Stumble it!

10 Comments to [...]

This comment may be bit dated and I had drafted it against your earlier post on science.

I agree with you that scientific method was a giant leap made by humanity. It has facilitated an exponential growth (relative to earlier centuries) in knowledge and its translation to technology. Technology in turn has yielded major productivity gains. Thanks to those gains humanity can now move into services dominated world.

I would like to know who is credited with the codification of the method itself. Did the method evolve after the pace of experimentation and inquiry gathered momentum and one needed a device to separate genuine claims of discovery from bogus ones?

I also agree with little Ram on the fundamental difference between natural science and social science. Technology which is a derivative of natural science can enhance (but also disrupt) our lives. But the social sciences are equally or more relevant to us because throughout the world improvements are needed in social sectors including politics and economy.

Dweep has argued that scientific method as we know it now could possibly have existed in ancient India. If so, it begs a question: why did it not spur rapid development as happened much later in Europe? Or is it possible that it was not scientific method but some social factors (rise of merchant class relative to landed gentry) including economic incentives that spurred the rapid progress? Science itself is one level removed from application. Technology is a more visible form of science to layman and can be a strong economic motivation. May be the hunger for technological progress in Europe spurred science rather than other way around?

Sharad

I think the scientific method does provide an understanding of why the west has gone ahead in terms of development. It answers for me many of the questions on why even though we had brilliance it did not convert itself into development.

Incidently, in a second-hand book store in Adelaide, I came across a book on Francis Bacon and the scientific method.

He says

“There are and can exist but two ways of investigating and discovering truth. The one hurries on rapidly from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms; and from them as principles and their supposed indisputable truth derives and discovers the intermediate axioms. This is the way now in use. The other constructs its axioms from the senses and particulars, by ascending continually and gradually, till it finally arrives at the most general axioms, which is the true but unattempted way.”

In particular, the rational period produced some of the most fascinating series of debates on what constitutes the “scientific method”: How does one separate our sensory perceptions from dreams and hallucinations? When does an observation of reality become accepted as fact, and as scientific truth? How should the principles of inductive and deductive logic be developed and applied? How does one evaluate a hypothesis for it’s scientific merit? What is a valid inference? What constitutes a scientific proof? “

a. Mahim and Gujarat Sweet water curing diseases

b. Idols drinking loads of milk – a sign of good things to come.

Links here

I hope you don’t pooh-pooh these as well

Nothing I read here seems to undermine the eastern contribution to science, but yes, science as a methodical study is nodoubt a contribution of western civilization.

We have had our Aryabhattas, Barahmihir, bhaskaracharyas, but the problem is they came at a gap of centuries from each other. There are sporadic flashes of brilliance spreading across a millennium and half but where was the continuity of the methodical exploration?

After 1000 AD scientific explorations were almost dead in east. When the west was fast developing their century old university systems then we were suffering in a scientifically dark age ( Nalanda and taxila both of them were long dead by then and neither ever explored science). The methodical study of science in India atleast was started under the western influence only, in early 19th century.

Hi Raj
Please don’t believe Mr. Joseph Needham. Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is primarily due to the invention of the spinning yarn. Because of the prospects of mass production, the western countries got new ideas about colonization (which sparked further industrialization).

Unlike the Europeans, the chinese (or the phonecians, or the Vikings, or the Arabs, or even the Indians) didn’t have this ideology of using a colony as a dumpyard of surplus produce. Just because they didn’t discover surplus produce yet. The English were the first to discover it.

Same is true of India. We can’t cite a few Aryabhattas and claim that we were steeped in scientific tradition.It is one thing to ask philosophical questions and another to engage in measurements,systematic observation and maintenance of records that form part of the scientific method.

compares western and Indian approach to science.

Dweep, the assertion that based on current evidence, the West has codified the scientifc method does not take away from the greateness of the scientific endeavours of our forefathers in any way I am sure.

While this is a digression into my personal philosophical beliefs, let me say that I whole-heartedly agree with Atanu in his submission that some of the most profound of human truths – the understanding that all life is one, is essentially an Indian accomplishment. The depth of philosophical thought that is behind this is staggering and requires more than a lifeltime to fully comprehend.