Unlike religion, science is not dogmatic and is open to revision. “But in the frontiers of science there is not much of a difference between science and religion,” said Nobel Laureate Dan Shechtman.
Prof. Shechtman is from Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. “People have their beliefs and they would not listen.”
But is that how science should be? “You are absolutely correct. Science should not be this way, because sometimes people are wrong,” the Laureate said. “A good scientist is a humble person who is willing to listen and not somebody who thinks he knows everything.”
Prof. Shechtman won the Nobel Prize for chemistry last year for his 1984 discovery of quasicrystals (non-repeating regular patterns of atoms). He had used a transmission electron microscope (TEM) to study the quasicrystals.
“When I published my work many repeated my results and immediately said, hey, we have it,” he said.
His personal experience convinced him that in the frontiers of science there is little difference between science and religion. “It was a discovery challenging a community of X-ray crystallographers. They were really against me for ten years,” he noted.
The science of crystallography was defined as X-ray crystallography. Hence all results were to be obtained using X-rays and nothing else. “This community of X-ray crystallographers wanted him to get X-ray diffraction results” before they could accept his results.
It took his team three years (from 1984 to 1987) to produce the first large enough crystal that is fraction of a millimetre in size. “Only then we could get an X-ray diffraction pattern” he said. The X-ray crystallographers finally accepted his results when he finally presented the X-ray diffraction results at a meeting in Australia. “They redefined crystals. This was a paradigm shift,” he said.
According to a press release from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences , quasicrystals “fundamentally altered how chemists conceive of solid matter.”
According to the classical definition, crystals can have rotational symmetries of one, two, three, four and six. Five-fold symmetry and symmetries beyond six were thought to be impossible in periodic structures.
The atoms inside a crystal have to necessarily be packed in a symmetrical pattern so that they are ordered and repeated periodically. But quasicrystals meet only one of the two conditions — they are ordered materials, but the atomic order is quasiperiodic rather than periodic. It is this combination that allows the formation of crystal symmetries, such as icosahedral symmetry.
Talking about tenacity, he recalled his struggle. “I experienced severe criticism for ten long years,” he said. Those who opposed his results were not experimentalists, and the reason for opposing them was not on scientific grounds. “This cannot be [correct], they said. ‘But this cannot be’ was not based on the second law of thermodynamics but was based on a paradigm,” he said. After all, hundreds of thousands of crystals were studied before and not one of them turned out to be a quasicrystal.
But Prof. Shechtman took the road less travelled and used a TEM to study quasicrystals. These cannot be found using X-ray diffraction (unless they are grown to at least a fraction of a millimetre) as they are so small. “So the question is why didn’t others see it before I did. It is not because it is not stable or rare or difficult to make,” he asked.
Using a different tool is only the beginning. “It is not enough to operate a TEM. You must be an expert on TEM. The number of TEM experts is very few,” he said.
But when he finally observed quasicrystals he did not understand their significance. “I thought what I saw was just an artefact caused by twins. So I was looking for twins that have boundary between crystals giving mirror images. I did not find it and I knew I did not have twins,” he recalled. “Everything happened in just one day on April 8, 1982.”
Quasicrystals have low heat conductivity and non-stick properties. “It is better than Teflon as it does not stretch,” he said.
(This Correspondent is one of the two journalists from India participating in the 62ndNobel Laureates Meeting at Lindau, Germany, at the invitation of the German Research Foundation (DFG) Bonn.)
@Mahfooz - You say "Religion is truth", "religion says there is a
superpower called God", "there is absolutely no problem between
science and religion". These are merely assertions. Unless you
can demonstrate, with evidence, that these are true, you cannot
convince others to take it seriously. Yes, some people might have
figured out 1400 years ago that the sun has its own light and the
moon has reflected light, but the ancient greeks knew all this
2500 years ago, and they didn't claim to need any divine help to
figure this out. Further, I am not impressed with religious
apologists searching their scriptures to see if there is anything
in it that could vaguely refer to a new scientific discovery. Why
don't you read the scriptures and see if there are answers to
problems science doesn't know yet and I'll be more impressed.
Note - Polls show that about 85% of Nobel laureates identify
themselves as atheist/agnostics, so you suppose they all have a
very shallow understanding of science?
@Raamganesh: well said! All religions are a product of a specific time and place in a particular society to meet a specific need at the time. Yet religions ask their followers to believe without asking for proof. On the other hand in science demands proof before one would believe the as the truth until of course someone else come along and show what was apparently the truth may be only partial truth e.g., Newton's understanding of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. Until Higgs-boson particles are definitively proven the Higgs theory would remain a hypothesis.
Thanks to Hindu for publishing this interview. I wish Hindu would also explain the implications of Dr. Shechtman's discoveries to make it more accessible for the laymen like myself.
I think this dichotomy between science and religion exists only in the semitic religions. The process of scientific analysis and discussion existed in religious philosophy in ancient India. The concepts of dwaita, advaita or visishta advaita are examples. Many theories of modern science get proven decades later; but some appeal to logic already and then the proof becomes superfluous.
@Raamganesh- I Don't think science and religion are polar opposite. Religion is truth and science is a tool which unravel the truths and tries to explain its mechanism. Religion says there is a super power called God who made this universe and has control over every single particle of the universe, how he made the universe? answer is being searched by science. There is absolutely no problem between science and religion. There are so many events which religion has told long back but science has unraveled it now. For example, 1400 years back religion told that sun has it own light but moon has reflected light but science came to know couple of decades back. There are many examples which clearly shows relation between science and religion. A person who has good understanding of science has no problem with religion at all. So I can say that shallow knowledge of science makes you non-believer but deep knowledge of science makes you a serious believer.
@Mahfooz - That's a nice bit of circular reasoning. Science is
still developing so it must not be developed. Religion, since it
hasn't moved an inch for the past two thousand years, must be
already perfectly developed!!
Several commenters on this thread have said it right. At the
heart of religion are a bunch of claims about the cosmos which it
holds to be eternally true and infallible. And since it is not
able to provide any evidence for its claims, it demands "faith"
from its adherents, which is the acceptance of claims without
evidence.
At the heart of science, however, is humility and doubt, a
willingness always to question one's beliefs, to test one's ideas
against reality, and to strive to demonstrate the validity of the
ideas to others by painstakingly providing evidence. This is why
there is progress in science as we slowly, but surely, march
towards a greater understanding of our universe.
And this is why science and religion are polar opposites of each
other.
It is astonishing that a Nobel laureate would make such a ludicrous statement. Science is questioned, dissected, discussed at large and is only then accepted but even then it can be resurrected and scrutinized again. Religion on the other hand is faith based with no evidence provided for the beliefs. It is a "take it or leave it" postulate. As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"
A true religion is not dogmatic and is always open to discussion and arguments. But religion can not save u.
I really don;t think the line is thin. Where as Science deals with
tangible (physical) matter, the religion is all to do with subtle energy.. energy that science has not been able to detect leave aside
measuring it... Moreover, the highest spiritualist need not know
physical science at all.. Spiritual and material worlds, as of today,
are upside down; that is the level of divide in these two worlds...
One can develop unless he is not developed. Since science is developing so there must be a scope of further development but religion is already well developed so there must not be any scope of change. But of course you can check religion's development with the help of those well established theories of science which you think won't change in coming couple hundred of years or thousand of years. If you find any controversies between scientific theories and religion then definitely there is some shortcomings in scientific theories, because its in evolution phase, which may get corrected in coming period. Now question arises which religion is comparable with science? The answer is, in my opinion, the one whose scriptures are in original form, which is most logical, which can satisfy your conscience. Religion's pillar is its scripture, if any religious scripture is written by any human being then its not comparable.
Both science and religion are ultimately human pursuits. While the former conceives the world as material and hence open to uncovering by experimentation, the latter seeks to give meaning and direction to our being in the world. Fruitful discussion on either is not possible as long as we restrict ourselves to hearsay or preconceptions.
A very good article and my gratitude for publishing such original
interviews (not picked up from other agencies or foreign magazines) or
articles developed by your correspondents. In these times, when most
Indian newspapers and magazines are content with reporting fashion,
food and films, this has come like a breath of fresh air. It would
have appealed to a lot of readers, had you used a box item to explain
the importance of Dr. Schechtman's discovery and the terms he used,
using simple language and graphics. I think you need to seriously
consider fortifying your science articles thus to appeal to readers of
all tastes and ages.
Science is hypothesis based search for truth and truth only.Religion is dogmatic science yet to be unravelled.Mistakes were made by practitioners of science-elimination of Galileo,unwanted criticism on stem cell reserch that life will be created and so on.As Dr A P J Abdul Kalam mentioned and I quote"we are sands only,several sands formed the earth,several earth the planet,galaxy,megagalaxy,universe and megauniverse in an endless cosmos".There is a lot of mysticism around us and science unravels it to our use and misuse.Dr Schectman has tried to link science with religion.There are visible changes in practice and theory of religion. Science especially quantum physics has changed drastically. The change sweeping the whole world are reflected in Science and religion.
Dr.Shechtman is just muddying the waters by comparing science to
religion. Sure, individual scientists can be dogmatic. After all
they're human and it is hard for humans to let go of their
cherished ideas. But sooner or later, the weight of evidence will
pile up and become too much for even established theories to
stand against. Further, new ideas that seek to radically change
the existing paradigms should expect to meet fierce resistance
because radical claims require a large amount evidence before
they can be taken seriously. But in the end, science thrives on
doubt and skepticism and the falsification of ideas; and no
scientist, no matter how reputed, and no idea, no matter how
cherished, can fight against reality. As the physicist Richard
Feynman said, "If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong".
No wonder the scientists changed their minds and awarded
Dr.Schectman a Nobel Prize for this efforts.
Great article. On an other angle the barriers will make the result unquestionable for the coming years. Great to see unlike religion your views were finally accepted and celebrated with a Nobel prize.
Many scientists are admitting that science is not infallible. Science by its very nature is experimentative. Continuous research is the basis of science.
The last century has seen many breakthroughs in science and many of the old concepts have been challenged and abandoned. Concepts of time, space,energy and consciousness have changed beyond imagination.
Science has brought the world closer than ever before. Communication and interdependence has become possible due to the scientific discoveries. Distance learning is trying to bridge the gap between the literate and the illiterate. New opportunities of employment are being created.
Scientists have a very important role in ensuring that the powers of science are used for peaceful purposes. They have a very important role to play in ensuring that the benefits of science are accessible to the poor and the marginalized sections of society.
Research and development is vital to ensure prosperity and growth of a country.
I appreciate Dr.Dan Shechtman for his acheivement. But, I find the first line not correct."Unlike religion, science is not dogmatic and is open to revision". Religion is not dogmatic if it is read from a good point of view. Even Science sometimes proves dogmatic but, why do people never complain( eg. One theory fails and a new one comes).
Also , Science is open to revision beacuse it is dependednt on temporary research , conditions in which experiments are conducted. If Conditions change then the results change too. So , any scientific theory has limitations in itself as it is based on limited knowledge humans have about Universe and its faculties.
I do not oppose Science. I have benefited a lot through it. But, it is not final and Supreme. I feel it will be good if every branch respects one another and if any differences discuss and establish a common truth and move forward. Only then Progress can be acheived.
The selected title, "A thin line separates science and religion: Dan
Shechtman" is misleading as the comparison with religion was made in
the context of the uncharacteristic "dogmatism" that caused
scientists to oppose his new ideas for ten years. He went on,
"Science should not be this way".
What is clear that it is in the specific context of what "science
should not be" that dogmatism sometimes displayed by scientists is
compared to traditional religious attitudes.
Please Email the Editor