In the Name of Science
I had been truly excited about the initiative I took up to comprehend and discuss the nature of an overarching reality, of which we are part, by the way of science. And although a credible number of individuals showed a true enthusiasm, I found myself somewhat dumbfounded on the prospect of seeing only a modest chunk of aficionados. I was imagining an abounding passion.
The renderings of science are often seen to be niche based. We are very familiar with reconciling mathematics and physics, although mostly for the dependency of formulating the physicality. Not them as interchangeable truths of an all-encompassing phenomenon, offering discrete ways to see a larger picture of reality. The situation is worse between other academic disciplines, such as physical sciences, biology, medicine, psychology, philosophy, even consciousness. As if they are all discrete independent truths, and not belong to an all-sweeping single phenomenon.
The niche based tightness often run between sub-disciplines of a subject too, where two interpretations from different sub-divisions are seen as independent pieces of information, and not as two aspects of the very same game. A good example to highlight this is the observed of quantum physics and cosmology. Worst still is the belief that the way we perceive the universe directly isn’t a part of the whole game, or that resides beyond the texture of science.
Having a niche appears to be more about marking boundaries rather than gathering their deft pitches toward seeing a bigger picture of an all-encompassing truth. Indeed, specialized scientific branches progress to benefit in health, better life and world order, but in not taking an overarching view, beyond specific boundaries, an along-the-way picture that emerges only from the voice of science as a whole, gets compromised.
Joining methodic alcoves toward grasping the truest tapestry just for the sake of science is slightly different, decisive nonetheless—also leisurely for many of us. So getting back to the original point- why aren’t we seeing a teeming pool of us hungry to sense the deepest order of the universe just as a pure knowledge. Here is what you will find interesting.
A survey shows that the subjects on which the top 100 most cited research papers are perched are biological techniques, bioinformatics, phylogenetics, statistics, density functional theory and crystallography. Not Albert Einstein’s relativity, or big bang, or quantum field, or mathematical symmetry and groups, all of which contributed immensely toward understanding the nature of universe, just as pure information on the fundamentals.
I felt very sympathetic to what the last paragraph of the survey article conveys. Here it is verbatim:
Still, there is one powerful lesson for researchers, notes Peter Moore, a chemist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. “If citations are what you want,” he says, “devising a method that makes it possible for people to do the experiments they want at all, or more easily, will get you a lot further than, say, discovering the secret of the universe.”
Practical issues and way to a comfortable life, and ease at work are all great causes. The bare beauty and grandeur the universe would still lure many of us to assimilate and ponder the underlying trueness of the infinite and infinitesimal.
So I am not altogether surprised by a smaller crew on board, who cravingly seek the subtleties of the universe just for the heck of it.
Will be back soon.