Scientist’s blather

When I read that the Nobel Laureate (Chemistry) Dan Shechtman said, “…in the frontiers of science there is not much of a difference between science and religion,” at the start of an article [1] my interest to read fully was stoked.

It is an anecdotal thesis that undergirds the comparison the Nobel Laureate makes. His discovery of quasi crystals through an investigation aided by a Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) was not readily accepted. The discovery had to be sent through the millstone of the established procedures of X-ray crystallography and confirmed before it could be accepted as a paradigm, shifting from the old that denied the existence of quasi-crystals and X-ray crystallography. It took ten long years and hence the comparison to religion, as I understood from the article. I can understand the frustrations the Laureate must have felt and he evokes the greatest admiration in me.

Science is at best a layman pursuit for me. Yet I can give similar anecdotes. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was pilloried for suggesting that sufficiently massive stars can keep collapsing, leading to black hole formation (though Chandrasekhar did not explore the possibility to that stage; the redoubtable scientist Eddington was not enamored of the pressure of degeneracy). He was taken apart, in front of his peers, by Eddington. Now, that was science working as was the case with Dan Shechtman. Both Chandrasekhar and Shechtman were duly recognized as peerless in their fields. This too is an example of science working. Yes, it took time but science works on extended timescales.

For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection was expounded by Darwin in 1859 and it gained credibility even within science only in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Another one. Fred Hoyle stuck to his theory of steady state universe despite mounting evidence against it. This is a question of a scientist attached to his formulation for explaining a phenomenon, perhaps just a tad too strongly – normal human behavior, scientist or non-scientist.

Therefore, Shechtman’s experience, a delayed acceptance of his insights, is not a one-off. It recurs often enough. And, scientists must be happy that is does; that science allows these speed breakers.

Having said that, I want to see how valid the parallel Shechtman discerns between science and religion is. To be generous, he may refer to the gap between Galileo’s argument and the Roman Catholic Church accepting that geo-centric view of the universe is nonsense – a full three centuries!

Or, his words, “People have their beliefs and they would not listen,” that does appear to have some validity.

Yet, I will throw some spanner in such thinking. Scientists work on beliefs and religion promotes beliefs. And, there lies the difference, unacknowledged by the Nobel Laureate. A scientist working on a theory, based on a belief, is resigned to his theory being proven right or wrong over the long haul. But religionists, besides promoting beliefs, work assiduously against being proven wrong. More importantly, the tenets any religion carries are safe guarded from analysis as they are so self-serving and unctuous. Name one religion that has said that its tenets are wrong based on its own thinking / rethinking of the concerned issues.

Scientists believed in X-ray crystallography after having had years of evidence and experience. When the new technique appeared in the neighborhood, they were wary. But, they eventually welcomed the new kid. If something like this happened in religion, it would create a schism. The old one retains its hold and more importantly, will try to woo back the deserters. Check how Christianity began.

There is no schism between X–ray crystallography and TEM. X-ray crystallography finds its use in its domain leaving TEM to its. But, Jews and Christians fight and kill each other. Why did this difference skip the obviously brilliant Nobel Laureate?

1964 is the year Prof. Higgs, along with others, propounded the Higgs Field and the associated particle, Higgs Boson. And, its existence has been proved only in 2012, because the required technology had not been developed. Scientists do not yet know whether the particle observed is the original “garden variety” Higgs as proposed in 1964 or some “exotic” variation. “To many physicists an exotic Higgs would be good news.” [2]

Further, “The discovery of the boson … is rightly hailed as the crowning achievement of one of history’s most successful scientific theories. But it is almost certainly the beginning of that theory’s undoing, and its replacement by something better. In science, with its constant [never ending] search for the truth, this is something to celebrate [my emphasis].”

When Dan Shechtman can point to a similar statement about religion, then, I would agree to his comparison. And, that, in my opinion will be a search far longer than the ten years that he spent in wilderness with his TEM results for quasi crystals.

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1.    A thin line separates religion and science: Dan Shechtman, R Prasad, The Hindu, July 4, 2012. [http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article3599458.ece]

2.    Gotcha!, The Economist, July 7, 2012 [http://www.economist.com/node/21558248] (possibly behind a paywall)