Alvin_255
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 26, 2015
- 246
- 503
Let us move to the era of Newton and imagine ourselves living in that period. Newton introduced theories in physics that revolutionized the field and some other sciences. His concept of gravity was seen as a fundamental force in the universe—a force that attracts objects. He formulated scientific equations that proved this, and his theory earned the highest levels of accuracy and scientific reliability. Thus, any scientific discourse on gravity must start from Newton's understanding of it.
But let us hypothetically assume that Einstein was also a contemporary of Newton. Due to his renowned imaginative thinking, he proposed during Newton's time another concept or interpretation of gravity, known as his idea that gravity is a curvature of spacetime. What would the reaction be to Einstein's concept from the scientific community of that time?
I believe there would be two distinct reactions to Einstein's claim. The first, represented by the majority of the scientific community and its institutions, would downplay Einstein's proposal, describing it as a venture into metaphysics and fanciful musings. As for the second reaction, it would be represented by a few physicists who would label Einstein's proposal as an open claim regarding possibilities and would demand that he provide evidence and appropriate proof for this theory.
What the first group of scientists and scientific institutions involved in physics did was to bestow upon Newton's theory of gravity a sense of sanctity, making it a complete theory that closed the doors to further inquiry on the subject. This led to the dismissal, exclusion, and skepticism of any proposal related to gravity outside its framework. This is the essence of ideologization, as if they transformed this theory of gravity and the thinking around it into a closed ideology that cannot accommodate any other opinion or proposal outside its laws.
On the other hand, the second group, consisting of a small number of scientists, believes that the world, with its phenomena and components, is open to a broader realm of possibilities. They keep the door open for any proposal, demanding proof and arguments, approaching it with an eye for what is possible. These few scientists, despite their reliance on the proven Newtonian theory and their adherence to strict criteria for any scientific proposal, remain open to any alternative proposal, provided it meets the scientific criteria.
These individuals are loyal to science and its theories and to the scientific method, but they have not turned those theories into ideologies that close off their avenues of thought.
Here, we are discussing within the framework of one scientific field, which is experimental science, specifically physics. But what happens when these scientists, attached to ideologized scientific thinking, evaluate theories, visions, and propositions from other knowledge domains, such as theories in the humanities and social sciences, philosophical theories, literature, arts, and others? Surely, this group of scientists would demand all types of knowledge to apply their scientific standards, as applied to experimental sciences. In this way, it seems as though this group of scientists wants to reduce human beings, with all their components, dimensions, and aspirations, to their material component only, diminishing any other aspect of humanity and the related knowledge and evaluation standards. This is a reductive, exclusionary, and narrow perspective. The original intent should be to demand the application of experimental science criteria only to that which is subject to or can be subjected to scientific experimentation, while keeping the door open for all other types of knowledge to present their views on the world and humanity according to their specific standards.
The ideologization of scientific thinking poses a significant danger to humanity, its knowledge, and science itself, manifesting in two main aspects, though not exhaustively:
1. The definitive and conclusive view of a specific scientific theory and its conversion into a scientific ideology may hinder the progress and advancement of science. Imagine if the scientific community and their institutions had rejected Einstein's proposal at that time, as per the example I provided. The world would have lost one of the most important revolutionary scientific theories that paved the way for many other scientific discoveries.
2. The reductive view of humanity and existence in their diverse and rich dimensions, limiting them to the experimental material dimension, would result in humans losing a significant part of their identity, trivializing and obstructing any non-material intellectual production that is essential for human advancement and development.
Note: When I divided the scientific community into a broad category that may lean towards the ideologization of scientific thinking and a small, open group receptive to new proposals, this is a simplification and does not stem from any statistical study. I believe that over time, and in response to many challenges in scientific research, many individuals within the scientific field have become more open to new ideas and flexible in their thinking.
But let us hypothetically assume that Einstein was also a contemporary of Newton. Due to his renowned imaginative thinking, he proposed during Newton's time another concept or interpretation of gravity, known as his idea that gravity is a curvature of spacetime. What would the reaction be to Einstein's concept from the scientific community of that time?
I believe there would be two distinct reactions to Einstein's claim. The first, represented by the majority of the scientific community and its institutions, would downplay Einstein's proposal, describing it as a venture into metaphysics and fanciful musings. As for the second reaction, it would be represented by a few physicists who would label Einstein's proposal as an open claim regarding possibilities and would demand that he provide evidence and appropriate proof for this theory.
What the first group of scientists and scientific institutions involved in physics did was to bestow upon Newton's theory of gravity a sense of sanctity, making it a complete theory that closed the doors to further inquiry on the subject. This led to the dismissal, exclusion, and skepticism of any proposal related to gravity outside its framework. This is the essence of ideologization, as if they transformed this theory of gravity and the thinking around it into a closed ideology that cannot accommodate any other opinion or proposal outside its laws.
On the other hand, the second group, consisting of a small number of scientists, believes that the world, with its phenomena and components, is open to a broader realm of possibilities. They keep the door open for any proposal, demanding proof and arguments, approaching it with an eye for what is possible. These few scientists, despite their reliance on the proven Newtonian theory and their adherence to strict criteria for any scientific proposal, remain open to any alternative proposal, provided it meets the scientific criteria.
These individuals are loyal to science and its theories and to the scientific method, but they have not turned those theories into ideologies that close off their avenues of thought.
Here, we are discussing within the framework of one scientific field, which is experimental science, specifically physics. But what happens when these scientists, attached to ideologized scientific thinking, evaluate theories, visions, and propositions from other knowledge domains, such as theories in the humanities and social sciences, philosophical theories, literature, arts, and others? Surely, this group of scientists would demand all types of knowledge to apply their scientific standards, as applied to experimental sciences. In this way, it seems as though this group of scientists wants to reduce human beings, with all their components, dimensions, and aspirations, to their material component only, diminishing any other aspect of humanity and the related knowledge and evaluation standards. This is a reductive, exclusionary, and narrow perspective. The original intent should be to demand the application of experimental science criteria only to that which is subject to or can be subjected to scientific experimentation, while keeping the door open for all other types of knowledge to present their views on the world and humanity according to their specific standards.
The ideologization of scientific thinking poses a significant danger to humanity, its knowledge, and science itself, manifesting in two main aspects, though not exhaustively:
1. The definitive and conclusive view of a specific scientific theory and its conversion into a scientific ideology may hinder the progress and advancement of science. Imagine if the scientific community and their institutions had rejected Einstein's proposal at that time, as per the example I provided. The world would have lost one of the most important revolutionary scientific theories that paved the way for many other scientific discoveries.
2. The reductive view of humanity and existence in their diverse and rich dimensions, limiting them to the experimental material dimension, would result in humans losing a significant part of their identity, trivializing and obstructing any non-material intellectual production that is essential for human advancement and development.
Note: When I divided the scientific community into a broad category that may lean towards the ideologization of scientific thinking and a small, open group receptive to new proposals, this is a simplification and does not stem from any statistical study. I believe that over time, and in response to many challenges in scientific research, many individuals within the scientific field have become more open to new ideas and flexible in their thinking.
