Is the Universe fine-tuned for life?

The answer to this question will depend on what one means by the significant terms used in the question.

First the universe. We live in the only universe we know. It is entirely possible – and some theories in physics make this a not implausible possibility – that there are several other universes, There may or may not be any life in many of them. So there is nothing unique in the phenomenon of life to warrant a universe that is specially intended to make life a possibility in a remote niche of its stupendously vast stretch.

Next is fine-tuned. The implication is that conditions and parameters that could be arbitrarily arranged have been given optimal values for the attainment of a specific goal. Indeed, if the initial assignment of values had been different ever so slightly, the intended goal or current situation would and could not have been achieved. Note that the verb is used in the passive voice, but the customary by X has been omitted. That is to say, one leaves open the question: fine-tuned by whom? Perhaps the implication is that it was by an intelligent designer, but this is not a phrase one dares to use in scientific discussion these days. This is also a reason why most hard-core atheist physicists and biologists shudder to contemplate this sort of anthropic or biopic principle.

The third important word is life. That life is a remarkable property of agglomerations of inert matter on our planet is undoubtedly a perplexing situation. We know that life emerged on our planet because of the external conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure for a sufficiently long time period of time, and the abundant availability of certain elements and compounds. Unique as life seems to be on our solar system, one can also imagine other entities in the universe that are unique to some planets and satellites: volcanoes, atmosphere, water/ice, common salt, and clay. Or again, orbiting planets and comets may be unique to some stars. On the basis of these could one argue, for example, that the universe was fine-tuned for rings around Saturn or planets with satellites?

In sum, then, the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or a no, although in probabilistic and cosmic history terms it seems highly unlikely that parameters were fine-tuned for such a late and fleeting event that was to occur several billions of years after the big bang genesis.

But the simplistic answer to the question could be, of course yes. Otherwise how could life have arisen at all?

V. V. Raman

May 9, 2009

Science and Ethics

According to a New York Times article (November 12, 2007), DNA research will eventually come to the conclusion that all races are NOT created equal. 

It is important to distinguish between biological inequality and social equality.Without any knowledge of DNA and on the basis of the most superficial observations one can conclude that not all human beings are created equal – either within or among races. Individuals are born with different traits and capacities, nations and groups have attained different levels of competence and achieved different levels at creativity at different periods of history. These biological and historical differences have little to do with the ethical principle that all human beings within a society must be treated with equal dignity and respect, and that all nations in the world must be protected from exploitation and domination from more powerful ones.

G. K. Chesterton was quite right when he said that the notion of all men being created equal is derived from a religious source, in that it follows from a vision of humanity that views all humans as deserving of equal rights. The Upanishadic aphorism tat tvam asi has no DNA backing, but it is an enlightened vision of the universality of human consciousness as linked to a common source.

Within a family not all children may be endowed with the same levels of intelligence, competence, or even character. One may choose to treat them differently on this basis, or one may not. This is a value decision that the parents make.So it is with casteism, racism, gender inequality, and all the rest of the oppressive, exclusivist, denigrating-the-other mindset and behavior that has characterized much of human history, and which have their roots in primal self-preserving group-affirming instinctive urges, and should not be justified by enlightened people on the basis of the latest scientific views on the non-uniformity of chromosomes or brain-size.

Even if we are all genetically the same, the only justification for not treating the weaker members of society as inferior is moral. We should be against caste oppression, racial prejudice and gender exploitation, and for human rights, social justice, and international respect for sovereign nations, not because these have support from genetic theory, but because they are ethical stands that are appropriate for culturally evolved peoples.   

Science and Poetry

Let us look into some of the common elements between science and poetry. To the superficial observer, indeed sometimes even to the devotees of the fields, the two may strike as contrasting endeavors, as different from each other as day and night. Yet the two have a great deal in common: In both instances creativity plays a fundamental role, and even as in a hundred versifiers there may be but one genuine poet, so too in the realm of science the routine searchers are many and mechanical; the truly great scientific minds are few and far between.

In poetry, as in science, the urge to create is stronger than the plans to execute. When the poet Poe said that for him poetry was not a purpose, but a passion, he was also expressing the feelings of the true scientist to his own field.

Both science and poetry are efforts to cast truth and nature in symmetry and harmony. To the poet, “poetry is truth dwelling in beauty,” and to the scientist science is truth dwelling in beautiful formulas. Truth, that elusive entity, is of significance only to the seeker.

Thus, the difference between poetry and science lies in the modes of perception and in the framework of the search, not in the inspiration of the quest.

Even when the poet speaks out against the scientific conception he comes closer to the scientist in his description. William Blake, that inspired mystic who regarded “Reason as the Devil, and Newton as its high-priest,” and who proclaimed that “Art is the Tree of Life…Science the Tree of Death,” did echo powerfully the romantic revolt against a mammoth mechanical view of the universe such as was being suggested by 18th century physics and astronomy. But when he spoke of the raptures as one strives

To see the World in a Grain of Sand

And Heaven in a Wild Flower

Hold Infinity in the palm of your Hand

Eternity in an Hour,

he was merely putting to rhyme and rhythm the thrills of the scientific investigator. For when the chemist analyzes the elemental constitution of a sand particle, or the physicist probes into its atomic structures, they too see a world in a grain of sand. When the botanist describes the magic of wild flowers, their forms and their colors, and the plant histologist uncovers the biochemical turbulences that provoke their emergence and their transformations, they too see heaven in action in a wild flower. When the cosmologist computes the very limits of the universe, and the astronomer captures electromagnetic subtleties from distant galaxies, they too hold infinity in their hands. And when the astrophysicist examines the evolution of stellar systems he too holds eternity in an hour.

No wonder then that the pure scientist has always been sensitive to the charms of poetry. Galileo was an admirer of Ariosto, and knew the entire Orlando furioso by heart, as Euler could recite the Aenid from beginning to end. The mathematical physicist Simon Poisson mastered long passages from Racine and Corneille. Newton, Davy, Watt, Maxwell, Lallande, Ampere, Faraday – to name but a few of the great scientific minds – all showed more than a passing interest in poetry. Some of then even composed verses themselves.

Yet, not many poets have been enthusiastic students of scientific disciplines. Indeed when they do write on science they often tend to disparage the scientific enterprise, and make pitying references to the inadequacies and emptiness of science as they see it. From the pathological contempt for the science expressed by some of the more extreme romantics to the modern schools of inquiry into the illogical and the irrational which venerate the absurd in the inspired, if mistaken conviction that magic and mystery-mongering would lead to higher levels of reality, many gifted poets have painted the methods and fruits of the scientific quest in terms and images that connote pity and ridicule.

You may enjoy visiting http://www.metanexus.net/Institute/

Science and Culture

Science and Culture Science, as we all recognize, is one of the most lofty expressions of the human spirit. It is the consequence of the irrepressible urge in the human mind to explore, understand, interpret and explain the world of perceived reality. This urge and efforts to give vent to it have been there in all cultures at all times: thus arose all the magnificent mythologies and the ancient insights of pre-modern science. Since the 16^th century, however, germinating from countless fructifying factors, there emerged what has come to be known as modern science whose tools and methodologies have been significantly different from those of its counterparts of previous centuries. What distinguishes this science from all previous ones is that has transcended the boundaries of race and religion, of language and tradition. Today there is an international network of scientists that has no specific national or ethnic  affiliation. Culture is another manifestation of the human spirit an has various different expressions. There is language and literature, art and music, religion and tradition, games and food, custom and costume, politics and poetry: all these are culture-based. They are as varied and colorful as groups in the world. When we travel to different countries, or even to different regions of a single country, we recognize the variety and diversity in cultural expressions. Thus, we are confronted with the following situation: On the one hand we have science: the all-embracing unifying force in the world at large; and on the other hand we have culture: which is a powerful and enriching indicator of how different human beings can be. How can we put the two in the same bottle? The answer to this lies in the following: It turns out that practically every manifestation of culture has been affected in one way or another by the emergence of modern science. This is a very crucial point. Ordinarily we are inclined to think that scientists work in their laboratories, bankers in banks, actors in the theater, artists in studios, politicians in government places, etc. But what is interesting is that practically every other activity in human society has been profoundly affected by the rise of modern science. And these influences have been significant enough to transform every human enterprise. Let us consider a few instances of the impact of science on culture.

Technology: The most fundamental aspect of any society is its material framework. There can be no significant contributions to culture and civilization if all the people have to toil for the bare needs of survival. Whether in ancient Egypt or China, Greece or India, it was a handful of people of the privileged classes who created and left for posterity great cultural legacies. The founders of human culture and the contributors to it  could not have accomplished this but the fact that their material needs were taken care of by the labors of oppressed and less gifted individuals, and that one needed the blood and sweat of countless and now forgotten thousands for erecting the magnificent structures of temples and cathedrals, pyramids and great walls that have survived the ravages of centuries.

We all know how in many different ways the emergence of modern science has come to the assistance of human muscular exertion in every conceivable manner, and indeed added considerably to the overall quality and comfort of everyday life. The blending of science and technology is in fact a rather recent phenomenon in human history, for many generations in many societies impressive technology flourished without any serious scientific underpinnings. It was not until 19^th century with the rise of thermodynamics and the conscious application to the notions of efficiency, breakthroughs in the science of electromagnetism and the consequent invention of the electric motor and the generator, and in our own times, the harnessing of the electron and through our understanding of the laws of the microcosm that technology has become a rich harvest of science.

Literature: The literary traditions of the human family go back to very ancient times. From primitive poetry to the great epics and mythologies, ancient literature was largely religious visions, powered by the human capacity for fantasy and verbal expression that created great literature. Here again, the rise of modern science had an enormous influence. If, in the 17^th  and 18^th centuries, a poet like Pope extolled Newton and science, and a writer like Jonathan Swift parodied it, in the course of the 19^th, many rebelled against the rigid logic and consequent success and adoration of science, and called for a romantic abandon of proofs and experiments in the quest for truth. In the 20^th century there have been other efforts to go beyond the so-called realism on which the scientific search seems to be based.

But then, the views and discoveries of modern psychology as to the nature, intricacies, and functioning of the human mind have found rich expression  plays and novels. Even giving due credit to the these  matters produced some of the masterpieces of literature,  one will have to grant that a great many literary works of our own times have been inspired by modern scientific  understanding of human action and behavior. Then, of course, some poets and essayists have transformed scientific findings into literary compositions. Add to all this the considerable body of writing known as science fiction, and you have some idea of the role of science in literature. Here too, some ancient writers have leaped beyond the everyday reality of the world around, and fantasized on undreamed of possibilities of their times, to create some wonderful situations. However,  the science fiction of today is has solid science as its basis.

Philosophy, as a quest for truth and understanding,  has always been a hand-maiden of science. Indeed, science itself used to be known as natural philosophy. Its major theoretical branch of epistemology has been seriously affected by the rise of modern science. Indeed, Rene Descartes, who is sometimes regarded as a founder of modern philosophy, was no less one of the founders of modern science. In the course of the 18^th century, those who wrote on causality, determinism, freewill, induction, deduction, the capacity of the human mind to understand, etc., were all imbued in the science of the times. Hume, Kant, Laplace, were all versed in 18^th century physics.

Epistemology is one of the quintessential  components of philosophy. For ultimately, how we investigate truth, whatever it be, how can we know anything at all, if we do not know what knowing and knowledge is.   It is deep probing into the nature of human knowledge about space and time that inspired Ernst Mach and eventually enabled Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of relativity.

And of course we all know how our understanding of the microcosm with the rise of quantum physics and the associated principle of indeterminacy gave rise to a host of epistemological problems that have yet to be resolved to the  full satisfaction of everyone. Today no one can say or write anything serious or significant in epistemology without some familiarity with the discoveries and world views of quantum physics. Add to this, the cosmological discoveries of the 20^th century, and the astrophysical speculations on the fundamental constants, leading to the celebrated anthropic principle, and we have some idea of the role that science has played in the field of philosophy.

What about a field like Ethics which seems to be far removed from science which deals with matter and motion, electricity and magnetism, physiology and neurology? Certainly, most of the basic notions of ethics arose in the context of religions. But science too has played a role our formulation and understanding of ethics.

After all the scientific enterprise itself functions on the basis of certain value systems: such as the disinterested quest for truth, honesty in reporting, objectivity in evaluating situations, etc. Then again, advances in human physiology and psychology have revealed that adhering to some of the traditional ethical injunctions can only have a positive impact on our overall well-being.

Finally, and this is seldom consciously or overtly recognized: the spirit of the Enlightenment – which is not viewed very favorably these days in certain circles – has resulted in many positive changes in human societies. The sense of justice and quality and the rejection of the notions of superiority of one race or creed over others, for example, are new notions which have emerged only after the Scientific Revolution. Gender equality, the demand for human rights, decency in international relations, all these have come about as a result of the more universal system of values that are consonant with the scientific world view and are contradictory to traditional perspectives of the human family which tend to be more parochial.

Finally, and most importantly, as a result of the negative impacts of technology as well as the globalization of trade, information and education, we have become aware of the interconnectedness of the biosphere, of environmental factors, and of web of life. Thus, science becomes relevant in the discussion of global ethics too. A good deal has been said and written about science and religion. After all, at one time the two were intertwined in many cultures in inseparable ways. In our own times, as we all know, the relationships between science and religion has been drawing more and more attention by scholars. Whether one feels that the two have nothing in common,  or that they ultimately lead to the same insights, or that they blatantly contradict each other, one cannot be indifferent to the topic itself.

Less obvious topics for discussion are science and sports, science and music, science and politics, science and food, etc. for in each and every instance science has influenced the growth and development of the field. Through loud-speakers and the radio or  computer imitations of Bach, music has been influenced.  Through vacuum-packaging and the microwave oven, food habits and cuisine have been affected. The audio  tape-recorder has had significant impacts on politics.  

The point is, there is not a single domain of human activity or culture  in the modern world which has not been touched in one way or another by the rise of modern science. That is why a forum for the exploration of science and its impacts on and interrelations with the various aspects of culture would be of considerable interest in general, and of great importance if we wish to understand and appreciate the role that science has been playing during the past four centuries.

When Fermat’s Last Theorem was Proved

We live in an age in which the depressing dimensions of the human condition in their myriad manifestations are reflected day in and day out in the media. Newspapers and magazines are filled with reports of crime and war, of cheating and hatred, of drug and disease. The TV screen, whether for entertainment or as news, often offers us violent, tragic, or obscene images. Such are the impressions of the human race formed in the impressionable minds of our young. In their professed commitment to presenting the news and inspired by blatant greed, media manipulators blow up the gruesome and the gory, the sleazy and the sordid, for these seem to sell more. They are indifferent to the impact of parading such truths on the growing generation.
An item like the discovery of a new elementary particle or the proof of a mathematical theorem cannot have the same claim for headline on the first page as deception in a fund-raising campaign, a verdict of guilt in a murder trial, or the career-transition in the life of a midnight buffoon. So it was good to see in bold-faced heading (even if it was only on the second page) a report on a major ripple in the world of mathematics. We need to be reminded now and again that while the world goes wild with its atrocities, sick with its fanaticism, and helpless with its countless problems, there are men and women who still compose music and write poetry, explore the universe and do mathematics for the sheer joy of it all.
Seeing the prominence given to the report that Fermat’s Last Theorem had finally been proved, an economist friend of mine called me up to ask what the fuss was all about. After listening to my spirited discourse on the significance of the achievement in the world of mathematics, he sighed plaintively, unconvinced that an abstruse proof about some puzzling property of numbers deserved all that attention.
I asked him if he thought that the split between Charles and Di, or the honeymoon of Naruhito and Masako should demand our attention more than the conquest by the human mind of a challenge that had taunted the greatest of mathematicians for more than three and a half centuries. “But this is not as interesting,” he replied.

John Ruskin talked about books of the hour and books of the ages. Likewise, there are also news of the hour and news of the ages. While the former is what we are inundated with, the latter is seldom given much prominence.
Yes, scientific discoveries, artistic achievements, literary creations, and selfless acts do find a place in Sunday magazines. But I have often wondered how we would perceive the world if these were the headlines in our papers, while bank robberies and briberies, political scandals and wasteful wars were relegated to small prints in later pages. Would the public be any less informed as a result? Perhaps not, and it is even possible that the thoughts and interests of people, young and old, would be more attuned to the nobler elements of the human potential.
This is not the place to discuss Fermat’s Last Theorem, but the mere story of how it arose could fascinate and inspire some people. Suffice it to say that Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) was not even a professional mathematician. He wrote poetry in French and Spanish, was a scholar in Greek and Latin, and served as councilor to a King of France. Yet, he is remembered as one of the creators of the mathematical theory of probability and the proponent of a fundamental principle governing the physical universe, and as a curious contributor to the theory of numbers. It was in this last context that he scribbled in the margins of a book that he had discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of an apparently simple property of numbers (integers). But generations of the most prolific creators in mathematics have been baffled by the result, unable to prove it with rigor. [The interested reader with only minimum familiarity with arithmetic can find out about the theorem from a book in the local library.]
And now, if the report be true, the theorem has been proved to be correct. Not that anybody doubted its veracity, but proof in mathematics is like tasting in kitchen-creations: by looking at an elegantly served platter, we may be convinced that it is delicious, but we need to taste it before we can be absolutely certain.
So, to recall my friend’s question, “why all this fuss about the proof?”, I say that proving Fermat’s Last Theorem is the equivalent of the hoisting a flag on the peak of a mountain that had been defiant thus far. Not all of us may reach the mountain top, but we can all share in the excitement. It is a triumph of the human spirit, and we can all rejoice in the achievement.
Problems and politicians come and go, fights and frustrations arise and abate, but the positive landmarks left by human minds and efforts, from the Vedas and the Pyramids to sublime symphonies and the unveiling of the secrets of the physical world and of the magic of numbers: these and the like will remain as our lofty legacies for as long as our species treads this planet. These too deserve frequent and prominent mention in the media.

Science and Culture

Science, as we all recognize, is one of the most lofty expressions of the human spirit. It is the consequence of the irrepressible urge in the human mind to explore, understand, interpret and explain the world of perceived reality. This urge and efforts to give vent to it have been there in all cultures at all times: thus arose all the magnificent mythologies and the ancient insights of pre-modern science.

Since the 16th century, however, germinating from countless fructifying factors, there emerged what has come to be known as modern science whose tools and methodologies have been significantly different from those of its counterparts of previous centuries. What distinguishes this science from all previous ones is that has transcended the boundaries of race and religion, of language and tradition. Today there is an international network of scientists that has no specific national or ethnic affiliation.
Culture is another manifestation of the human spirit an has various different expressions. There is language and literature, art and music, religion and tradition, games and food, custom and costume, politics and poetry: all these are culture-based. They are as varied and colorful as groups in the world. When we travel to different countries, or even to different regions of a single country, we recognize the variety and diversity in cultural expressions.
Thus, we are confronted with the following situation: On the one hand we have science: the all-embracing unifying force in the world at large; and on the other hand we have culture: which is a powerful and enriching indicator of how different human beings can be. How can we put the two in the same bottle?
The answer to this lies in the following: It turns out that practically every manifestation of culture has been affected in one way or another by the emergence of modern science. This is a very crucial point. Ordinarily we are inclined to think that scientists work in their laboratories, bankers in banks, actors in the theater, artists in studios, politicians in government places, etc. But what is interesting is that practically every other activity in human society has been profoundly affected by the rise of modern science. And these influences have been significant enough to transform every human enterprise.
Let us consider a few instances of the impact of science on culture.
Technology: The most fundamental aspect of any society is its material framework. There can be no significant contributions to culture and civilization if all the people have to toil for the bare needs of survival. Whether in ancient Egypt or China, Greece or India, it was a handful of people of the privileged classes who created and left for posterity great cultural legacies. The founders of human culture and the contributors to it could not have accomplished this but the fact that their material needs were taken care of by the labors of oppressed and less gifted individuals, and that one needed the blood and sweat of countless and now forgotten thousands for erecting the magnificent structures of temples and cathedrals, pyramids and great walls that have survived the ravages of centuries.
We all know how in many different ways the emergence of modern science has come to the assistance of human muscular exertion in every conceivable manner, and indeed added considerably to the overall quality and comfort of everyday life. The blending of science and technology is in fact a rather recent phenomenon in human history, for many generations in many societies impressive technology flourished without any serious scientific underpinnings. It was not until 19th century with the rise of thermodynamics and the conscious application to the notions of efficiency, breakthroughs in the science of electromagnetism and the consequent invention of the electric motor and the generator, and in our own times, the harnessing of the electron and through our understanding of the laws of the microcosm that technology has become a rich harvest of science.
Literature: The literary traditions of the human family go back to very ancient times. From primitive poetry to the great epics and mythologies, ancient literature was largely religious visions, powered by the human capacity for fantasy and verbal expression that created great literature. Here again, the rise of modern science had an enormous influence. If, in the 17th and 18th centuries, a poet like Pope extolled Newton and science, and a writer like Jonathan Swift parodied it, in the course of the 19th, many rebelled against the rigid logic and consequent success and adoration of science, and called for a romantic abandon of proofs and experiments in the quest for truth. In the 20th century there have been other efforts to go beyond the so-called realism on which the scientific search seems to be based.
But then, the views and discoveries of modern psychology as to the nature, intricacies, and functioning of the human mind have found rich expression plays and novels. Even giving due credit to the these matters produced some of the masterpieces of literature, one will have to grant that a great many literary works of our own times have been inspired by modern scientific understanding of human action and behavior. Then, of course, some poets and essayists have transformed scientific findings into literary compositions. Add to all this the considerable body of writing known as science fiction, and you have some idea of the role of science in literature. Here too, some ancient writers have leaped beyond the everyday reality of the world around, and fantasized on undreamed of possibilities of their times, to create some wonderful situations. However, the science fiction of today is has solid science as its basis.
Philosophy, as a quest for truth and understanding, has always been a hand-maiden of science. Indeed, science itself used to be known as natural philosophy. Its major theoretical branch of epistemology has been seriously affected by the rise of modern science. Indeed, Rene Descartes, who is sometimes regarded as a founder of modern philosophy, was no less one of the founders of modern science. In the course of the 18th century, those who wrote on causality, determinism, freewill, induction, deduction, the capacity of the human mind to understand, etc., were all imbued in the science of the times. Hume, Kant, Laplace, were all versed in 18th century physics.
Epistemology is one of the quintessential components of philosophy. For ultimately, how we investigate truth, whatever it be, how can we know anything at all, if we do not know what knowing and knowledge is. It is deep probing into the nature of human knowledge about space and time that inspired Ernst Mach and eventually enabled Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of relativity.
And of course we know how our understanding of the microcosm with the rise of quantum physics and the associated principle of indeterminacy gave rise to a host of epistemological problems that have yet to be resolved to the full satisfaction of everyone. Today no one can say or write anything serious or significant in epistemology without some familiarity with the discoveries and world views of quantum physics. Add to this, the cosmological discoveries of the 20th century, and the astrophysical speculations on the fundamental constants, leading to the celebrated anthropic principle, and we have some idea of the role that science has played in the field of philosophy.
What about a field like Ethics which seems to be far removed from science which deals with matter and motion, electricity and magnetism, physiology and neurology? Certainly, most of the basic notions of ethics arose in the context of religions. But science too has played a role our formulation and understanding of ethics.
After all the scientific enterprise itself functions on the basis of certain value systems: such as the disinterested quest for truth, honesty in reporting, objectivity in evaluating situations, etc. Then again, advances in human physiology and psychology have revealed that adhering to some of the traditional ethical injunctions can only have a positive impact on our overall well-being.
It is is seldom consciously or overtly recognized that the spirit of the Enlightenment – which is not viewed very favorably these days in certain circles – has resulted in many positive changes in human societies. The sense of justice and quality and the rejection of the notions of superiority of one race or creed over others, for example, are new notions which have emerged only after the Scientific Revolution. Gender equality, the demand for human rights, decency in international relations, all these have come about as a result of the more universal system of values that are consonant with the scientific world view and are contradictory to traditional perspectives of the human family which tend to be more parochial.
Finally, and most importantly, as a result of the negative impacts of technology as well as the globalization of trade, information and education, we have become aware of the interconnectedness of the biosphere, of environmental factors, and of web of life. Thus, science becomes relevant in the discussion of global ethics too.
A good deal has been said and written about science and religion. After all, at one time the two were intertwined in many cultures in inseparable ways. In our own times, as we all know, the relationships between science and religion has been drawing more and more attention by scholars. Whether one feels that the two have nothing in common, or that they ultimately lead to the same insights, or that they blatantly contradict each other, one cannot be indifferent to the topic itself.
Less obvious topics for discussion are science and sports, science and music, science and politics, science and food, etc. for in each and every instance science has influenced the growth and development of the field. Through loud-speakers and the radio or computer imitations of Bach, music has been influenced. Through vacuum-packaging and the microwave oven, food habits and cuisine have been affected. The audio tape-recorder has had significant impacts on politics.
The point is, there is not a single domain of human activity or culture in the modern world which has not been touched in one way or another by the rise of modern science. That is why a forum for the exploration of science and its impacts on and interrelations with the various aspects of culture would be of considerable interest in general, and of great importance if we wish to understand and appreciate the role that science has been playing during the past four centuries.

A Statement on Modern Science

In its self-imposed framework of coherence, logical consistency, concordance with carefully observed and meticulous measured data and critical policing of ideas by a body of experts, modern science has erected a world-picture that is formidable in its predictive and manipulative capacities, unique in its universality and rich in the variety of its fruits.
Science’s epistemology has been challenged, especially by some postmodernists who have not offered a better one for bringing new knowledge and understanding of the natural world. Yet, it cannot be denied that there has not been another collective system of thought in all of human intellectual history where our attempts to grasp the complexity of the natural world has been deeper, more extensive, more fruitful, and even spiritually more fulfilling.
Some critics of science have charged that science is totalizing in its sweep. This criticism is valid only in so far as rational and consistent explanations of natural phenomena are concerned. Take away the scientific mode, and you can have many other fields, from speculative philosophy, mythology, and metaphysics to art, music, and grand poetry, all of which serve different purposes.
But none other has shown itself to be more appropriate than, and as fantastically effective as the methodology of modern science in the explanation of natural phenomen. In this context, therefore, the alleged totalization of science is no more accurate thanthe proposition that love is a totalizing approach when it comes to healthy and happy human relationships.
Some have criticized science as proclaiming absolute truths. This is far from being the case. What science affirms is that its own trans-national and trans-cultural visions are the best consistent pictures of how the world functions on the basis of everything that is currently known.
In contrast to other systems, science recognizes that its truths have the potential, in principle, for improvement, radical change, or even rejection, if and when new information and insights come to the fore.
Another negative comment frequently made about science is that it does not help one decide between right and wrong, just and unjust, nor direct us to the basic virtues of kindness and compassion. All it does is to explain these as natural consequences of the evolutionary process. True, but this is not the goal of science, any more than that the goal of sports is to feed us. Good food does not provide us with the enjoyment that art and music give. Likewise, science is not meant to give us moral guidance.
The misperceptions about science need to be eradicated and the framework of science deserves to be better explained to the public at large. Much effort is being undertaken alone these lines, but not enough, it would appear. It is failure to do this that opens the door to extra-scientific and unscientific nonsense that is sometimes paraded and pandered all over the world in return for paltry satisfactions in the dark when, in fact, science itself, attired in its full glory, can be just as relevant to some of the deepest yearnings of the human spirit and to our intellectual thirst.
Personally, I feel immensely fulfilled when I supplement science with the aesthetic richness of art, literature, and music, as well as the communal cordiality, existential meaningfulness, incentives to care and help fellow humans, and the spiritual peace that most religious frameworks provide.

Science in the Class-room

Biological evolution is precisely what science, with its strictest criteria for assigning truth-content to proclaimed propositions, has been able to confirm and sanction beyond any reasonable doubt.
If our goal in classrooms is to be faithful to science in the teaching of science, it would be unfair, untruthful, and unfortunate if unwarranted extrapolations and/or side stories are presented as part of the scientific worldview.
In this context it is appropriate to point out that this magnificent scientific revelation of biogenesis not only gives us a coherent understanding of how we came about in this rocky speck in the vast stretch of space, but also presents us with an opportunity to wonder at this enormous potential of the laws of physics and chemistry which seem to be the only root of it all!
But it is equally legitimate to recognize that, as a result of our cultural/psychological evolution, poetic and imaginative accounts of genesis – whether of the universe or of humanity – have always held, and continue to hold, a fascination for many. These accounts have stood the test of time in various cultures, and must be preserved as part of humanity’s cultural legacy.
Therefore they too must be taught in schools and colleges, not as scientific truths, but as sources of inspiration for great art and music and poetry.
Considering them as mythopoeic visions need not diminish their value in human culture, but mistaking them for scientific truths would not only do injustice to science, but also trivialize the intrinsic worth of poetic truths which have independent value and validity on a quite different plane.