How could science be different? The question reverberates an intent to get rid of an innate tendency to be contented with what science has deciphered so far about the nature. It invites us to mend the pathways that science has taken so far. Before venturing for a prescriptive journey on how science could be different for societal betterment, it is essential to express the panorama of science by drawing contours of basic sciences, and their relatedness with engineering, technology, and social sciences. Science can be changed for making a difference through (i) redefining its goals (ii) reconnecting with past wisdom, (iii) expanding sites of excellence, (iv) overcoming barriers to learning science, (v) thinning barriers within basic sciences, (vi) diminishing barriers between science and social science, and (vii) overcoming foundational threat to basic sciences. There is enough scope for betterment of science. This may be done through advancement of basic sciences in developing regions for their socioeconomic development. We must aim for synchronization of basic sciences, engineering, and technology, inducting inter-disciplinary approach, and adopting a more holistic approach to amplify the effectiveness of science. We must reinstate philosophers and philosophical approaches back to business for the continuous consolidation of knowledge slices. The knowledge gaps will always be there or emerge at a finer scale as there are always limits to what extent science, religion, and philosophy can decipher about reality. Hence, unknowns, mysterious, and not-fully-answered questions need to be reinstated as a critical feature of nature to reflect upon.
Towards the Holistic Science: Reinstating Philosophy of Research
Good questioning
Brajesh Mishra
A very deep comprehensive essay and important ideas.
Very important conclusion:
<<Philosophy is quite effective in guiding what is worthwhile in life, what is true? Teaching philosophy helps the scholar in self-discovery, developing critical thinking, and choosing the optimum course of action. Aren't we over-slicing knowledge space and in that process losing the holistic picture?>>
<<The knowledge gaps will always be there or emerge at a finer scale as there are always limits to what extent science, religion, and philosophy can decipher about reality.>>
Fields Prize winner Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017) left the following philosophical testament to scientists:
"What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not only a crisis of Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in a very serious fight between science and religion, which will end in their association ."
Do you agree with this conclusion?
Can there be a single holistic paradigm for science and religion, knowledge and faith?
From your ref in RG: "he includes the fact that a mathematical formulation “leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena” "
(PDF) The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233547465_The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences [accessed May 18 2023].
Sometimes you can get a mathemitical formulation from a modified physiscs equation but you should take long time to know what is the physical interpretation. And if everything is included in mathematics why we don't extract energy from vacuum until now? because perhaps we don't know which devices to use.
Your article is good and you try to instaure sscientific culture thinking in all disciplines. I love it.
Dear GreenHalibut,
on the whole I am very pleased that you are looking for the connection of the social sciences to the natural sciences and that your text elicits possible solutions - if I have understood it correctly, about more philosophy in the social sciences. But from my point of view your text also shows on a meta-level the dilemma of the social sciences. Because you keep mixing goals and intentions, of course very well-intentioned intentions, with the knowledge of reality.
From my point of view, natural sciences means above all to make an unconditional, maximally objective comparison of theory with reality, which is not named in your description of physics, but is very crucial (page 5: "Physics focuses on (i) illustration of principle (toy model); (ii) quantifying the qualitative reasoning about the real world; (iii) equations to organize qualitative knowledge on natural processes; (iv) building simplistic models for a complex realistic situation"). Models, comparisons, measurements are all just methods to achieve the best possible match with reality, and thus knowledge about reality.
Desires and goals are always justified, but on the other hand have nothing to do with cognition.
So when you ask social questions, they argue along a goal (for instance in chapter 4.1 "Advancement of basic science for the socioeconomic betterment"). What you and most of social science, as well as philosophy, do not do is ask whether scientific methods and laws might not provide explanations for social questions. For example, the theory of evolution, which is not yet finished and error-free and in particular not yet sufficiently mathematically formulated, but which explains a great deal in biology even in this unfinished form, could probably also provide many insights for social phenomena, such as the geographical differences in the level of social development to which you refer.
But perhaps in the future the development will go the other way round: the natural sciences will be increasingly motivated and methodically enabled to explain social conditions as well, so that a sociology of the natural sciences will emerge.
Excellent essay. It perfectly follows all of the criteria the contest proposes. Preceded by your mental problem, your outline imagery and your use of it in the essay is done quite well. The points you follow pretty much involve my own thoughts presented in "Global Externalities and a new science" but is done in a very clear and logical manner. Well done.