"Scientific temper" – the term coined by Nehru in 1946, remains as relevant today and will probably remain so in future.
But this raises a question in our minds, what is this “scientific temper” ?
Well, scientific temper is nothing but the way of life which uses scientific methods, including questioning, observing, testing, hypothesizing, analyzing and communicating. One of the fundamental duties mentioned in the Constitution of India is "To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform". And yet India (and even the world, in general) lacks heavily in this regard even though science has advanced in leaps and bounds over the centuries. People in India are specifically crazy about taking up science for higher education. Around 39% of the graduates in India each year are from Science(including Engineering & Technology and Medicine).Yet it is shocking to see such a lack of scientific temper among so many Indians(even young ones). Taking up science as a subject doesn’t necessarily ensure that a youngster is accustomed to scientific temper. Scientific temper is much more than certain definitions and examples learnt from a science book, and everyone needs to understand that. Scientific temper is a way of thinking, a way of looking at things around us, a way of analyzing everything rationally, it is a way of life all of us must learn to live. With the world changing and growing every moment, India must learn to keep up and developing the scientific temper is a crucial step in the right direction.
Well, scientific temper is nothing but the way of life which uses scientific methods, including questioning, observing, testing, hypothesizing, analyzing and communicating. One of the fundamental duties mentioned in the Constitution of India is "To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform". And yet India (and even the world, in general) lacks heavily in this regard even though science has advanced in leaps and bounds over the centuries. People in India are specifically crazy about taking up science for higher education. Around 39% of the graduates in India each year are from Science(including Engineering & Technology and Medicine).Yet it is shocking to see such a lack of scientific temper among so many Indians(even young ones). Taking up science as a subject doesn’t necessarily ensure that a youngster is accustomed to scientific temper. Scientific temper is much more than certain definitions and examples learnt from a science book, and everyone needs to understand that. Scientific temper is a way of thinking, a way of looking at things around us, a way of analyzing everything rationally, it is a way of life all of us must learn to live. With the world changing and growing every moment, India must learn to keep up and developing the scientific temper is a crucial step in the right direction.
So let's start from the basics.
What do we understand by "Scientific Temper"?
Though there's no one straight forward definition of it but it can be understood in terms of its key aspects- empiricism and rationality. Empiricism is the idea that empirical evidence (based on observations and experiments) is fundamental to knowledge. Rationality can vary from context to context but in rough sense it basically means 'to be logical’.
Why is scientific temper important?
Scientific temper primarily involves the spirit of enquiry. It involves the process of logical reasoning. For a nation to develop, having a scientific bend of mind is necessary. It is important to take a moment to question certain aspects of life instead of rushing along with the flow. Unscientific methods, irrational ways of thinking will do nothing but pull the nation backwards. The untiring search for truth should be the sole purpose of the people. Thinking logically, observing the world, analyzing situations will not only lead to more scientifically evolved humans but will also help in shaping a highly developed nation.
But it must be kept in mind that scientific temper associated with the spirit of enquiry must be undertaken with an open mind, an open mind that’s curious enough to know about the unknown and honest enough to search for the truth.
Now let us understand what is scientific temper and what isn’t through some examples.
Example 1:- "Earth revolves around Sun"
If a person observes the motion of the Sun from earth and applies crude logic, one may come to the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth (as did many Greek philosophers). But today we know that this is not scientific at all.
Why?
Because we know a lot more now and have a lot of astronomical data regarding the motion of several heavenly bodies, which confirms the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. So scientific temper isn't only about observation and logic but also about covering as many observations as possible with your model.
Why?
Because we know a lot more now and have a lot of astronomical data regarding the motion of several heavenly bodies, which confirms the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. So scientific temper isn't only about observation and logic but also about covering as many observations as possible with your model.
Example 2:- "I don't believe in evolution"
A friend of mine who is a believer of the Abrahamic faith and also happened to be a science student, once told me that he doesn't believe in evolution because it's written in the Holy Scriptures that God created Adam and Eve and all humans descended from them. Similar types of statements are made very often. Some even say that Evolution theory is wrong because no one saw a monkey transform into a human being and hence no one wrote about it in any ancient scriptures. First of all, the people I mentioned don't understand evolution theory at all. Evolution doesn't mean a monkey or a chimp suddenly turning into a human or giving birth to a human. It is important to note that in the above mentioned cases, there is a heavy reliance on ancient scriptures or holy texts. Scientific temper demands everything to be put to scrutiny. Even well established theories in science can be challenged with proper evidences. Whether some text mentions something or not is not the only criteria for that something to be true or false. In order to find the accuracy of a particular theory, it has to be judged in accordance to all of the available and relevant evidences.
Example 3:- "You haven't seen America, but you still believe it exists. Why don't you believe in God/Ghost?"
I have been asked questions of this sort several times. Now believing in God is a very personal thing and my intention isn't to judge someone for that. But the argument put here is not scientific.
Why?
There are many people who have visited or have lived in America and have told us about it. We have images and videos of America. But more than that, there is a well-defined, repeatable procedure to visit America. Anyone (given he has sufficient money) can follow that and visit America. On the other hand, there are many mystics who have said that they have seen or felt the existence of God(or ghosts). But here there is no well-defined repeatable procedure to detect the existence of God or ghosts. Hence the belief that America exists is scientific but belief in God isn't. Similarly, a belief in the existence of protons and electrons is also scientific though we have never seen them(or rather can't see them) because there are repeatable experiments confirming their existence. It doesn't mean that someone’s belief in God is wrong; just that it doesn't come under the purview of Science as of now. In order for an observation to be considered scientific, it must be repeatable through a well-defined procedure.
Why?
There are many people who have visited or have lived in America and have told us about it. We have images and videos of America. But more than that, there is a well-defined, repeatable procedure to visit America. Anyone (given he has sufficient money) can follow that and visit America. On the other hand, there are many mystics who have said that they have seen or felt the existence of God(or ghosts). But here there is no well-defined repeatable procedure to detect the existence of God or ghosts. Hence the belief that America exists is scientific but belief in God isn't. Similarly, a belief in the existence of protons and electrons is also scientific though we have never seen them(or rather can't see them) because there are repeatable experiments confirming their existence. It doesn't mean that someone’s belief in God is wrong; just that it doesn't come under the purview of Science as of now. In order for an observation to be considered scientific, it must be repeatable through a well-defined procedure.
Example 4:- "Science can't explain everything. Where's the treatment for COVID-19?"
This question may seem ridiculous to some but I have been asked such things on twitter. But such arguments are very frequently used for a lot of unscientific claims.
It's true- science can't explain everything; but that in no way means that those voids should necessarily be filled with imagination and pseudo-science. Science doesn't claim to explain everything. It's just a method of uncovering facts about the nature, explaining them with certain models, predicting some more things through induction and reasoning from the model, testing how accurate the predictions are in order to test the accuracy of the model and then using the model in some efficient manner for the benefit of mankind. And probably, the scientific method is the only way of doing the above mentioned things. So even if science can't explain something, so can't any other unscientific method.
It's true- science can't explain everything; but that in no way means that those voids should necessarily be filled with imagination and pseudo-science. Science doesn't claim to explain everything. It's just a method of uncovering facts about the nature, explaining them with certain models, predicting some more things through induction and reasoning from the model, testing how accurate the predictions are in order to test the accuracy of the model and then using the model in some efficient manner for the benefit of mankind. And probably, the scientific method is the only way of doing the above mentioned things. So even if science can't explain something, so can't any other unscientific method.
The scientific method is not only important in natural sciences(Physics, Chemistry, Biology) but also in social sciences (history, political science, economics). Yet many people don't seem to have a scientific temper. They study science in schools and colleges but also believe in "jadoo-totka", "jhaar-phook". This is exactly what it means not to have a scientific temper or scientific mentality. Someone may study science and not have a scientific mentality. Whereas someone else may not study science but still have a scientific mentality. Scientific mentality or scientific temper essentially involves critical reasoning and questioning and not accepting anything just because someone said it. All of us, especially the youth shouldn’t believe everything we are told, and we shouldn’t take things at their face values. There’s some sort of rationality and logic behind everything, and we must learn to look for them. The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow, and it is important that they learn to ask questions and seek answers.
Maybe, scientific temper isn't an all powerful tool that gives us answers to all the problems instantly but nonetheless it's the best tool that we have at present.
A logical mind is a powerful tool that challenges the very foundations of irrationality. A rational mind has the power to shake the age-old superstitions and false beliefs to the core. Scientific temper indeed has the ability to change how mankind thinks and the way mankind thinks is the key to a better, scientifically evolved world.
Written by
0 Comments