for me to accept the myths and dogmas of even very great scientists, more particularly of the belligerent and so-called advanced nations. Indeed, those intellectuals who accepted them were abdicating their functions for the joy of feeling themselves at one with the herd.”— Bertrand Russell 1872-1969.
Is science really serious when scientists claim that only science is authentic and all else is unreal? Has science lost its heart? Is science another of those fanatical tight-knit religions? Why is science being sold as the only route to human wisdom? Eons before modern science of the West came into being humankind existed here with all the wisdom which we claim we have today.
Science and technology in ancient India, China and Egypt have had their hoary past. Some of the leading western scientists paid their obeisance to the wisdom of those civilisations. Many of them have admitted that they built their views sitting on the shoulders of some of the thinker-philosophers of yore! In the true sense of the word, science is only a method to understand the working of this universe. In that sense, science is a great exercise, but to sell science as the be-all and end-all of human wisdom to the exclusion of all other fields of knowledge is the height of foolishness and short-sightedness. It is that institution of science that one has to shun.
In fact, science, as it is being practised now, is a highly materialistic enterprise. Consequently, it wants to maintain its hegemony and grip on the establishment. Any criticism of science is frowned upon even by the laypeople who have been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that science has the legitimate right to supremacy in this world. Some of the material comforts of technology like communications, transportation and electricity have added proof that the science base of these technologies is to be venerated. Scientists are so deluded by their invincibility that they have no patience to listen to any other view. There is no debate in this arena. As long as there is no debate, there will be no progress.
The upper castes among the scientists, the Nobels, the big-time grant collectors, the fat CV holders, the FRSs, the sarkari scientists (who were ready to sell the country to private companies), the thought leaders, etc., have built a strong fortress around them that no one will dare differ with their views. Once you get into that club, you could say anything and get away with it. The scientific establishment has found an easy way to keep outsiders at bay and keep its flock together. Its journals have what it calls the peer review system, which is the easiest way to eliminate all dissenting opinions.
In this area, medical science is at its worst. The drug and device lobbies have the monopoly for “scientific” publications here. For every industry-funded positive study there are, on average, five negative studies which do not get published and see the light of day in print for thinking people to read and understand.
This is the main reason why many complementary and alternative systems of medicine have been discouraged. Even the public's perception of them as not reliable came about because the main line medicine has tried its best to see that other systems of human healing are looked down upon albeit their antiquity and authenticity.
When you audit modern medicine at its best in the U.S., the results are anything but laudatory. The audit by Gary Null and colleagues, based on U.S. government figures, shockingly show that the whole establishment of modern medicine, in its present avatar, is the leading killer in that country. America spends the highest per capita expense for sickness care with the worst health scenario and the lowest longevity among the 14 industrialised countries surveyed!
The layman has a misconception about people living beyond 70 years these days. Most of them think that it is the increased life span due to the impact of hi-tech medical science. The truth is it is not life span but life expectancy, a statistical term used to mislead people. When infant mortality falls drastically and people have food to eat and a job to do with clean water to drink, they live longer but the contribution of modern medicine in this area is negligible.
Two examples will suffice. The British Army had 100% mortality among the grievously injured soldiers at Scutari in the Crimean War until Florence Nightingale went there. She brought it down to 40% in a month using buckets, soap, bandage, bread and soup alone, there being no medical help at that time as the British did not have any hospital there.
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), a Hungarian physician, showed that doctors washing hands between dissecting the dead body and delivering babies would bring down puerperal fever deaths significantly. He was using his keen sense of observation. His observation led him to deduct the cause of puerperal fever as transfer of poisons (now we call them germs) from the dead body to the parturient mother.
He also observed his best professor dying of the same puerperal fever after the student's scalpel cut his finger accidentally. Of course, Ignaz's colleagues ignored him and killed more and more women. They even admitted him to the mental hospital where he died due to desperation!
Even today the nosocomial infections kill patients by their thousands all over the globe with “big” doctors still disobeying the hospital routine of washing hands between patients!
That's because bacteria are becoming so resistant to common antibiotics that the phenomenon will bring about the “end of modern medicine as we know it,” warns Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO.
If science is measurement and measurement is science (Marie Curie), then there are lots of things all outs with sciences. If “science is making models, mostly mathematical constructs, which with verbal jargon are supposed to work,” (John von Newmann), then science is as good as dead. “There is no logic to science. Scientists create and adhere to scientific theories for what are ultimately subjective and even irrational reasons. It cannot be denied that the chief engine of human destructiveness has been the phenomenal success of science in the 20th century,” writes Paul Karl Feyerbend in his classic Against Method written in 1975 with its new 2010 edition published in New York. “...Asked why it was so important for him to be convincing people about his evolutionary ‘science' as ‘the only truth,' Richard Dawkins replied, “Because it's so beautiful — it's such a magnificent thing to live in the universe and to understand the universe in which you live, to be a part of life and to understand the life of which you are a part, to understand why you were born before you have to die... And it's so sad that people go to their grave without understanding why they were born in the first place.” This is the scientific arrogance that needs to be put down.
Better methods
In conclusion, one could easily say science as defined above probably knows very little of reality. There are equally good, if not better, methods to human wisdom. People who have not seen God swear by Him; a scientist has not seen an electron but swears by it. Both are irrational in one sense but, the latter gets all the recognition.
(The writer is a former professor of cardiology, Middlesex Medical School, London, and former Vice-Chancellor of Manipal University. hegdebm@gmail.com)
Keywords: science and religion, logic and religion, technology, modern medicine
Ohmy word how was this article printed did you really read through this or just went
with this guys reputation . I would condemn the editorial team who was responsible
for publishing this article . Most of the correct information has been completely
twisted to suit his mad ideas . Hindu you have fallen again .
Good article. Everything can be questioned including science. And there is a more than a sneaky suspicion that modern science, which cam out of Europe, was utilized to devise and perfect the ultimate killing machine. As more and more nations and groups have, in their possession, these ultimate killing machines it is valid to ask where is science taking us.
Comparison between an electron and God ? Electrons can be deflected by electric fields. Their charge has been measured.Chemical reactions have been understood. How can he possibly compare these two? How is Dawkins arrogant for explaining a well proven , rigorous scientific theory ? Evolution is a scientific theory just like relativity and gravitation. Why don't you demonstrate its mistakes instead of making vague statements?
really disappointing that i witness such an ridiculous article published in The Hindu.
This is a very poorly written article and frankly not one worthy to be published in The Hindu. The author has simply strung several anecdata to form a garbled argument of why he rejects scientific supremacy. There are many reasons to question (largely) western scientific development and the costs at which some of these developments have been able to happen--the environment, colonialism, high costs, research and corporate lobbies, loss of indigenous knowledge...But to string random bits of information, from random uncontexted sources and present it as logic? And all this from a former professor of medical sciences? Very poor.
'former professor' is probably good, given that this man clearly didn't understand any of the science he must have studied to practice and then teach medicine. He has two points - one that people have known for the past few centuries that basic hygeine (sterilizing instruments, washing hands, keeping wounds clean, giving patients clean food and water..) is an essential part of treatment, but doctors get careless and some hospitals are still poorly maintained, unhygeinic places. The second point is that "the medical and scientific establishment" frowns on 'alternate theories' and 'claims to be atheistic'. He needs a quick course in logic if he thinks that one claim proves the other. Most of the alternate theories (yoga will cure homosexuality, cow urine will cure cancer, people who prefer 'faith healing' using prayers, sacred ash, neem leaves) are pure unadulterated rubbish. Sadly this is a country where ISRO scientists take bath and fast after eclipses and then launch a satellite.
"This is the main reason why many complementary and alternative systems of medicine have been discouraged." Firstly, complementary medicine and alternative medicine are different systms and mainstream science treats both differently. Complementary medicine includes nutritional aids which helps to provide disease-specific therapy and is often used by mainstream doctors and scientists in conjunction with allopathic medicines. However, alternative medicine is a misnomer; any therapy that has been shown to work is just called medicine. The reason why so-called 'alternatives' such as homeopathy, crystal therapy, acupuncture, etc are not considered simply 'medicine' is because they have not been shown to work any better than a placebo. If there is a bias in science it is the bias for truth, for theories to be actually tested and proven before they are accepted. It is this bias that prevents them from endorsing all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense.
no one has seen electron!!! really! I am ok if you are saying it only in rhetorical sense. ever seen a lightening or a spark !! Seeing something is different from proving its existence. otherwise all things that are not in visible spectrum, including x-ray so much used in medical science are just a belief, and not a reality. this article is full of poor arguments. I guess the author is disappointed by too much limelight given to modern (western) science in comparison traditional methods (which again is science only). But he has unnecessarily put bad argument to defy modern science. No science but only food can cure hunger. No medicine can work without personal care. The example used in this article to discredit science is absurd. This is such a vague and misguided comment on science.
Sir, There is a lot of truth in what Professor Hegde has written. His arguments are elegant and reasonable. But when it comes to the conclusion, that Science is irrational, he seems to be wrong. He may be quite right when he talks about the medical field. To extend it to the whole Sciences is totally wrong. I have special objection to his observation : "People who have not seen God swear by Him; a scientist has not seen an electron but swears by it. Both are irrational in one sense but, the latter gets all the recognition." Science can be tested with Values such as reliability dependability, verifiability, repeatability, universality and predictability. Can the idea of GOD , we inherited from our forefathers, can be tested in such a way? It will certainly satisfy our elders, but will have any value with the younger generation will they accept it? I think that they may not, as I they are more often go for values rather than dogma, including the dogmas of their fore fathers.
I was attracted to this article for some serious criticism of science but it seems the writer is unnecessarily blaming science for all unscientific or selfish things people do. The infection by bacteria because of not washing hands is in favour of science or against?? ..the author himself seems confused. I don't understand why materialism and consumerism is attributed to science. Science is not a dogma. Its is about the truth and is always ready to revise itself in its discovery of truth and understanding the universe. The title of the article is deceptive and it has nothing concrete criticising science. What is even more disappointing that the author, himself is portraying the ancient science as non-science. Just like people are exploited in the name of religion, some businesses uses name of science to misguide people. Now what is the fault of science here if some one is misrepresenting scientific discoveries. its an unsuccessfully attempt to put science in a bad light.
Mr. Hegde has a very weak understanding of the concept of science and hence this verbal tirade. Sir, the theory that there are electron passes with the following tests. It is falsify-able, it explains innumerable observations, it agrees with several other scientific theories, it does not bring in mysticism or miracles to explain itself. Hence it is an accepted robust scientific principle. Your turn to justify god .... Most importantly, if some scientist in the future comes up with a theory to prove electrons don't exist, the present day scientist would put his hand up and say ... "oops I messed up, good one Sir". (much like the way Einstein corrected Newton) That is the integrity science inculcates. Dear editor, if you don't mind me saying this, It is ridiculous in my opinion you Mr. Hegde are allowed to be around students.
Part II "When infant mortality falls drastically and people have food to eat and a job to do with clean water to drink, they live longer but the contribution of modern medicine in this area is negligible." Is Science not responsible for more food, jobs and clean water? "There is no logic to science." Which other human activity is more logical than Science? "a scientist has not seen an electron but swears by it." 'Seeing' by eye has limitation. The writer-doctor should know that UV and IR are also not seen by eye but 'seen' by the skin. "There are equally good, if not better, methods to human wisdom." Like, ? In summary, the writer should read regularly the Science pages of The Hindu and get a few doubts about science cleared.
The author begins with dramatic criticisms of science. Then, he/she goes on to give examples of bad practices in the medical profession and reverts back to blasting science and scientists. Noting that the writer belongs to the medical community, the plea for good sanitary practices by doctors and lay people must be welcomed. However, the writer's harangue on 'science' is totally misplaced. Let me take a few quotes from the article and respond. It is that institution of science that one has to shun."Which institution? Physics?" Scientists are so deluded by their invincibility that they have no patience to listen to any other view." Which other view? "other systems of human healing are looked down upon albeit their antiquity and authenticity." Proven Authenticity, yes. But why accept antiquity without authenticity?
The Western World has advanced to the pre position over the past two or three owing to a few cardinal principles: Democracy (not dictatorship, monarchy, Sultanate), Rule of Law (not law of a religious holy book), freedom of expression (not punishment of non-conformist thought), free enterprise (not central planning). a trust in science and technology (not superstition). It can be observed over and over all over the globe, history repeats itself showing that any society that implements these measures gets wealthier, and healthier but arguably also wiser. It appears this writer wants to cut off one of those stanchions upon which teh future of our country rests. I say it 'appears' because his arguments are so retrograde that it is impossible to see what he is complaining about. Does he want medical colleges to stop teaching evidence based remedies? Does he want rocket scientists in Sriharikota scrap their labs and study the Pushpaka Vimana mentioned in the Ramayana?
Dear Professor Hegde, You have laid out a common failings of scientists. As you said, science only explains how the world works and nothing more. Just as scientists would appreciate non-scientists not offering their untested claims of what causes disease, scientists must spare their disparaging opinions of religion and God. However, I feel you have been overly general in your criticism. The world of physical sciences is quite different. To begin with, there is no money to be made with fundamental science, and therefore no vested interests. Most things that are published do stand the test of time. Today's GPS technology rests on Einsteinian relativity. As you have shown, the same does not hold for medical sciences, where overly bold claims are always being made. In my opinion, people (many scientists included) tend to club all science as one. Accept all the beliefs or none. That needs to change.
A deeply confused and muddled article. There are so many things wrong with the article that I can point to, I don't even know where to start. The author's basic strategy is to erect a straw man of science as an arrogant enterprise that the very worst of scientists and scientific establishments practice and then flog it mercilessly, conveniently ignoring science as practiced by the vast majority of mainstream scientists. It is like criticising the very basis of medicine because of a few corrupt doctors. Further, the author keeps asserting that there are other ways of knowing although he doesn't say what they are and how they measure up. Science is an effort to make a model of our natural universe that best conforms to our observations of the universe as we see and experience it. And practiced well, by painstakingly gathering evidence, testing ones's theories against reality, humbly erecting the model of reality brick by brick, it is the only way to getting to the truth.
Please Email the Editor