One very interesting book I have read recently, “A Universe
From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss, describes, as the name implies, a theory that
would explain how our universe popped out of nothing---it has to do with
something called quantum gravity. When I wrote about it in a group email to my
ex-classmates at IIT, one of the guys shot back saying that this is nothing new
and that our ancestors knew that way back when. Then he quoted some reference
in the Vedas, the “good books” for Hindus.
When I though about this, I became intrigued by the
question---Assuming that what my friend was saying is true, and knowing his
scholarly bona fide I have no doubt that it is, how did our ancestors know about how the universe was created? For that
matter, how did the Greeks know about atoms in the fifth century BCE (Leucippus
and Democritus)?
First of all, I am certain that they did not know that universe popped out of nothing
or that matter is indeed composed of atoms---they speculated. There is no way that they could have proven that their
speculation was anything but that. The fact that some of these speculations
have turned out to be right is not because of some extraordinary knowledge that
our ancients possessed or aliens helping out. It can be explained by our
selective memory.
These ancients speculated all kinds of things, and we tend
to remember only those that have proven to be true. For example, the Jain
scriptures talk about earth balanced on a mountain, and that certainly did not
turn out to be true. Devout Christians talk about the universe being created in
six-days by god some six thousand years ago.
That speculation is not widely used to demonstrate that our ancients
knew everything.
Science makes progress when someone speculates, or creates a
hypothesis, to explain something and then sets about proving or disproving it. That
being the case, I am wondering if any of these ancient speculations played any
part in developing modern scientific hypotheses. For example, did John Dalton,
who is credited with the scientific theory of atom, rely on what the ancients
were speculating? If so, one has to give
credit where the credit is due, and the ancients deserve a pat on the back.
However, that does not take away any credit from the ones
who prove a hypothesis to be true. It
is only through extraordinary work that the scientific community has developed
such a precise picture of what our universe is like. It is one thing to
speculate that it is so, and another to
prove it.
The ancients were smart and contributed a lot to the
development of our civilization, but so
are our current scientists and let’s not forget that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the amazing human abilities is to imagine. It allows us to speculate and build a model of reality based totally on speculations. Actually, we do it all the time, even in mundane situations in life. We really enjoy doing it. While we are doing it, we are guided more by "how it could be," rather than by "how it is." A lot of those mental constructs, or speculations, form the knowledge from the past - our heritage.
ReplyDeleteModern science - maybe, only a few hundred years old - has brought in the rigor and tools of experimentation. These new tools allow us to objectively verify and eliminate false constructs. It make us progress in the direction of proven speculations.
I think, speculations provide the raw material for most of the scientific inventions and discoveries. Our human ability to imagine is one of our greatest gifts. Science has married imagination with experimentation and led the way to the amazing progress in the last few centuries.
Very well said
DeleteAshok,
DeleteAs others have commented here, one can make the case that there is a continuum from speculation to proof. Speculation remains speculation, unless validated by “proof”. A hypothesis confirmed by experiments, observations and proof are essential for widespread acceptance of the validity of a speculation. Science then builds upon the layer of validity (not on the speculation). Generally the person who proves something gets the accolades – the speculation/speculator does not. The “ancients” who “knew it” are always given accolades by the faithful who are reading into things (confirmation bias).
In general, the “learnings” of our past from any of the “books of knowledge”, or “scripture” about factual items is problematical – regardless of your faith. Even history and historical behavior of humans, as recorded in all sorts of documents (more than 300-400 yrs old), is essentially hearsay. Ponder the following truisms:
“History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation.”
“History isn't the lies of the victors- it is more the memories of the survivors, most of whom are neither victorious or defeated.”
(Read a great book “The Sense of an ending” (fiction) by Julian Barnes which brings up all sorts of these issues)
So I would not cite past scriptures, historical writings etc as validating anything.
Anil
Agree, this is an extreme case of confirmation bias and post-rationalization. As the story goes, if you give an infinite number of monkeys a typewriter (OK, a tablet with a word processor each), they will hypothesize and predict everything.
ReplyDelete