In a letter to his friend Albert Einstein once wrote: 'I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today – and even professional scientists – seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth'.
Einstein believed that scientists should be educated in the history, philosophy, and methodology of their disciplines so that they may escape the prejudices of their present. A critical awareness of the history and philosophy of scientific disciplines will help scientists escape the prejudices of their generation. Prejudices are preconceptions held without reason or evidence. It's almost incredible to think that scientists, some of the finest minds of a society, will be influenced by prejudices despite working in a field that's known for intelligent and creative thinking i.e science. Einstein knows that even without a background in the history and philosophy of science, intelligent and imaginative scientists produce groundbreaking results. Thus, he isn't talking about creating good scientists. Good science doesn't need a knowledge of history and philosophy, just like a good historian doesn't need to know about the theory of relativity in any detail. Scholars and scientists may practice their respective crafts without much mutual recognition. But, Einstein's concern isn't about scientists or scholars. It's about the seeker of the truth.
The phrase 'seeker of the truth' isn't heard anymore in the halls of academia. Einstein's Seeker isn't just an artisan or specialist. He may be an artisan or a specialist but he doesn't restrict his curiosity to his specialty alone. He tries to understand the philosophical implications of his work. He tries to understand the meaning of his work and connects it to the larger questions humans have always asked, such as the ultimate nature of reality, the place of humans and the purpose of existence. This is typical of Einstein. This is Einstein the thinker speaking. Unlike many of his contemporaries in science, Einstein was deeply concerned about the philosophical implications of his work. Since the fifties physicists have adopted the maxim 'Shut Up and Calculate'. The post-war generation of physicists wasn't interested in the kind of philosophical debates Einstein and Niels Bohr engaged each other about the ultimate nature of reality. Einstein defended a deterministic model of the universe where events were controlled by physical laws and thus could be predicted correctly. Bohr defended his Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics through which he argued that Universe, at its most fundamental level i.e. subatomic, was chaotic. The only way to observe and measure reality at the subatomic level was to interfere with it and thus deviate it from its natural course. The universe couldn't be studied without taking account of the observer. The biggest question these thinkers tried to tackle was whether or not we could make objective sense out of our Universe. Einstein believed that it could be and Bohr believed that knowledge of the Universe was objective only so far as we accounted for the observer. At the heart of their debate were two questions, the comprehensibility of the universe and the place of Man within it. They debated about the ontological, moral and human implications of their works. When Einstein wrote this letter, probably he had the image of Bohr and himself in his mind.
Einstein's letter is a reminder to young scientists, and young scholars in humanities, to think beyond their specialties and try to relate their work with the perennial questions of human existence. A counter-example to Einstein's attitude would be Stephen Hawking's pronouncement that philosophy is dead. Interestingly, Hawking's 'anti-philosophy' of science can be interpreted as a philosophical stand and addressed as such.
Before closing this post, I would like to add one more thing. It's a question, just out of my curiosity. History and Philosophy may help scientists escape the prejudices of the present but I wonder if they could escape the prejudices of the ancients. It's a question for another time.
Einstein believed that scientists should be educated in the history, philosophy, and methodology of their disciplines so that they may escape the prejudices of their present. A critical awareness of the history and philosophy of scientific disciplines will help scientists escape the prejudices of their generation. Prejudices are preconceptions held without reason or evidence. It's almost incredible to think that scientists, some of the finest minds of a society, will be influenced by prejudices despite working in a field that's known for intelligent and creative thinking i.e science. Einstein knows that even without a background in the history and philosophy of science, intelligent and imaginative scientists produce groundbreaking results. Thus, he isn't talking about creating good scientists. Good science doesn't need a knowledge of history and philosophy, just like a good historian doesn't need to know about the theory of relativity in any detail. Scholars and scientists may practice their respective crafts without much mutual recognition. But, Einstein's concern isn't about scientists or scholars. It's about the seeker of the truth.
The phrase 'seeker of the truth' isn't heard anymore in the halls of academia. Einstein's Seeker isn't just an artisan or specialist. He may be an artisan or a specialist but he doesn't restrict his curiosity to his specialty alone. He tries to understand the philosophical implications of his work. He tries to understand the meaning of his work and connects it to the larger questions humans have always asked, such as the ultimate nature of reality, the place of humans and the purpose of existence. This is typical of Einstein. This is Einstein the thinker speaking. Unlike many of his contemporaries in science, Einstein was deeply concerned about the philosophical implications of his work. Since the fifties physicists have adopted the maxim 'Shut Up and Calculate'. The post-war generation of physicists wasn't interested in the kind of philosophical debates Einstein and Niels Bohr engaged each other about the ultimate nature of reality. Einstein defended a deterministic model of the universe where events were controlled by physical laws and thus could be predicted correctly. Bohr defended his Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics through which he argued that Universe, at its most fundamental level i.e. subatomic, was chaotic. The only way to observe and measure reality at the subatomic level was to interfere with it and thus deviate it from its natural course. The universe couldn't be studied without taking account of the observer. The biggest question these thinkers tried to tackle was whether or not we could make objective sense out of our Universe. Einstein believed that it could be and Bohr believed that knowledge of the Universe was objective only so far as we accounted for the observer. At the heart of their debate were two questions, the comprehensibility of the universe and the place of Man within it. They debated about the ontological, moral and human implications of their works. When Einstein wrote this letter, probably he had the image of Bohr and himself in his mind.
Einstein's letter is a reminder to young scientists, and young scholars in humanities, to think beyond their specialties and try to relate their work with the perennial questions of human existence. A counter-example to Einstein's attitude would be Stephen Hawking's pronouncement that philosophy is dead. Interestingly, Hawking's 'anti-philosophy' of science can be interpreted as a philosophical stand and addressed as such.
Before closing this post, I would like to add one more thing. It's a question, just out of my curiosity. History and Philosophy may help scientists escape the prejudices of the present but I wonder if they could escape the prejudices of the ancients. It's a question for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment