World view
Science, Progress, and...
by Prof. Dr. Türkkaya ATAÖV
The thinkers of the Enlightenment believed that the power of reason could improve society. Science, then, marched as the vanguard of overall progress. The pioneers of modern mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology saw in them boundless possibilities to serve humanity. The Marquis de Condorcet, some two centuries ago, was perhaps the first of the philosophers who advanced the idea of the continuous progress of the human race to an ultimate perfection. Others followed him, and the flowering of scientific ideas put ecclesiastical authority in its proper place.
In spite of this confidence in human advancement, much of the Twentieth Century was characterized by two sanguinary world wars, the most severe economic depression ever experienced, unquestioning obedience to fascism, the Nazi persecution of European Jews and other minorities, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the long years of the Cold War, and now one super-power predominance. The world wars and the dispiriting events following in their train proved so disillusioning to so many philosophers that there was little point, they thought, in trying to search for the ultimate reality. The Austrian L. Wittgenstein and the British B. Russell, both “Logical Positivists”, were not concerned with values if not demonstrable by mathematics or physics.
Sinking spirit
The spirit of inquiry, which had animated the science of the Seventeenth and the Eighteenth Centuries, continued after the end of the Second World War, but much of pure science was subordinated to military technology. Although significant advances were made in nuclear power, the exploration of space, and computers, the conviction, sustained by interest and gain, that pure scientific research brought little immediate payoff disseminated far and wide. There had been conservative circles ever since the French Revolution, but those with pro-science views among our contemporaries now share the outlook that scientific activity may bring more harm than good. This may be a symptom of a broader rejection, or basically an anti-science prejudice.
The morale of the scientific community is declining. Even the hypotheses and the judgements of the Green parties may be interpreted as attempts to elevate the natural world above human efforts to change it for the better. Experience with advanced technology, including nuclear power, as exemplified at Chernobyl and elsewhere, do indeed feed the beliefs that such interventions in a natural world are destructive. Many of the new techniques certainly harbour threatening dangers. But this is not the whole story.
What I wish to underline here is that the idea of technology working for the advantage of humanity should not be discredited. One cannot oppose the principle that basic research leads to new knowledge. To prevent inherent diseases, if the new innovations are open to us all, is a service to mankind. One should not confuse such ventures with Dr. Josef Mengele’s grisly experiments in the Nazi concentration camps. Science should not be discredited by the historic enemies of scientific thought. Some criticisms of contemporary science tend toward mysticism and metaphysics. Quack remedies are presently as popular as medicine and mental health.
The Bush era
Academic research in some advanced societies, for instance in the United States, which sheltered A. Einstein, created the cure for polio and sent the first man to the moon, is in serious trouble. About a decade ago, the U.S. Congress cancelled a pure research facility in Texas known as the “Superconducting Super Collider.” The Christian Right in the United States has more political power than at any point in its history. President Bush is governing from the far Right. He seems intensely devoted to his Evangelical conservative supporters whom he has decisively reenergized as a political force. The Christian Right claims to follow the Bible. Are the rest “imposters”? Should all believe in what they say in order to be “saved”? Or are we faced with an authoritarian mindset that passes itself off as God’s mind? And what about the so-called “religious moderates”? Can one say that failing to live by the letter of the texts and also tolerating the irrationality of those who do is actually a betrayal of faith and reason equally?
Moreover, is President Bush really interested in “faith” in general? After all, he did not bow to the National Council of Churches and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that had opposed his war on Iraq. Neither did he bend over before the Council on American-Islamic Relations that challenged the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. Nor did he listen to the Union for Reform Judaism when the latter announced that an anti-gay marriage amendment would defile the U.S. Constitution. Equally, he was not moved by the joint call of the Christian leaders in favour of quality health care, decent housing, and a living income for the poor.
Reinstating rationalism
Pessimism about society’s prospects should not drive people to disregard reason and what it can achieve for mankind. Problems are solved and new ones are identified only through the dynamics of progress, which is intervowen with faith in science. Behind the crisis in scientific reasoning lies the lack of confidence in progress.
The problems surrounding religious orthodoxy and the circumstances of its battle against rationality may be the subject of another article. ‘Fundamentalism’ is responsible for the appalling state of science in some countries. With due respect to the past service of various religions to the ideas of equality and justice, scientific rationalism needs to be reinstated in our time of social crisis.
One also needs to dwell, in another article, on the unchecked influence of some biotechnological and nanotechnological consequences of contemporary research. Their potential dangers may well be hellish.
The golden rule seems to be belief in the virtues of pure science that will not discriminate against any ethnical, religious, racial, or economic group but will move ahead for the good of all.
(DIPLOMAT - October 2005 - Ankara)