THE SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK
DR. SIR C.V. RAMAN
It
is customary in all branches of science to associate the names of eminent men
with the facts and principles discovered by them which form the foundations of
the subjects. This practice is found to be useful since it helps to abbreviate
and give precision to the terminology of science. It also serves to commemorate
the name and fame of the leaders of science whose labours
have helped to create the subject. Indeed this is how the student of science
first gets to know the names of the great leaders in his subject. The touch of
human interest which the study of science gains in this way is of no small
value, since it emphasises the real nature of science
as a living and growing creation of the human spirit. Value
of Biography in Science.
A
study of history of individual blanches of science and of the biographies of
the leading contributors to their development is essential for a proper
appreciation of the real meaning and spirit of science. They often afford much
more stimulating reading than the most
learned formal treatises on science. To the teacher, such histories and
biographies are invaluable. Whenever he finds the attention of his listeners
flagging a little, he can always enliven his class by telling a little story of
how this or that great discovery in his subject was made, or by recalling some
anecdote about one or another of the famous investigators, in the field. In
this way, the teacher can convey to the student an understanding of how science
is made and of the intellectual outlook which is the essence of it.
Experimental and Theoretical
Discoveries
What
is meant by a scientific discovery? How is it made? These are questions of
personal interest which are often asked and to which the most varied answers
have been returned. A discovery may obviously be either of a new fact or of a
new idea. It is clear, however, that an unexplained observation is of no
particular significance to science. An idea unsubstantiated by facts is equally
devoid of importance. Hence, to possess real significance a scientific
discovery must have both an experimental and theoretical basis. Which of these
aspects is the more important depends on the particular circumstances of the
case, and a rough distinction thereby becomes possible between experimental and
theoretical discoveries. Roentgen’s discovery of X-rays, for example, was
clearly an experimental one while Planck’s equally important discovery of the quantum of action was clearly in
the field of theory. The manner in which a scientific discovery is made and the
attitude of the investigator which makes such a discovery possible are
obviously very different in the two cases. The distinction between the
attitudes of experimentor and the theorist is most
obvious in the mathematical sciences. It is much less obvious in those sciences
which rest more exclusively on an empirical foundation and in which observation
of facts and thinking about facts are less easily
separable process.
Dramatic Moments
The
“discovery” suggests a dramatic and exciting event, like finding a fifty-carat
diamond in a ploughed field, for example. The history of science is indeed full
of such dramatic discoveries, the drama and the excitement being particularly
manifested in the personal behaviour of the scientist
immediately following the event. I could tell one or two stories myself of such incidents in the life of a scientist. The
classic story is that of Archimedes, who rushed into the street straight from
his bath with nothing on crying “Eureka, Eureka” when his famous principle of
hydrostatics flashed into his mind. The
point of the story is the intense emotion aroused by a sense of the
overwhelming importance of the new idea. The joy and exhilaration felt at such
a moment are indescribable. Indeed, such dramatic moments come into the life of
even the most devoted follower of science but once or twice in his career. They
are the greatest reward of a lifetime spent in the pursuit of knowledge for its
own sake. Lesser discoveries come oftener and are a source of profound
satisfaction and encouragement to the investigator. But they do not make such
a soul-stirring drama.
Discoveries are not by
Accidents
It
should be mentioned that the reception given at first to even capital
discoveries by the outer world is not always of respectful admiration. One of
the commonest ways in which the achievement is sought to be minimised
by the unthinking or the envious is by attributing it to accident or a stroke
of luck akin to the winning of a lottery ticket. Such comments are of course
deplorable and indeed quite meaningless. The idea that a scientific discovery
can be made by accident is ruled out by the fact that the accident, if it is
one, never occurs except to the right man. The happy discoverer in science is invariably a seeker after knowledge and
truth working in a chosen field of his own and
inspired in his labours by the hope of finding at
least a little grain of something new. The commentators who like to consider
discoveries as accidents forget that the most important part of a scientific
discovery is the recognition of its true nature by the observer, and this is
scarcely possible if he does not possess the requisite capacity of knowledge of
the subject. Rarely indeed are any scientific discoveries made except as the
result of a carefully thought out programme of work. They come, if they do
come, as the reward of months or years of systematic study and research in a
particular branch of knowledge.
Ignorance’s Insult
If the world is sometimes
slow to recognise the importance of fundamentally new
experimental facts, it is not to be wondered at if it is slower still in
appreciating and accepting new theoretical ideas. Usually such new ideas are
looked upon with indifference or suspicion, and many years of persistent
advocacy and powerful observational support are required before the
investigator can hope to see his ideas generally accepted. The story is often
told of Arrhenius and the doctorate thesis which he
presented to the Stockholm University containing his new ideas regarding the
nature of solutions, supported by a great volume of experimental data. All that
he received for this epoch-making work was a fourth-class degree permanently
disqualifying him from an academic career. Arrhenius
happily survived this experience, and lived to receive the Nobel Prize and to
be venerated as his country’s greatest scientist. But there are, unhappily,
other instances of youthful genius being repressed and completely suppressed as
‘Well.’
Freshness of Outlook
If there is one fact more
than any other which stands out in the history of science, it is the remarkable
extent to which great discoveries and youthful genius stand associated
together. Scores of instances can be quoted in support of this proposition.
Indeed, if one were to attempt to write a treatise on any branch of science in
which all discoveries made by youthful workers were left-out, there would be
very little left to write about. The fact of the matter appears to be-that,
other things being the same; the principal requisite for success in scientific
research is not the maturity of knowledge associated with age and experience,
but the freshness of outlook which is the natural attribute of youth. The
conservatism which develops with increasing age is thus revealed as a factor
which militates against great achievements in science. The great ideas seem to
come most easily to youthful minds. Since, however, much time is required to
work out a new idea properly and fully, age and experience are not altogether
useless in science. Upto a certain point, the
conservatism bred by age may even be useful as a brake on the wilder flights of
youthful imagination. Further even the elderly may, if they so choose, retain
and cherish a youthful spirit and outlook. So long, therefore, as they do not
allow the conservatism of age to function as a suppressor of youthful genius
the elderly may continue to find themselves useful as
guides and inspirers of research. On this view, indeed, the principal function
of the older generation of scientific men is to discover talent and genius in
the younger generation and to provide ample opportunities for its free
expression and expansion.
Creative urge
So far I have said little
about the nature of the urge which leads the elite few to devote themselves to
science and live laborious days in its service. This is a part of the larger
question, what is it that drives men to devote themselves to any type of
idealistic activity? I think it will be readily conceded that the pursuit of
science derives its motive power from what is essentially a creative urge. The
painter, the sculptor, the architect and the poet, each in his own way, derives
his inspiration from nature and seeks to represent her through his chosen
medium, be it paint or marble, or stone or just well-chosen words strung
together like pearls on a necklace. The man of science is just a student of
Nature and equally derives his inspiration from her. He builds or paints
pictures of her in his mind, through the intangible medium of his thoughts. He
seeks to resolve her infinite complexities into a few simple principles or
elements of action which he calls the laws of nature. In doing this, the man of
science, like the exponents of other forms of art, subjects himself to a rigorous
discipline, the rules of which he has laid down for himself and which he calls
logic. The pictures of Nature which science paints for us have to obey these
rules, in other words, have to be self-consistent. Intellectual beauty is
indeed the highest kind of beauty. Science, in other words, is a fusion, a man’s
aesthetic and intellectual functions devoted to the representation of Nature.
It is, therefore, the highest form of creative art.
–By kind courtesy of the All
India Radio