Science, Pseudoscience And Technology

Nobel Laureate, Sir Peter Medawar; father of organ transplantation and one of the greatest biologists of the previous century, states that one of the properties that sets the genuine sciences, apart from those that arrogate to themselves the title — without really earning it — is their predictive capability.

He rightly points out that Newton and cosmology generally are tested by every entry in a nautical almanac and corroborated every time the tide rises or recedes — according to the book — as it is also corroborated by the periodic reappearance on the schedule of Halley's Comet, (which appeared as predicted in 1986).

Its embarrassing infirmity of prediction has been the most single factor that denies the coveted designation of science for example to "Economics".

No wonder the Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine are considered prestigious whereas the Prize for Economics is not !

The question "Do you believe in science?" has no meaning as every scientific proposition is verified by either experimental observation or a mathematical equation, before being accepted as a law or a theory.

On the other hand, such a question is appropriate, if you are referring to subjects like democracy or communism or some other similar ideology.

There is an anecdote concerning Paul Dirac, the greatest British scientist since Newton, and one of the founding fathers of Quantum Mechanics.

The physicist was apparently sitting in his office when some research students visited him.

As Dirac was a man of few words, one of the students attempted to break the ice, by declaring that it was raining outside.

Dirac got up from his chair opened the window, had a peep outside and softy agreed "Yes, it is," — which incidentally also is the motto of the oldest and most famous scientific society in the world — the Royal Society of London — Nullius in verba (Latin for 'on the word of no one' or 'take nobody's word for it').

Medawar, also states, that in the fulfilling of its "declared intentions" science is incomparably the most glorious enterprise human beings ever engaged upon. The hallmarks of science are:

(a) Precise measurement and accurate observation of nature's phenomena.

(b) An unbiased attitude of the observer who does not allow subjective views to distort or misinterpret results.

(c) The 'consistency of results' irrespective of the observer and that too in 'independent frames' of reference.

(d) The sanctity attached to controlled study that automatically involves the inclusion of 'placebo' in as far as experiments in Pharmacopoeia is concerned. 

Permit me to take up medical science. A medical system say ‘X’ can be granted the status of being a "science" only if all the four criteria mentioned above are satisfied.

Otherwise it has to be rejected as a pseudoscience.  

There is no need to specify the pseudosciences in the  medical field. The shoe belongs where it fits.

Several medical systems have begun to make fantastic claims of being able to cure all diseases under the sun — from Asthma to Cancer.

The crucial point to be remembered is that all these systems have not even a minor insight into human anatomy or physiology but borrow ideas liberally from "Allopathy" (a homeopathic term for western medical system which is now obsolete).

Let us take a practitioner of a system of medicine "X" mentioned above.

He has probably never heard of the Caecum, the pouch connected to the junction of the small and large intestines, the sigmoid colon, the “S” shaped portion of the large intestine that connects to the rectum, and the duodenum the first part of the small intestine. 

Nor is he aware of the various physio­logical constants of the human body and the causes and effects of their fluctuation.

He has no knowledge of the various diagnostic tools like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Positron Emission Tomography scan or Computerised Tomography scan.

That being the case how can he call himself a medical practitioner or worse set up a clinic to cure the sick? However he borrows material from textbooks of western medicine, which amounts to theft and fraud.

Yet another practitioner of a system "Z" crushes Penicillin and includes it in a halwa-like preparation and passes it off as an ancient cure for a respira­tory ailment.

The concoction will naturally work but there is no need to explain to the reader why it will be effective. So is the case of Viagra.

As unscrupulous practitioner of medical system "Z" crushes it, and mixes it with the other ingredients of a bogus medicine in capsule form names it ‘missile’ or ‘bullet’. Any effect it has in due to the Viagra — the result capsule outsells Viagra!

Hence, the question of ‘believing’ in curing or healing, outside the framework of scientific criteria does not arise.

This is exactly where many educated persons, including bureaucrats, judges, politicians, and business magnates make a colossal blunder when they declare their belief in some medical system which does not depend on scientific criteria.

By the same token, they make an even bigger mistake when they reject efficacy the of a science built laboriously over the centuries by studying every human organ in detail, analysing diseases, and finding cures, aided by medical technology and' modern pharmacopoeia.

No health department of any government machinery should or can afford to club all these systems and thus cause untold harm to the people.

Let me now take up the question of science and technology, two enterprises, which though no doubt interrelated, are often confused with each other.

The purpose of science is to unravel the mysteries of nature, discover its laws and find out the 'how' of things. It is not concerned with the 'why' of things.

According to Medawar, science cannot be reproached for inability to answer questions beyond its explanatory competence. Example: whether God exists, or whether there is one "scientific method" by which all the secrets of the universe can be discovered.

This charge, he argues, is "no more sensible than to reproach a railway locomotive for not flying". He advises that one should perhaps approach poetry or philosophy for such issues. 

Technology, on the other hand, is the visible end-product you obtain by applying the laws of nature discovered by science.

The laws of physics, or chemistry, or the factors that govern the human physiological system, fall within the purview of science whereas the application of these laws would fall within the ambit of technology.

Likewise, quantum theory is pure science whereas the invention of various devices like transistors, computers. cell phones etc, based on its principles would be regarded as technology.

Similarly, the elucidation of the structure of the DNA molecule is quintessential science whereas the development of techniques and tests based on the DNA, which are used for the detection of crime would come under the purview of medical technology.

We cannot deny the importance of 'technology', an enterprise that has enabled man to derive immense benefits in almost every field of human endeavour.

Apart from the inventions mentioned above, televisions that beam programmes round the clock all over the globe, and sophisticated medical diagnostic procedures like MRI, CAT scan, etc, mentioned above are also examples of technology.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that without the discovery of basic scientific principles, no technological breakthrough could have been made except of course through sheer chance.

Our modern-day executives, bureaucrats business magnates and even computer programmers who bandy about jargon like 'user-friendly', 'download', 'random access memory', 'hardware and floppy discs', at the drop of a hat — would do well to remember that the  whole edifice of computer technology would not have come into existence — but for pioneers of pure science like Faraday and Maxwell laying the foundations of electromagnetic theory.

The average person is so astounded by technology, the end-product of science, that he is totally oblivious of the scientific theories and principles on which they are based.

So entrenched is this attitude, namely, the adulation of technology and lack of appreciation for the science underpinning it, that one finds it difficult to change the outlook of not only laymen but of even so-called educated people.