In response to Bangla Article 'Bigganbad' (scientism) Bonna Ahmed

In response to Bangla Article 'Bigganbad'

I can give you millions of examples of subjective decisions, personal choices, beauty, art, etc, where science has no access. ... I just showed few examples of the wrong theories you are proposing from the over simplification of science and the other factors of complex social phenomenon. Your ï¿½Ismï¿½ is bound to do that, there is no other choice..

Bonna Ahmed

Published on March 22, 2009

Biplab,

I have no problem accepting that we have to ï¿½apply scientific methods or scientific way of thinking in our livesï¿½, but I have serious problems in accepting that science is a ï¿½purnanga jibon dorshonï¿½, or ï¿½complete philosophy of life.ï¿½ It exactly sounds like Muhammad saying, ï¿½Quran gives you the ï¿½purnanga jibon darshon of life.ï¿½ï¿½ You said you were trying to promote it for political reasons, but doesn't it sound very lame? Doesnï¿½t it sound like the politicians back home who will use anything for political reason?! You started this debate using the word ï¿½Scientismï¿½ in the beginning, and then you slowly and cleverly deviated from that as you figured out that the term has been trashed many times in the last century. Then the next day, you came up with the word ï¿½Bigganbaadï¿½, which does not mean anything else but ï¿½Scientismï¿½, although you are claiming that you do not mean what the word scientism really means! First, letï¿½s see how some academic literatures define this trashy term:

ï¿½The work of Mill, Peirce, and Popper is a resource for philosophers presently exploring the social dimensions of scientific knowledge. However, the current debates are framed in the context of developments in both philosophy of science and in history and social studies of science following the collapse of the logical empiricist consensus. The philosophers of the Vienna Circle are conventionally associated with an uncritical form of positivism and with the logical empiricism that replaced American pragmatism in the 1940s and 1950s. They saw natural science, however, as a potent force for progressive social change. (Cartwright, Cat, and Chang 1996; Giere and Richardson, eds., 1996) With its grounding in observation and public forms of verification, science for them constituted a superior alternative to what they saw as metaphysical obscurantism, an obscurantism that led not only to bad thinking but to bad politics. While one development of this point of view leads to scientism, the view that any meaningful question can be answered by the methods of science; another development leads to inquiry into what social conditions promote the growth of scientific knowledge.ï¿½ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/ (you can also read about the plausibility of Popperï¿½s theory in Social Sciences in this link).

I can not find any scientific reason (:)) to use the direct translation of a trashed word in the western world in order to promote science in our poor countries. I expected that someone as ï¿½scientific mindedï¿½ or ï¿½bigganbaadiï¿½ as yourself would think twice before using something like this.

Now letï¿½s see where we differ: I think this is also what Jahed, Avijit and I have been trying to say from the beginning. We are all for promoting ï¿½scientific mind buildingï¿½ and aï¿½scientific way of thinkingï¿½ in every aspect of life (though I believe that screaming your head off about ONLY ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½ will never resolve the real problem. At the end of the day, a very complex political, socio-economical, and religious environment of a country decides how science will be used within a national boundary. The best example of that is the USA, which is the center of scientific innovations, but because of the socio-political reasons, the majority of people would like to adapt non-scientific religious fundamentalism as a way of life. Anyways, I guess that is not the topic of our discussion here), but I can not agree that ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½ can be the only complete philosophy of life. Letï¿½s see how far science can really reach, if it can really cover the whole nine yards of our lives as ï¿½purnanga jibon darshonï¿½. Science can draw the line between science and non-science. It can identify, depending on its advancements at that time, that something is irrational, such as subjective decisions and statements (philosophical, ethical, humanitarian issues, etc.)ï¿½but that is exactly where it has to stop. It can not be applied to many domains of human life because many things are beyond the scrutiny of science. Using a scientific method, you can say, ï¿½this is completely irrationalï¿½, or ï¿½this is not scientificï¿½, but science can not explain why and how it is happening, why a human brain is letting that person take an irrational decision, or promoting that thinking in a person. This means there are many areas of life which are really out of scienceï¿½s reach.

Let me give you an example: Supposedly my daughter steals something from a store, and I stand by her and say that I support her act of stealing. How will you define my act scientifically? All science can say is this is an irrational act. I can give you millions of examples of subjective decisions, personal choices, beauty, art, etc, where science has no access. I know the line is getting thinner and thinner with many scientific advances but there is still a broad grey area where science can not be applied at all. That's why philosophers like, Bertrand Russell says ï¿½Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reasons rather than the authority; whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge - so I should contend ï¿½ belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is no manï¿½s land.ï¿½Philosophy.ï¿½

My point is, it is completely meaningless to use the word ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½ as a ï¿½purnango dorshon of lifeï¿½. You are just another new kid on the block who will fail to promote ï¿½scientismï¿½ one more time. While we should work towards building scientific methods of thinking, we should also be very careful about preaching science as an ï¿½ismï¿½.

Let me show you very briefly what your ï¿½baadï¿½ or ï¿½ismï¿½ has done to your logic and common senses: You are so bogged down with your ï¿½ismï¿½ that you are discovering theories, left and right, based on wrong assumptions. You have started to create a dogma here. You are forgetting to mention that those are the hypotheses created by you or some other people which might not be applicable to many peopleï¿½s lives. It has gotten to a point that you are actually standing against the human rights and womenï¿½s right movements of this century. Let me show you some examples from your article ï¿½Bigganbadï¿½:

You were so eager to apply the biological definition of life to human society that you have started to apply it wrongly everywhere. Only because our genes act selfishly in micro level, you conclude that the meaning of our lives is saving the genetic code. From this, you conclude that we live our lives only to reproduce and raise the kids and family properly. What an over-simplification of scientific facts and theories! You might have missed that many of the renowned biologists of our time strongly oppose the idea of using biological theories in our social lives! Lets see what Dawkins himself (whom you are proudly quoting like many others without a complete knowledge about their work!) is saying about this! Refer to this interview with Simon Hattenstone and Dawkins:

Simon Hattenstone: ï¿½But, of course, Darwinism is also ferociously savage - the weeds die out, the fittest survive, there is no moral universe because all is pre-programmed and we have no free choice. Yes, [Dawkins] says, explaining the title of the book (A Devil's Chaplin): ï¿½What Darwin said is 'what a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature.ï¿½ Dawkins stresses that he doesn't see himself as a devil's chaplain because he regards the world more optimistically. Why? Your version sounds pretty revolting to me. I say, ï¿½Ah no, [Dawkins] says, this is where life becomes even more fascinating, even more awe-inspiring - because humans, with their little acts of kindness, are rebelling against their genes. So our humanity is a form of virus in the genetic body?

"It's a nice way of putting it," Dawkins says.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnatu,re/story/0,6000,892495,00.html

Additionally, letï¿½s see what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about using biological theories against human societies in an interview.

Question: Finally, given all the analogies and imposed models that you see -- what actual lessons does natural evolution offer for society and organizations?

SJG: ï¿½I think rather limited ones. And that's an important point. There are meaningful analogies, we've been talking about some of them, but the main error people make is to take a well-articulated and well-confirmed mechanism of Darwinian change, that is, natural selection, and think it ought to describe cultural change in humans as well. It really doesn't in principle. Those are the errors of 19th-century social Darwinism.
The entire mechanics of change is so different in cultural versus natural systems. In cultural systems change is Lamarckian -- acquired characteristics can be inherited. Whatever we learn or invent in one generation we teach directly to the next generation. That gives cultural change a powerful driving force.ï¿½

Now letï¿½s see another example Biplab has drawn: Like a prophecy you declare that if we follow your ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½ the only and primary responsibility of parents is to raise kids. And if someone is really ï¿½bigganbaadiï¿½, then divorce will not be expected after you have kids. Again, you forget to say that this is one of your many male chauvinistic hypotheses, not a theory. What a dilemma, in one hand you will cry for the women like ï¿½Moushumiï¿½ ,who are the victims of family violence, and on the other hand you will preach like a right-wing fundamentalist catholic priest. Again, here is the problem of over simplification and making everything black and white through your so called ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½. You forget to see how divorce, in many cases, becomes a critical issue for exercising womenï¿½s rights. Think about this for a second: what if an abused Bengali girl (who has been tormented between her own rights, society, her kidsï¿½ well being and was almost deciding to get a divorce from the abusive relationship she is in) reads your version of ï¿½bigganbaadï¿½ and decides to stay in an abusive relationship forever! What a great contribution you are making for all the abused women in this world. This is a very complex social issue, so we might not want to preach too much of your mechanical version of ï¿½bigganbadï¿½ here without understanding the depth of the problem. Ironically, your own statistic goes completely against your conclusion. It clearly shows how tension between the parents can create depression among their kids. There is lots of literature which also proves that kids from high tension families will be much better off if their parents get divorced rather than them watching the tension all through their lives!.

I just showed few examples of the wrong theories you are proposing from the over-simplification of science and the other factors of complex social phenomenon. Your ï¿½Ismï¿½ is bound to do that. There is no other choice, and that is why it has been rejected by many scientists and sociologists for a century.

I guess it is a free world and you can preach any theory you want, but Iï¿½ll ask you to think about it one more time before you preach it again.