hey ajinkya, i know that what i am saying will not go down well with you and the religionists, but there is a malayalam saying that "once you enter the temple pond, you might as well have a bath and come out" so I might as well take this discussion to what i see is a logical conclusion.
Firstly you point out instances of scientists being unscientific and claim that this somehow exposes flaws in the scientific approach. It is not difficult for me or any other rationalist to understand that those instances you cite are of scientists being completely unscientific and petty. But it would take a rather generous leap of the imagination to then conclude that the scientific method was false.
As you yourself said, if Edison had himself conducted scientific experiments with AC instead of trying to achieve a 'purpose' that was pre-decided that would have been the scientific, rational and open-ended approach to take, but like some religionists, Edison chose to start with a conclusion and then design his 'experiments' to satisfy it. That is not scientific. And the fact that some scientists having acted that way does not devalue the scientific method in any manner. That is quite like saying since Chandrayaan - 1 suffered a malfunction, the entire ISRO and their methods are discredited. I am certain you yourself will see the lack of logic in such a proposition.
Secondly you claim science is man made. That really makes no sense. Science is a method, an approach, a search for truth. That approach to finding the truth I agree was man made, but not the events, things and the phenomena that science studies. Religion, yes, is man made. And various men have made it in different forms and manners (and they all happily contradict each other, but still a religionist would rather support another religionist than a rationalist
). Religion was made by man at a time when the scientific method was not advanced enough to explain many apparently wondrous things (such as the sun rising). I just don't see how it holds so much relevance in these times when we have far better and demonstrable explanations for these phenomena.
You said: "You are born, live, reproduce, feel and die, on a small little speck of matter among trillions of other lifeless? matter in a great void. Where is the meaning?
Giving purpose to one's life is the purpose of Religion. "
This is precisely the problem. This search for 'meaning' and this is probably why the rationalists and the religionists will never agree. The scientific approach, like Mr. Ramanujam said is about being open to possibilities and doing everything possible to reach the truth. The religious discourse however works in reverse. There is the so-called 'truth', and then there is much effort that is expended on retro-fitting observable phenomena to this hypothesis, in whatever contrived means are available.
I agree with Moktan that rationalists and religionists cannot possibly come to agreement, and what the rationalist says in his defence will appear supercilious to the committed religionist, there's no escaping that. It's a price I am happy to pay in defense of my ideas.
Much like I can't convince someone that a "cable elevator" cannot improve sound if he is already convinced, and the "cable elevator" aficianado cannot convince me that it does improve the sound, this is not a debate on which a mutually acceptable reconciliation can be reached. And no, I don't believe in compromising intellectual honesty to arrive at a wishy-washy compromise that is inoffensive and inaccurate and keeps me popular.
And to respond to Vivekananda's quote, it is the currents and the winds that guide the ships (i presume he is talking about sailing ships, if not it is the steam engines that are guiding them), and this is perfectly explainable by science. Even the people who sailed those ships didn't think those ships were being guided by anything supernatural. I am baffled at what he thought the 'east' was contributing to the winds, the currents, or the steam engine. Let me reiterate I am not disrespecting Vivekananda, just pointing out a rather obvious flaw with his statement.
Humility in accepting mistakes is a human trait, not one of Science. And scientists throughout history have been shown to be anything but humble and open-minded. I disagree that a 'scientific' person is necessarily open to rational thinking or criticism of this theories. Two cases in point:
1. The A/C vrs D/C war between Edison and Tesla/Westinghouse. Edison went to the extent of electrocuting live animals (horses) to 'prove' how dangerous A/C was and how "his" D/C was superior. And Edison was an experimental scientist, a great one at that. Where did his science leave him, why did it not force him to think 'rationally', carry out comparative experiments with A/C and then humbly accept the good things about A/C as well? Because Edison was also human. Science cannot supersede our basic human tendencies, beyond a point.
2. The Steady-State Universe theory by Hoyle et al., vrs Edwin Hubble's observations of an expanding Universe. Hoyle went all out, even humiliating Hubble in public discourses, to 'prove' that all observations point to a static Universe. Which point of view was proved wrong time and again by observations and empirical data...Data, which is the hallmark of scientific truth. Was Hoyle not a rational, thinking, logical man? Of course he was. He was also...a man.
There are numerous other instances...the mathematician Ramanujan was humilitated by many British mathematicians who could not understand his esoteric way of proving theorems. These were men of the highest intellect, rationality and logic. And they behaved like an illiterate village mob.
Quantum theory is another example of Einstein's mental block to a non-deterministic Universe model. Gravity is "assumed" to exist in the farthest corners of the Universe...that is blind faith (or faith in the continuity of the gravitational field as a function of space and time) , not tested by any experiments, since we haven't reached the farthest corners of the known Universe yet.
The point is, Science/Logic/Rationality by themselves mean nothing. Data, Life, the Universe itself can be interpreted in different ways and has been. Data is not golden... our points of seeing it can and do change over time. And Science is man-made...and is subject to all the limitations and greatness that the human intellect is capable of. So is Religion. The reason Religion is so powerful is because it attempts to gives meaning to our life. Because, if you look at Life from a coldly 'rational' point of view, it is quite meaningless. You are born, live, reproduce, feel and die, on a small little speck of matter among trillions of other lifeless? matter in a great void. Where is the meaning?
Giving purpose to one's life is the purpose of Religion. And I don't mean Religion as idol worship, or blind faith in a human-personified God. I mean finding devotion and spirituality in one's own life, finding one's path and purpose, and seeing beauty and purpose in other living beings as well. That is the hallmark of all good Religions, when they are stripped from the blind rituals, superstitions that have been superimposed over time by lack of knowledge of the people who follow them. Anyone who reads the Gita or any other religious text, stripped from all the supernatural fairytales of demons and myth, will understand what the kernel of the message is. And that is finding and respecting the purpose of one's life.
Sorry for the long post. I just felt a slightly supercilious tone in some of the postings defending Science/Rationalism, at all costs. I am myself a very analytic and scientific person but I am also aware of, and humbly accept, the limitations of Science.
As Vivekananda said aptly (paraphrased by me):
"The West are master ship builders. They make ships of great beauty and strength, which can ride many oceans. But...who is steering this great ship in the right direction? That is where we, the East come in. And a well-guided ship, following it's true path is a sight to behold and wonder about..."
-Ajinkya.
