Advocacy of science ! Reply

27 Sept, 2008

I think, science is a powerful representation of true knowledge. While that statement takes a lot of prior enlightenment nevertheless I am confident in saying that. You may consider it an opinion. And I want to add to that, that science is not only knowledge, its more than that. To tell you more about science, its accessible only through true knowledge.

Therefore a society whose primary resources are directed towards religion and politics is a lame society. It can’t walk progress. Indiscriminate creation of centers and institutes will not create a sustainable or functional Science.

The mindset of a nation must be changed to accept the role of science on a day to day basis.

This is achievable more effectively through the mainstream media rather than the channels of communication that are absent from the main course of a nation.

And to tell you, any advocacy of science is not just an instinct. Its a measured and resolute practice. That’s why advocacy of science is as resource consuming as science it self.

Now what is science, calculating a piece of problem is not science. It leads to new knowledge that can bring anyone laurels. That’s still not science. Its dissemination to the broader community is a beginning  of science.

When the basic ideas behind such strenuous activities become established practice of modern societies, that’s science. Because it will become sustainable enough for the benefit of human kind.

In any case calculating a problem is far more superior activity than indulgence in petty religious quirks. If you can bear another opinion, mass religion is mass hysteria and religion is always petty. Whether it can be accomplished  philosophically in the garb of spirituality or a new age mantra for social healing it always has an exploitative streak not easily visible to the “naked” eye.

A society that finds it difficult to give up its religious mania is in itself a deterrent to achieving a basic life quality for its members. It perpetuates like the disease of a mind (or does it spread like an ease of the mind).

And that’s where some of my ideas are not quite reject-able, in the form of intolerance of religious conservatism. Where humanism  fails to connect to the ideal, science can bridge the gap. Let me name it humanistic science.

Sometimes people show me a response which sounds to me like I am overly obsessed with science and possibly they do so because they think science is more ornamental than practical. I ask myself to understand that they are overly obsessed with a “No science“.

Talking about the relationships of science it is worthwhile to discuss who are the enemies of science or rather to ponder over the appropriateness of such a discussion.

In crude terms, a person who is even remotely fearful of a situation where he loses a little power because there is something that’s beneficial to a faceless mass or a faceless human kind is an enemy of science.

True science derives from a dogged inquisitiveness to explore. It borders on an unquestionable adherence to honesty, as it applies to science but it also hinges upon a need to be humanistic and benevolent.

Without that last piece of ethical scrutiny science would fall into vultures of human civilization who would not only feed upon the innocence of fellow human beings but also effectively destroy the power of science.

(Isn’t) It a law of nature that science be perpetuated by the same scrutiny that can be laughed upon as naivety or wishful inclusion of compassionate view point towards human kind as a whole. But it should also be kept in mind that without this innocence and naivety science is purely mechanical and mechanical power benefits a selective few which in turn makes a weak contribution to the growth of science.

Enemy of science could be as faceless as science itself. That is a precursor to the recognition of such maladies. A parasitical loath, a sophisticated resource eater, an ideological tyrant or an uncultured dishonest person, they all embody the faceless realism of adversaries of science. This is a gruesome description in a polemically vivid fashion but in the contemporary situations of science this is an earnest yawn in the aftermath of nightmarish discoveries of the state of culture in science.

I hope I can halt from my advocacy now and want to add two more thoughts that comes to me.

1. “One day everything betrays except true knowledge.” and

2. “A person who is beyond condemnations and praises, is worth knowing because he possesses knowledge that is indestructible.”  [Truth is indestructible]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s