The question is not about their beliefs, but about their actions and behavior.
Rogerio,
you are writing in his post:
"A person who says scientist will be neither an idealist nor a materialist, must be a dreamer!"
yes, this is a true. I'm also a dreamer... This is my nickname given by my friends.
I am a dreamer in scientific work, and in private life, and in my favorite pastimes (outside of academic work), i.a. in translated into Polish the texts of my favorite poet - Peter Sinfield (this term may sound strange, because I do not know whether the many of his countrymen - the British, include Sinfield to poets), which at least a few can be found on the internet (on the Polish website of the King Crimson group, such as the track to which I've included a link: http://king.crimson.art.pl/teksty/Wake/picturespl.html).
I want to say, that nothing is black and white. Actually there is no "pure idealists" and "pure materialists" among scientists. If the materialist does not dreaming about doing something great, it does not reach this. If idealist loses itself in dreams, it will not achieve anything.
I think, the best is to find the "golden mean".
What a fine question, Alexander! Consider the idealism of Einstein, the modesty of the great man, in refusing the Presidency of the State of Israel. In his refusal, which I copy here verbatim, note his identification with the Jewish people (also idealism) but also his recognition of his personal limits:
"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel [to serve as President], and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world."
Nelson,
You aptly noticed elements of idealism in the actions of Einstein.
It seems to me, that it would be interesting to throw in these considerations, the historical volatility of the materialistic and idealistic approach of scientists to their work.
I think that idealistic attitude prevailed during the beginnings of modern science, until to the middle of the last century. Now increasingly come to the fore materialistic attitude.
Such a great question - but you can't generalize of course.
An example - not giving any bio info - I used to know this absolutely brilliant physicist, holder of a few prestigious world prizes, head of a department where PhD students from the world over were struggling to make ends meet but still were ready to 'pay any price, bear any burden' to get their PhDs - at the end of a particularly successful year, this gentleman invited all of his PhD students for a night on the town- an opportunity for them to relax, kick back, and eat much better than was their wont.
The very next day, the wealthy professor made the rounds in his department to tell every participant of the night before that they owed him 25 bucks :-)))
There are so many such tales, but then again, we scientists are just like the rest of humankind, aren't we?
Sure, Nelson, Einstein was Idealist. But so was Issac Newton. After age 45 he stopped to practise science, devoted his live to Christian Theology, disputed some chapters of New Testament on theoretical basis.
But, then, Karl Marx, who is recognised as a great scientist in theoretical economics and dreamer in perfect sociaty, claimed to be Materialist, objected Idealism as Philosopy.
Philosophic materialism and/or idealism has nothing to do with daily behavior. This is a view of history as realized by the human approach.
Personal idealism or materialism is distributed among scientist like in other human groups, not every brilliant scientist is also an idealist person.
Alexander, this question has no a single meaning. Materialism and idealism of concrete scientist depend on its education, scientific direction, work conditions, scientific status, personal character, financial justification, political convictions, family status, age and many other factors. If we will consider, for example, such a parameter as age, with it incrreasing scientists usually more attract to idealism.
In my opinion (intuition?)! Scientist are just as human as you and I. Therefore, all frames of mind exist among scientists just as much as among any other random classification of professions or vocations involving copious use of the "grey matter". Well then again, what do I know! Key is open-mindedness!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10242907544/
Lev is right: the word "idealism" is multivalent and ambiguous. On the one hand, it has a strictly philosophical meaning as any system of thinking which views mind or its contents as the fundamental reality. On the other hand, it has an ethical meaning as an orientation of conduct by lofty principles. If those lofty principles include dialectical materialism, then, Alexander, Karl Marx was an idealist in the ethical sense without realizing it! It seems to me that idealism in the philosophical sense excludes materialism, wherein in the ethical sense it may include materialism.
I agree with you, Nelson, person can claim being a materialist, but others can consider him as an idealist. Marx is probably a good example.
In the USSR under Joseph Stalin a person, claiming to be idealist, could be sent for 5 yers to perform hard labor, chopping woods at -50 C. Legally he was not proclaimed guilty, just stupid, and would be considered as a "Student of special education by labor".
Stalin himself claimed to be the MATERIALIST # 1. At least Soviet propaganda presented him this way. But he was the Supreme Leader of extreem Ideological political system, where IDEA of building Communism superceeded material compesation paid to builders for their labor.
And, LEVA, ty prav. At younger age my first priority used to be feeding my family, so, I had to be a materialist. Now my kids feed themself, my retirement benefits cover my basic needs. So, priority for me is to solve some science problems, which I failed to solve earlier, to publish papers, to have nice discussion on RG site. So, I have luxury to behave like Idealist.
Hi Alexander, thanks for including me in this discussion. But you have said it quite aptly. Scientists like you and me are idealist in that we care to increase knowledge and make use of it for the good of Mankind and the environment. However being materialist, man (including scientists) has/have exploited the world's resources; and some scientists are trying to reverse the process and its consequences.
However materialistic though, we are shocked at certain things that man (scientists) is/are doing. One of it is on Michael's thread. Please view it at:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Black_market_for_academic_papers_Can_this_be_true?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=RyQ9KWL1tgfyvA8ZLxO1IJQmQLsulT0UqsHLOh4yqsg%2C&pli=1#view=52ac4af3cf57d7e96d8b4788
At least I am not a materialist, I never was. About the others, well, I do not know.
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin,
Scientists are standing as a portrait of idealism. Being a human scientists also have instinct of materialism but it never dominates neither diminishes the brightness of idealism of a scientist.
I feel scientist should be both idealists and materialists Scientists have enormous contribution in the advancement of human civilization.Many scientists have dedicated their lives for research and innovation.. Edison is the great inventor who has over 1000 patents and his inventions are in various fields used in our daily life He also became a prominent businessman and his business institution produced his inventions and marketed the products to the general people.
Indeed, scientists who take part in rat races for monetary awards are necessarily materialistic in nature; Higgs for example, may be an exception. On the other hand, we are now in the 21st century, and currently in the eyes of most of the people, idealism is equivalent to some kind of stupidity. I would however like to remain a follower of Socrates; I would like to remain a Hemanta Baruah dissatisfied than being a pig satisfied.
Dear Dr. Sukla,
You have cited the case of Edison. There are others too. For example, Alexander Bell made just one discovery, and thereafter became a very rich man.
That does not mean that Bell was materialistic when he was in the process of inventing the telephone.
Similarly, Edison was a workaholic; he was in the habit of remaining disconnected with his family for days together while working in his laboratory. A true materialistic could not have done that kind of a thing. He too became rich thereafter. This hardly makes him materialistic in the modern sense.
Imagine a world without the inventions of Thomas Edison and Alexander Bell. No, Dr. Sukla, no. Fortunately for mankind, some inventors like Edison and Bell had ever walked on our Earth once upon a time.
Please do not call Edison and such other great men materialistic at least.
Scientists are more of Idealists than Materialists, that is my opinion ! Of course this may be situational too !
Dear Jaya,
Take the case of Hargovind Khorana. He could not get even a descent job in India. Getting exasperated, he went to USA. Later on, this man became a Nobel Laureate. Would you like to say that he was a materialistic to have left the country of his birth in search of greener pastures?
Dr. Khorana was an idealist if there was ever one!
True, Scientists are more of Idealists than Materialists, I believe more in this, support your statement.
It depends on how we define the term 'scientist': if we define it with respect to what is closely to the scientific true, then probably is closer to idealism. But, if we define it as is now get measured by the volume of publications, editorial membership, congress organized per year, government positions occupied etc, then 'scientists'=the worst case of materialism, since it uses scientific justification in order to get material benefits. I think that most of active members here in RG are idealists, just because otherwise, we shouldn't permit ourselves to share ideas with other people without getting paid!
But iof we want to see the whole picture, no my friends, scientists are more than 70% materialists...
(Please, don't judge from your personal view)
@Alexander,
The question you have posted is a bit queer in that you have discounted beliefs, while the two idealism and materialism are philosophies and ways of life based on certain beliefs. In terms of action an idealist is one is identified by self-actualization, meaningfulness, and significance. Idealists look to the future, focusing on what might be. They engage in activities because they are meaningful rather than because they are routine, mandatory, efficient, or entertaining. They search for identity and meaning in life. However, they represent things as they might or should be rather than as they are. In this sense they are not as a matter of fact persons or men of this world. A materialist person is one who is excessively concerned with wealth and material possessions. This is someone who is money-oriented and cares less about ethical and spiritual matters but rather focuses on acquiring all the best things that money can buy. A materialistic person is self-centred and will do everything possible including using others for her/his own selfish gain. A materialist persons is an earthly and as a matter of fact persons.
I do think we are born both ways; we are a bit idealist and a bit materialist. Scientists are no exception to this. In their work scientist appear to be highly idealist because they by nature tend to model or theories everything in an ideal manner and deviations from their models and theories to them are noise and therefore optimisation is considered necessary in science (a position between reality and ideal). However, scientists are not expected to make ethical judgement, they are described as persons devoted to their work and do not expect either huge money or fame/recognition. This idealisation of scientists in late 19th and early 20th century has added further aura of idealism to them. This idealisation does not hold water except in case of those whose passion is research. In the academic hierarchy, and closeness of scientists at the top of the hierarchy with establishment (who are involved in making ethical judgement and consulted in decision-making) sharing of power an flow of money through the hierarchy of the academia show that they as materialist as anyone else. In the present world, one can own them if one got them fully paid. Otherwise, while scientists are leaving their countries to countries where grass is greener on the pretext of inefficient working environment and lack of facilities etc. So, scientists like any human are idealist as well as materialist.
Just as knowledge of the rules of football does not make one a footballer, just knowledge of science, of any particular branch, does not make one a scientist. Am I right?
A person who says scientist will be neither an idealist nor a materialist, must be a dreamer!
.
A pure materialist quickly becomes into a scientific bureaucrat, treading the path of others and perhaps adding important facts. A pure idealist will become a activist, fighting for public causes and putting their efforts to reinforce their cause.
.
Now a dreamer, he seeks realize your dream no matter how far they are, will fight, even in times of adversity to achieve a personal ideal, which may be individual or collective. This dream will be motivated by noble principles as lead humanity a benefit or for less noble goals such as taking personal benefits for himself one celebrity.
.
But above all a dreamer.
.
Dear Dr.Baruah,
I was happy to see your views.Scientist can become businessman using his innovation. This is indeed a great challenge.
Dear Dr. Sukla,
Not just business, actually some of the scientists are capable of doing many other things. The politicians for example, are fortunate that some scientists have chosen science as their field of interest!
If scientists, are not able apply or think of applying, the "fruit of their labor" to benefit Man (business) then their objective could be futile. This makes materialism an essential motivating component of success for any human including the scientist. Where materialism becomes a real issue, is not in matters concerning science, but in matters concerning politics, religion and faith. Just an opinion! BTW bad old "Materialists" could have compunctions too!
Here is an example of plant science with an awesome materialistic objective - Cost effective Panacea!
AN ANTIMICROBIAL WONDER PLANT - ALOE VERA
"Wonder plant Aloe vera is known for its various medicinal effects and significance in cosmetic uses. It is a plant known to work wonders with skin, hair and acidity."
My being a protagonist & promoting such material could be considered "idealism" since I don't seem to have an apparent "axe to grind" of my own? No ulterior material motive? I ought to buy stocks!
"Prisoners of the past or pioneers of the future?": http://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221065324/
I'm of the opinion, perhaps if scientists were a bit more "materialistic" then the quality of science may improve rapidly. When Thomas A. Edison denied to support the advancements proposed by Nikola Tesla (Edison's employee then) concerning AC (alternating current), he was being more "idealist" (selfish, not open-minded & ideological). Wasn't he?
The point being, there are pejoratives on either extremes of "idealism" or "materialism". Is it "idealism" that separates Orthodox from Catholic, Shia from Sunni, Man from Man, Black from White, Conservative from Liberal, Republican from Democrat? Was it not idealism that that fueled the "crusades" and is it not "idealism" that propels "terrorism" & war today? Was it "idealism" or "materialism" that sustained the "flat earthers" and drove great scientists like Copernicus & Galileo in to hiding for fear of "Live Public lobotomy", (all natural, anesthesia free, open air, out-patient surgery with guaranteed outcome), by the Roman Catholic Church then? Was it "idealism" or "materialism" that allowed "slavery" to exist among our "God fearing", "Bible reading", "Church going", "adultery committing", "scalp hunting", "hemp farming" founding fathers in the US? Wonder how the Church elders sold their "gulible flock" then, from nearly the same Bible that we "swear by" today? Wonder what language they translated the old testament regarding "slavery"? Maybe it was nap time. Kids were so sanguine by then that they fell asleep when the lessons about Moses, slavery & emancipation were discussed. Was "Apartheid" not demented "idealism" just as "Nazi-ism" or "Jihadism" or "Klan-ism" or "Caliphate-ism" or "Imperialism" or "Amagedon-ism"? Many intellectuals including "scientists" participated with "free will" in such "idealistic" activities. Flabbergasting!
Never-the-less, I'm grateful to our "founding fathers" for publicly proclaiming such thoughts in those times, although they may not have practiced such "idealism" as "Freedom" in their own lives. They did have to brave "beheading" in those days for proclaiming such noble "idealistic" thoughts. The "God loving" Brits in those days had a "keen edge" to accomplish rapid cranium separation. However, they were thankfully too busy plundering India & China (far east) those days using the same old "East India Tea Company" (Boston Tea Party). These "gentle folk" (@ East India Tea Co.) had their own military to propel their "materialism" and "idealism". The Brits, I could do without but thank goodness for English!
Ultimately, it is a matter of degree and definition! A good judicious and rational balance usually works well! "Idealism" tempered with "materialism" creates peaceful co-existence. History has ample lessons for the studious. PUN4FUNhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221987094/
Rogerio,
you are writing in his post:
"A person who says scientist will be neither an idealist nor a materialist, must be a dreamer!"
yes, this is a true. I'm also a dreamer... This is my nickname given by my friends.
I am a dreamer in scientific work, and in private life, and in my favorite pastimes (outside of academic work), i.a. in translated into Polish the texts of my favorite poet - Peter Sinfield (this term may sound strange, because I do not know whether the many of his countrymen - the British, include Sinfield to poets), which at least a few can be found on the internet (on the Polish website of the King Crimson group, such as the track to which I've included a link: http://king.crimson.art.pl/teksty/Wake/picturespl.html).
I want to say, that nothing is black and white. Actually there is no "pure idealists" and "pure materialists" among scientists. If the materialist does not dreaming about doing something great, it does not reach this. If idealist loses itself in dreams, it will not achieve anything.
I think, the best is to find the "golden mean".
Quite an interesting read of comments on a question whose meaning is as simple as it is profound. I would like to say that scientists are just men of science - neither idealistic nor materialistic. They are driven by their thirst for knowledge in the field of their pursuit. They are neither concerned with what will that knowledge beget, nor or they actually looking for something that they know, exists. They look for clues to put the jigsaw puzzle together without knowing what the end picture may look like. They may set out like 'Columbus' to discover America and may indeed reach the North Pole without knowing that it is the crown of the world. They actually seek not a piece of knowledge, they seek a portion of themselves and find the reflection of their soul in their finding. Einstein was not aghast when he discovered the meaning of relativity. He saw the breadth of his knowledge reflected in the depth of his soul. But he was aghast, when his knowledge led to the "Little Boy" showering destruction on Hiroshima.
The 'idealist' may at best be an inventor, putting his knowledge to create better devices. The 'materialist' may make his inventions fetch him his billions. Neither, in my opinion, are 'scientists'. Their thirst is like the thirst of a nomad - till they reach the watering hole.
Have a great day, Dr Alexander.
A scientist is a person who deals with things that are verified with scientific methods, so he/she is a practical or a materialist person. At the same time scientists have imaginations or thoughts, ideas or ideals and firm theoretical beliefs about things that require proofs or scientific verification and therefore in this regard they are idealists( not in the sense of believing in some unknown and unprovable ). The two characteristics somehow are not mutually disjoint but over lapping with disjoint parts in them. For example, a mathematician who deals with a construction of abstract theories with no immediate models that fit the theory, may be classified as an idealist, but the very nature of the logical consistency of the theories will make him a would be materialist and therefore a materialist, as there will be a real model in the future that will verify the theory. Lobachevsky said, " There is no any part of mathematics how abstract it may be that will not be applied to real phenomena ". A materialist to be in the future - interesting
Interestingly enough, no one set out with "Columbus to discover America". It was serendipitous! They were looking for an Indian restaurant. They made the wrong turn just before falling of the "edge of the FLAT earth". In a sense a "scientist" is constantly looking for the unknown or looking to verify a hypothesis like Columbus was. BTW Columbus and crew were discoverers like scientists but their objective was "materialistic" in self-edification and aggrandization. Their commission was as such.
Discounting Edison's "scientific" characteristics like those of Alexander Graham Bell's due to the direct "materialistic" benefits of their science could be rash. Science by definition has no end (no final "watering hole"). It is a constant quest. Materialism just creates more fuel for this yearning.
Almost every mathematical & scientific discovery has some practical application (material benefit) at some point or the other in today's digital world. Absent such benefit, science would be "pointless"! A rudarless ship!
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin,
If scientists believe in materialism then how they are not appearing on TV channels?? Some countries are having more than 600 channels but its rare that you may find a scientist is participating in debates / are giving opinion on certain important issues. Also, they never appear in TOP 10, 20, .....100, ....10000 in any magazine. I excluded RARE situation in my debate.
Indeed a great question. I found interesting debate over this question. Various views are being put forward. Can anyone really say, do we researchers have to go deep into the subject matter only for better understanding of science or do they need to apply the science for commercialization of their findings because general people are largely benefited from such findings?
Giovanni,
I think, however, that your generalization does not describe the dominant attitude of scientists.
I believe, that a scientist skeptical by nature, will be inevitably doomed to fail.
I think, that attitude, which you characterizes community of researchers (separate issue is, how much of them can be so characterized), it is "sick skepticism" resulting from the nature of man. Maybe it will be better to be called this attitude as a proceeding in accordance with the principle of limited trust. Without going into it, which of these names closely reflects the type of attitude of the scientists, I have to openly admit, that the scientist who in the creation of this attitude can not find a certain restraint ("golden mean" about which I wrote on another occasion), can in consequence even end his long scientific career without any scientific achievements, because a barrier to the completion of various projects will be for his permanent dissatisfaction with the obtained solutions.
With "skepticism" I wanted only saying that a scientist, usually, does not have prejudice and he verifies all the inputs that he receives. Sometimes, this is my case, a scientist transposes this behaviour also in the common life and this - occasionally - generates funny situations!
.
Dear Giovanni.
.
If one adopts the scientific method skepticism is restricted to a negative dialectic, which is not the same as the positive dialectic of Hegel, can not expect success in science. Importantly, the major scientific discoveries that science has led to major disruptions and large steps adopts a vision more Hegelian than others.
.
The mere scientific skepticism, word is improperly used, for example, for those who do not accept the theory of AGW, does not propose new readings and new interpretations, simply denies no new proposals.
.
I think it would be impossible to discuss this subject in a few lines, but the scientific method skepticism as simply stopping the denial leads nowhere.
.
Giovanni,
OK! I understand what you mean.
I have to admit that with the second part of your last post, I agree completely. I have at least a few colleagues from different fields of science, whose professional habits - with the years to acquire more and more experience, and reinforce these behaviors - transposed to the family or society, immediately cast to the observer's eyes. It should also be said that these situations do not always tend to be fun. Sometimes they are very tiring, about which I know, as an person experienced such behaviors from some of my colleagues.
However, I would argue, that with the skeptical attitude every scientists should be very careful. Personally, I think that just surrender to skepticism (lack of control, and a balanced approach to this type of behavior), is one of the greatest dangers lurking on the scientist in his career.
I think that the question of Prof Alex Babchin is related to the behavior of scientists into their tasks, I do not understand it in the context of personal behavior into societal life. Therefore, scientists are pragmatic and realistic people; they follow their ideas and experiments with clear objective vision. They are Materialist (not in economic term) as they should give material justifications of their thesis hypotheses or findings. They are in the same time Idealists because most of them follow ideas and research for the human development progress purpose.
In the context of societal life, scientists are human as any person with societal and economic needs for a happy and successful life (professional and societal). People who could develop business with their findings are lucky people as they will be able to put into practice their findings, develop industry and people employments, and in the same time improve their processes/research or ideas.
@Fairouz, Your good answer shows the really problem of this discussion. Scientists need money as all the other people to do their work, the must have enough time and resources to be successful. So a real scientist must sumultaneousley be idealist and materialist.
Healthy discussion! Good statistics: 10 / 0 · 44 Answers · 296 Views (Dec 16, 2013)
Scientists do have the distinct advantage of the synergy of the most valuable and abundant resource, the human intellect, to contribute to the future of all humanity one at a time. "Lucky" are those that seek it! Happy holidays! Capitalize!
Dear All,
Many have voted for the golden mean: Scientists are neither idealists nor materialists.
This is a comfortable way however, the situation is too complicated.
There must be many kinds of scientists. Some are like scientific officers or employees and work for wages. These people are certainly materialists. Some do everything to build a career and commit ethical and other abuses for gaining a high rank. These are materialists, too. And there are some for whom the scientific merit, the welfare of people and our Nature are the most important. These people are idealists. Naturally, dreamers, and some who find poetry in science belong also to this group. Everybody for whom titles, positions, ranks and money are determining, are materialists.
Please, classify yourselves.
However, I might be mistaken.
András, how would you classify a researcher who needs money to buy some apparatus to perform an experiment in physics or another natural science. This person is enthusiastic to find scientific results. Is this scientist an idealist or a materialist (needs no wage, always hungry and thirsty, just researching, still waiting for success)?
Hanno.
.
As a Brazilian adage says: Who runs for pleasure, never tires.
.
A few decades ago Brazilian researchers were in this situation, who loved research,they researched with what they had and what they received. But those who had not researched for lack of resources.
.
Nowadays the same as researched during lean years, continue searching, already claiming the lack of resources does not continue searching!
.
The importance that the productivity of those researched always increased several times, the other remains at zero.
.
Rogerio, nice adage. And my respect for the Brazilian colleques. But as a young and very enthusiastic and ambitious student I depended from some financial help to continue my research. I was happy and succeeded in some support from a German research society (DFG) and a small job in my faculty which enabled me to work on my PhD. So my materialistic experience helped me to continue my idealistic job.
Dear Hanno,
Your question is a so called poetic question which contains also the answer. You know very well that this person want to work for the scientific merit and money is not his/her aim but only an instrument. Please, ask real questions. (Bitte, eine wirkliche Frage!)
I repeat: "Everybody for whom titles, positions, ranks and money are DETERMINING, are materialists".
Dear András,
you are right. But the whole discussion deals with this poetic question. Real scientist are scientist, they mainly do research and try to find out some scientific results. These people working as bussinessman or -women have to be and are materialists.
Dear colleagues,
It seems to me that all scientists are the same people from "flesh and blood" like everyone else, so I do not think it right that as the main attribute their materialistic attitudes are indicated their desire to the pursuit of the good life that characterizes all normal people, no matter whether they are scientists or not.
I understand the question posed by Alexander, as the question of the dominant attributes of the characteristics of the modern scientist, belonging to them by virtue of binding to the specific profession.
For me, this question is therefore, in principle, the question about whether and to what extent scientists today are going adamantly difficult path of truth (idealistic attitude), and how many are selected easy way rapid promotion, what, unfortunately, is often associated with deficiencies in the field of scientific integrity. The second way is for me just the materialistic way - but unfortunately, they having also their supporters.
Dear Andrzej,
You have summarised beautifully the essence of the discussion which was - I am afraid - clear for everybody. Finding the truth can be merely an idealistic way in the world of commerce and power. But the truth is dangerous and to reach the truth needs too much work and efforts. Thus, many search an alternative (human solution) way where there is no other way. Unfortunately, ignorant masses cannot distinguish the truth and pseudotruth. Voila, so operates the world.
I work in Science 50+ years, resided and worked in different countries, with different collegues. Now I look back, try to understand their basic motivation. Sure, Scientists are human beings first, they are looking for a stable job which pays basic expences for their families. Other than that, Scientist wants to have interesting projects, degree of freedom in choise of these projects, well equipped lab for experimental work (or be left alone in the case of theoretical work). Scientist have internal need to share his/her results with other scientists internationally, to publish papers, to have feedback, to present their work at International Conferences, to recieve recognition. Scientist is not rated either by his collegues or by sociaty at large for his bank account (which is very modest in most cases), neither by the official title he/she has.
Opposite to scientist, a businessman is rated largely by his net worse in $$$.
So, the probability to find a pure materialist in Science is,,roughly, equal to the probability to find a pure idealist in business.
But all this is my personal opinion, based on my own experience and impression, I can be wrong as well.
Alexander,
Scientists are rated by scientists and the society differently. Unfortunately, bank account is the most important (and a bit secretly expressed) thing for the society. Scientists are also differently motivated. For some scientific merit and integrity are essential and some become pseudo businessmen and/or policymakers. They are interested in power and reputation. This is sad but true. Of course, manifestation of these characteristics is variable.
Yeas, Vitaly, I am a happy man. I solved all tough problems I came across. The theory of Rehbinder Effect was in my head for about 45 years, but I succeeded 2 years ago, published the paper. There are couple of problems of the same class I solved earlier in my live. I would part with these 3 results for no money offered. Having all these money would leave me unhappy that I did not solve these problems.
Being honest, one problem is left for me. This is about Capillary Pressure in 3- Phase porous systems (2 fluids and solid porous rock). But in the case I survive the problem, not vice versa, that is the bonus for me.
Andras, you live in a post-socialist sociaty, So, the values are still being formed. And within scientific comunity, like within religious community, HERETICS are ever present.
Sure, Vitaly, I am from the Philosopy School of my Past Advisor. On prizyval ludey k SVERSHENIYAM !. So, for me, to solve a problem which my more talented collegues failed to solve (beznadega, mol) est' nebol'shoe lichnoe svershenie. And I am happy.
You are essentially younger than me. Just start to think about the problem in your field, which other rate as BEZNADEGA. Give to this problem several minutes of your attention on daily basis. In some 20 years result will come to you by itself. And you will feel happy.
.
Alexander.
.
My father was a great capitalist arriving a point in his life where he could become billionaire or lose much of their money, occurred the second chance!
.
He had four children, and none of them tried the path of his father, everyone has a comfortable life based on your own effort (two civil engineers, an agronomist and another historian), but certainly all are having a happier life, undisturbed .
.
The younger generation some day understand that there are things more important than $ $ $ $, but let them discover.
.
Greed is not new. Holy Books equate Greed with Sin. So, the Greed was a problem in Biblical times as well, Rogerio.
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin,
Taking your unquestionable view and adding as below.
" A scientist must check that the knowledge from him is properly communicated / disseminated for the benefit of humanity without any differentiation of creed, cast, religion, boundary, ..except that knowledge is confidential for their nation. If the knowledge is not disseminated in that because of the greediness of a scientist may turn to "SIN"?
What an amazing role a scientist has!
I do agree to Afaq Ahmad.All scientist should publish their results without falsification. I have seen misconducts in sevral laboratories.They become blind for promotion( publish or perish???). That is why I decided to study the human consciousness.
I agree with Afaq Ahmad on all counts, on all points he made on this site.
Alexander,
You may have experiences from the former USSR. Values have been forming for a long time and interestingly all the bad things have arrived to us. But where are the good ones? Certainly, nobody will implement them instead of us.
However, discussion went off topic.
I think many of us may be idealist because we have hope and a kind of optimism. I am afraid many of us are deeply influenced by very old human perceptions about integrity, conscience, welfare of humanity, etc. In front of a real materialist merely his own nude interest stands in the darkness and this cannot allow him to recognise even shining of the sun.
VITALY, best to my understanding after looking at your site, you solved very complex problem in your field, published 3 books on the subject. Then, you have Full Professor Tenured position in the US. Piece of bread on the table is guaranteed for you. You have all necessary conditions to feel happy.
Nu, a esli ne s kem vypit' stakan vodki i pogovorut' po dusham, to priletayte ko mne v gosti. Ya sam etot napitok pol'zuyu, zhivu bez napryaga, govoryu tol'ko po Russki. Vrode by nikuda ne ueszhal.
the driving force of a scientist should be his satisfaction of finding out how things are, have become or will turn out to.
Long ago, science and its implementation - technology, offered a way for people to achieve their ideals - say to fly, to land on the moon, to produce abundance of energy.
Nowadays science does not deliver such obvious results and scientific projects are cut off constantly - as well as the material obligation a scientist may expect to achieve - and the public is no longer bestowing the same interest on scientific news (unless somebody how to teleport in his gf's room ... or something of the sort).
This should make it clear, that a true scientist - i.e. a scientist- who has an objective to discover and unpuzzle is by definition idealist. There can be scientist that are driven by materialistic forces - try to predict the forex course? turn lead into gold ... here the distinction between idealist and materialist is no longer clear ...
Unfortunately, there are also the materialist ``scientists'' - those who got by accident in the scientific institute because they simply didn't know what to do or other more complicated world lines, there are plenty of parachuters as well.
Alexander and Vitaly,
It would be better to use Cyrillic script when writing in Russian. Thanks to tovarish Stalin it was compulsory for us to learn Russian and so much I am still able to understand.
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin, Specially for you.
Source: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/scientific-materialism.php
Scientific materialism:
This common underlying worldview is known as "scientific materialism" or "scientism." As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists [Haught2010, pg. 48]. It is clear that there is little room for religion in this philosophical system, since religion involves faith in unseen and presumably empirically untestable entities.
With best of my regards
Afaq Ahmad
Dear Professor Afaq Ahmad,
definition quoted by you (post above) is actually a well-known definition of scientific materialism, but I would venture to note that (I think) the quote is only loosely related to the topic that suggested Alexander Babchin.
The question quoted by Alexander concerns the issue of whether scientists (not science!) are idealists or materialists. With so worded question, there are a number of planes on which to consider the issue. It seems to me that the most interesting of these planes is that, which probably dominates in our exchange of views, namely this: what is the hierarchy of values adopted by a particular scientist in his actions related to the scientific practice.
Andras, I can't type in Cyrillic. As about Tovarish Stalin, I claim him as my Past Advisor (in Philosophy) on my RG site in INFO section. Upon his passing away I was 15 years old, grown up boy. Stalin was MAN - PHENOMEN, great Idealist (while claiming otherwise). After his death all his net worse was $200 in Ruble equivalent on his bank account. All his significant salary and author's take fot 16 volumes of his papers on politics and Philosophy, printed in 100 languiges around the world he donated to the Prize Fund, bearing his name. This prize, in science and art was grunted on yearly basis for best works in the corresponding fields. Stalin prize in Physics winners had names like Yakov Frenkel, Lev Landau, Peter Kapitsa, Andrey Sakharov, Igor Tamm, etc. The prize of First Degree had money equivalent of 200,000 rubles and was equal to Nobel Prize in purchasing power. No money were taken from State Treasury for this fund, Stalin personally covered all expences.
Please follow the conventions. I´m just learning cyrillic, but still I´m not fit.
Thanks to all "latins".
Dear Vitaly,
You may have only an obscure and limited picture on my choice possibilities. Cyrillic scipt for the Russian is more suitable than Latin characters. So much about choice.
Dear Afaq, a scientist may not trust in GOD, as in HOLY books, but still be idealist, rating his work and results in Science ahead and above $$$ he recieves as the compensation for
the work performed. Science is the religion on its own for many collegues I personally know.
Dear Dr. Alexander Babchin, But all scientists believe that they created some thing only by knowing the fact that "What are created is created by GOD".
No, Afaq, my Brother in Science. You talk about scientists, who trust in GOD as in HOLY BOOKS. I respect their trust, and I learn wisdom in HOLY BOOKS. But, like many, I don't trust in God, I am an ATHEIST. And we should respect one another, that is no more than personal believe. I tried hard to become religious person, but I just don't have it in me.
Dear Vitaly,
This is a very complicated issue. Learning Russian was compulsory but was not in vain. I would like to read Bulgakov's Master and Margarita in Russian but I need still to learn Russian a lot. Certainly, aim of Stalin was not to distribute the Russian literature. I wanted to tell you only – it was for me a rule of politeness – that many can understand your personnel comments.
Dear Afaq and Alexander,
It was about 10 years ago when I read on Entomo-L (discussion forum for entomology) that according to an investigation over 50% of scientists believe(d) in God.
I think scientists are human beings firstly and everybody has right to decide to believe or not in God. People are influenced enormously by policymakers, all kinds of despots and dominant dogmas or rules of consumer society in each part of their existence even in their ideas.
Alexander,
Your Past Advisor (in Philosophy) banned or wanted to ban religion (or was it the committee of communist party?). So you have had an atheistic education in a mostly atheistic environment. One can ask: who did care for your free will? People’s mind can become easily a mark of their environment.
Andras, my Past Advisor had basic education as the Orthodox Christian Priest. Sure, he proclaimed himself atheist, encouraged atheist propaganda, but he knew Bible by heart, his mode operandy was after Moses. I doubt that he was completely free of his initial religious believes. The only person he trusted was his friend from Christian Seminaria, the functioning Priest.
Sure, a Member of Communist Party would be in troubles for visiting Church, but simple folks could go and pray without any intrusion, PASKHA, the traditional Russian EASTER BREAD was sold by government food stores, and so was Jewish MATZA.
Many Churches functioned, largely empty, except for High Holydays.
As soon as first luxury Soviet car ZIS - 110 was in production, he grunted this car to Alexis the Second, the Patriarh of all Russia.
In general, he was more tolerant to religion than Lenin or Trotsky. Religion was never banned, the High Seminaria in Zagorsk kept educating new young priests.
Dear Professor András Bozsik,
I believe and agree with you that after all a scientist is also a human being. My view was that a scientist has much faith in nature they are very near to the fact what God has created.
i think that believing in God is a matter of faith and personal conviction following personal understanding of the nature and the life being. Doing science must follow well established dogma and science rules comprehended and accepted by all people (believers and non believers). However any scientific believer could take inspiration from holy books, if he could demonstrates scientifically the science that he do think understood.
The great opposition in philosophy is between materialism and immaterialism. Others have assumed that it is between materialism and idealism, but that opposition is not useful in science. We need idealism to produce ideal models for understanding reality. For instance, although neither can possibly exist, we need the ideals of "empty space" and "solid matter" to understand the material reality that exists in between. In science, one can forgo immaterialism, but not materialism and idealism.
Good thought, Glenn. Philosophically speaking, unless we know pain how can we revel in joy?
I am not sure if you have heard of one of India's greatest classical singers (carnatic music) by name MS Subbulakshmi. Those who are connoisseurs of classical music consider her as gifted by God. In an interview, she was asked as to what really is music? Her answer was: It is the silence between two notes!!
Have a great day!
Alexander,
I do not discuss that churches could function. The question is how they could operate? Everybody knows that a decent job could be get or making a professional career would be possible only with the support of the communist party. All the bosses, teachers, journalists, reporters, writers etc. were communists. I remark many of these communist turned later capitalists and most of them could conserve their privileged positions even these days. Have a look at the economy of the former socialist (communist) countries: it is ruined (everything valuable have been stolen) and many communists became billionaires. As far as I know Stalin did not finished his studies to become an orthodox priest. He might know the Bible by heart but I am afraid he did not remember the New Testament and did not care for it. It is possible that religion was not officially banned (similarly as in Hungary) but they (communists) did a good job to create a mass of atheists. They knew well people that things and successes of this world (that is the direct environment) are the most important. Only a word about priests in socialist countries and in the USSR: some of them became real martyrs of their faith but unfortunately many became obedient servants of the communists and turned traitors of the religion for a bit more than a mess of pottage. What was a modest present for the Patriarch of Russia in exchange for the collaboration? I am sorry this is off topic.
Dear Afaq,
I am afraid the value of faith for many people (and scientists are people) will turn out in the last minute ...
Andras, all this is true about the CHURCH and the STATE, but Church survived even Communist period. Russia has over 1,000 years of History, was ruled by Grand Dukes, Tsars, Secretars and, now, by Presidents.
But only one Leader in entire Russian History was rated as VOZHD' by people of this Great Continental State. VOZHD' is a Russian word and can not be translated into English.
But, essentially, Bible provides examples, as NOAH saved mankind, MOSES transformed slaves into free Nation. Each VOZHD' is separated from another by time interval 3,000 years. All 3 of them were tough, led by example. Neither of them was CORRUPTED.
Majority of Russians don't care about Liberal Democracy of Western Stile, as they see only Corruption, Injustice and poverty.
They dream to have fair VOZHD', but people of that scale are rare to come by.
Alexander,
Who was the vozhd' (leader, chief, head) in Russia? When I was a child I had to learn by heart a poem in which Lenin was the vozhd'.
Many people dream on justice, correct government and welfare...
In Hungary the former communist despot Rákosi was called as "our wise vozhd' ".
I have only Soviet experience. Lenin did not live long enough to become VOZHD'. Stalin got this status, regardles propaganda, after he beat very tough opponent in WW2, then rebuild the Country in 5 years. He took the backward farming country in 1924. Upon his death USSR had H-Bomb, ahead of US. Sure, he was tough and despotic, but he worked for his country and his people 16 hours a day, corruption was unknown, people started to live better. Upon his death his personol wealth was $200.
Russians are not people of Law, they rate their leaders as either fair, or unfair. Only Stalin was Fair in their eyes, they want him back, but could not get.
I'm sure that there is no science without idealism. Science is wit, interest about the future, to improve, to progress. The material is only one object of interest. Science is a lot of ideas tested day after day
I completly agree to the answer(Andras Bozsik). Many people seems to see invisible God in heaven and not try to see their neighbours in this world. They are mind- blind. What a miracle? ????I will be grateful if sombody can explain to me. Many thankes in advance. Martha Hyo-Ja Suh
I think most scientists have high ideals. It is though the nature of science that it does not carry along ethics that remain in the hands of the practioner. Science resembles politics in the sense that focus is referred away from the self held invisible for objectivity, thus refers back to the self as the intercoursing agent....political conflict functions similarly...At real issue is whather the nature of nature parallels the nature of the individual...the assemblies of the world are each heterogeneous and distinct and are distinct from the nature of the composing universe. Science is materialistic in the sense that the exact interval of history that determines the emerged or evolved entity is deleted in lieu of the physical study of composing materials, studies the physical, the products of interaction of pure materials, and ignores the path that is the actual molding agent....is as discussed "encounter" oriented and focuses through a window to acrue tangible assets in a manner analogous to social or political or economic processes, but can grow to distort forest from trees, makes no account of the whole....is not exempt from the same nature of all human processes to construct with respect to direct field of view, maybe not with the same lines that serve the same as a political leader but of the same character...needs to be reflected in more depth philosophically to evolve a sound ethic for application.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science