The year 2000
started out quite badly for me, losing my father in February. Then came my
wedding in July, a blissful moment. Then came another devastation, my mother
dying in December of that year. So you would understand the emotional roller
coaster I was riding on in that year. But even as I was shrieking on the down
slides (not with excitement, of course) I never asked the questions, “Why did my
father and mother die?” and “Why did I get married to this wonderful lady?” I
knew now I will never get the answers outside of myself.
I endorse “positive
reductionist science” and I knew that I will never get the final answer to my “why”
questions. My endorsement – note that I am not using the word “belief” as I do
not know whether it is appropriate at all to use that word here – of the kind
of science B M Hegde takes severe exception to in his article in the Open Page space of The Hindu of October 26, 2014 (“Unlearning
to learn: a physician’s thoughts”) comes not out of any learning or
unlearning in the evolution of my thoughts. It is, in this restricted context, sui generis.
Now I give
below an image of the “offending” article (yes, it is currently fashionable to
be “offended’ by the thoughts of others; but, I will not disrupt any public activities!)
In response to
the same I posted a comment online and I give that too below (italics in in
quotes):
“I am not a Christian, in the interest of
full disclosure. In the quote from the Bible Jesus is NOT talking about earthly
riches but knowing the mysteries of Heaven. The writer has done a hatchet job.
Does he imply that non-positive non-reductionist non-science will provide
answers to the "why" question? He is still searching through various
avenues but appears not to know when to quit. Reductionist science is quite
clear - never. It will prod on. The writer seems to endorse eugenics when he
quotes Alexis Carrel. Coming from a medical doctor, this is atrocious. Thanks
doctor for letting us know what we should "unlearn"!”
There is a lot
more that I wanted to say on the article but the space limit online curtailed
my response. As this is my space, I give free vent to my thoughts.
The writer has
a penchant for quoting Nobel Laureates, but never setting down the contexts of
these quotes. Assuming that Christ would have got a Nobel Prize for peace had
the award existed in his times, I can substantiate my charge against the
writer.
Hegde quotes
the Bible to assert that the medical profession uses “crisis” like the
currently raging (jumping across the Atlantic pond) Ebola virus: “For whosoever
hath, to him shall be given (Matthew 13:12).” But Jesus tells this to his
disciples in response to queries about why he speaks in parables immediately
after referring to, in Matthew 13:11, what will be given: a look into the “…mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven.” This is far from the riches of the medical
profession.
It is with this
non-contextualizing pinch of salt I shall take Hegde’s quotes. Let me comment on
another quote without even taking this caveat. He quotes Charles Sherrington: “Positive
sciences cannot answer the question ‘why’.” This is no revelation. Every scientist worth
her salt labors under this constraint. Her effort is to go ever closer to the
ultimate answer to the ultimate ‘why’ question knowing full well that she will
never be able to reach her destination. Science is always provisional.
But Sherrington
does not suggest – from the quote offered by the writer – we should take recourse
to “non-positive no-reductionist non-science” to get this ultimate answer. But
our writer feels no compunction and he boldly takes this leap and tries to find
the answer in “religion, theology, psychology, spirituality, alternative
medical systems, philosophy, Sanatana Dharma’s Karma Theory, sociology, and
even teleology.” While admitting that so far his efforts along these avenues have
not yielded results, he does not tell when he would stop such inquiries.
Assume he will
never stop. Then, that undermines his credibility because it is akin to science
which also never stops! His methods are then science, the very thing he takes cudgels
against.
Of course, the
above is not logically complete. There can be avenues that may never stop but
are not science. But, all such avenues, from experience, end up incomplete,
either by giving incomplete answers (like the Karma Theory) or muzzling the
question itself by competitive sophistry (Advaita and Dvaita, for example). Hedge
has to choose between two poisons – accept that what he is trying out are avenues
of science which he holds in contempt or that they will never lead to the final
solution. This he does not acknowledge and carries on with his intellectually
lazy exercise.
He says that while
the rich died under medical care the “poor survived, disease notwithstanding.” He
refuses to acknowledge that poor survived because they were prolific breeders.
Now that leads to me this last observation. He quotes Alexis carrel approvingly
on eugenics, “it makes sense”. Coming from a doctor this is crying shame.
Both my father
and mother died under medical care. But I have never blamed the medical profession
for their deaths; it was I, indeed my mother who chose her treatment. I do not
know “why” my parents died, the ultimate cause. The proximate cause is cancer
for my mother and heart attack for my father. But that is not unsatisfactory,
to me. To play Hegde’s game, Richard Feynman, another Nobel laureate said that
he can live (implied: also die) without knowing.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
2 comments:
Am not qualified to comment on this Raghu, I am not familiar with the writings quoted. I hope I get the drift of the blog though somewhat. The question 'why' is an eternal quest in science and needs to be pursued within the realm of science by a scientist. The moment a scientist allows herself to dither towards non-science for an answer to 'why', she deviates from being a scientist.
Sorry Aditi, it has been a long time since I visited my blog space. Hence the delayed response. You are so absolutely right, and that coming from a supposedly non-scientist is a shame on all those scientists who take the easy way out. Thank you so much.
Raghu
Post a Comment