Has scientific temper been a thing of the past? Or, is it still in existence?
A scientist who rejects the views of other scientists just arrogantly does not have scientific temper. Am I right?
Dear Hemanta
Without the scientific temper its difficult to emerge a good researcher .It is essential to search for information about a particular subject
Personality is the set of psychological characteristics that determine the patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, that is, the personal and social individuality of someone. Personality formation is gradual, complex and unique to each individual. The term is used in common parlance to mean "all the salient features of a person"
The word temperament has its origin from the Latin (temperamentum = measure). Is the uniqueness and intensity of individual psychic affections and the dominant structure of mood and motivation )
Specific temperament means a careful training of the mind to observe the doings "as is" over and over again before criair any theory about them.
In my opinion there is no longer actually something that can be called temperament scientist, and what, for example, at the beginning of modern science gave excellent effects, as today are indicated as a model, fierce scientific debates, and polemics between the VIPs of the world of science.
Of course, we can look for the causes of death of these practices fierce scientific dispute in a public forum. I think one of the reasons is significant reevaluation of views on the issue of "doing science". Figuratively speaking, for the former scientists (those from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century), science was they whole life. Today, more often science is one of the possible career paths, in other words - this is the profession as good, as very many others way to make money.
Continuing this thought - science became commonplace, and gladiators giving her expression and color of a hundred years ago, died a long ago.
@Hemanta, it is a bit hard to give an answer after @nelson! Yes, no temper, no good researcher, or, in other words, TEMPER is essential characteristics of a good scientist!
@Nelson, thanks for the explanation of temper origin!
Dear Hemanta,
Scientific temper as emphasised by Jawaharlal Nehru, is always required in any advanced period of human development stage. You know that in our own country in the name of modernisation we are westernise our people. Modernisation means selection of institution, practices, behaviour etc. which fits best in given culture of a society and may bring in best of benefits to all. But, to say good bye to every tradition, social, cultural and economic institution, practice and tradition without judging them on merit (without applying scientific judgement) may turn out disastrous. To me scientific temper means application of scientific evaluation of something in a given socioeconomic and cultural milieu objectively to accept one thing or reject it. It is, in fact, equivalent in life to critical thinking that does not involve imitation. One thousand person adopting an innovation may be wrong, while one person applying his/her experience and knowledge may be right. And this attitude at individual level, community level, national and international level is always required as it leads to right path. Its value can never be undermine whatever level of scientific development and advancement of a society.
Sure, temper helps to be productive in ones prime age, but may fail in solving hardest problems. That is happened to me personally. I had couple of problems I failed to solve during 40 - 45 years. But after retirement, with temper left behind, solutions came to me on their own, as visions, vithout any mental stress. So, the patience is as inportant as the temper, may be even more so.
Interesting question. I see different interpretations of the word temper in the answers. A scientific temperament (from which "scientific temper" was coined) describes the make-up of a person who views everything with a scientific frame of mind. For those of you have read the Arthur Conan Doyle "Sherlock Holmes" stories, you will realize that Sherlock Holmes lived life with an investigative, analytic, factual and deductive mind. He had a scientific temper. So his approach, lifestyle etc. was based and rotated around a permanent scientific view of everything.
Therefore as Andrzej remarks, it is difficult to find scientists today who are walking, breathing, eating and living science. Most scientist have a modicum of scientific temper, some have none at all as they landed in science but could equally well have landed in accounting. There are however some who still have a scientific temper, and I am sure many are to be found on RG. Today, to a large extent, science as a career has turned into an 'occupation', and the hard core scientist, is difficult to find. But they are around. It probably is not necessary to be extremely "hard core" to be a reasonable scientist, but I think those who have scientific temper, and continuously question, evaluate and search for knowledge in a critical analytical way, end up achieving more. So, my conclusion would be that a person with scientific temper, would be a better scientist than someone who chose science as a career because the accounting bursaries were taken up.
A scientist who rejects the views of other scientists just arrogantly does not have scientific temper. Am I right?
The reason for the rejection has to be analysed. If this reason is the commercial aspect, vote the rejection down. If the rejection derives from scientific arguments, listen, try to understand, vote it up, discuss. Here was "temper".
@Hanno,
Yes, they are to be reflected on, if reasons are given by addressing the respondent pointing out where he/she has gone wrong.
Dear All,
Everybody seems to be emphasizing on the TEMPER part, leaving out the more important and defining "SCIENTIFIC"part of it.
When can we call a particular attitude or temper or outlook scientific ? Once this is spelt out it will be easier to say whether scientific temper is dead or is alive and kicking .
Many of the answers I found quite interesting but almost everyone took the term "scientific" to be well-defined and obvious.
Is it really so, even for us, practicing scientists ?
To be scientific, means to view something scientifically. All right. But is it not circular ?
So, If by science, we mean an empirico-rational approach to everything, then both empiricism and rationalism have to be scrutinized if they have any limitations.
It turns out that they both do have limitations.
Thus our blind faith in science and in being scientific cannot help us much. If we look back at the few centuries of science we find that what was once considered not-scientific or fictional or pseudo-science came to be regarded as science later on.
So to have a scientific temper means to have an open mind regarding anything and everything including so-called "established science". The absoluteness of space and time could be questioned in RELATIVITY, the classical positions and trajectories of particles have been questioned in QUANTUM THEORY, the very objectivity of science has been put under the scanner by none other than Wheeler (participatory universe), causality and locality have been shown to be violated in QM, Many parallel universes have been proposed and what not.
So, to be scientific means not to have the attitude to believe in anything including established science. Then only science can REALLY proceed, i.e. by questioning established science, and it has consistently done so !
Regards,
Rajat
... and even QM has already some serious rivals, either within-the-box (e.g., Arkani-Hamed), or out-of-the-box (e.g. Krasnoholovets)...
And that's what you are forgetting:
There is scientific research and development WITHIN the established boundaries, because a new theory NEVER comes full-fledged and fully understood from the very beginning, on the contrary: it has to be worked out in a lengthy and stony process of validation and verification. Only after "enough" evidence has been gathered and "enough" scientists have been converted to a new theory, it becomes "established", and eventually the "standard". Many scientists work their entire life within the context of such a standard view within their discipline. Wouldn't you call them scientists?
There is, however, also scientific research and development OUTSIDE the established boundaries, because some people (I mean scientists of the type above) have come to recognize that something is seriously at odds with the so-called traditional, established or standard view or theory: predictions which are non-sensical, predictions which are falsified by experiment, phenomena which are - in spite of hard work - still not explained by it, etc p.p. These people dare to question the general validity of the view or theory, even though the latter has brought some interesting insights and has enabled interesting applications. Do only they deserve the honorary title of "scientist"?
P.S.: Of course this distinction is not mine, some of you may know the works of Thomas Kuhn about paradigmatic versus non-paradigmatic science. Even if his theory is not much discussed lately, I guess most scientists will agree with it, in principle, and may disagree about some minor details
The thread on 'scientific temperament' has become very interesting. Thanks to Rajat Pradhan and Paul Vossen for their deep introspection on the subject.
If by 'doing science' we are talking about a structural mode of practices, 'scientific temperament' should principally be related to search prone minds trying desperately to accommodate some kind of structural correlation to explain events which are apparently amorphous, diffusive in behaviour. An alert 'scientific mind' is everready for accepting the falsification of the earlier explanation and accordingly appreciate 'progress'. However, things become difficult when people denounce science in structural mode of thinking and attach more importance on the supremity of 'deconstruction'. Eversince the proliferation of post modernists in renowned academic campus lives, population of structuralists has started dwindling very fast. If Mr. Hemanta Baruah is trying to hint at this trend, then his suspicion has definitely got a material basis. However, if we do a little research on the patronisers, then the inside story becomes very obvious. A highly structured, almost monolithic body ( the catchword is 'imperialism' and its fund-bank aid agencies) is encouraging the deconstructionists very systematically eversince the fall of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Thus, we are living in a transition period where struggle is going on between the structuralists and post-modernists. There is no point to speculate who wins the game. The central question is whether the scientists are ready to perform the tasks of activists as well-the way Albert Einstein did !
Temper: to have or not to have... that is the question! Scientists are like writers, novelists, poets. We are always questioning ourselves of course, the others. It is still a form of art. For good or for evil!
dear all
in 2014 i see a lack of scientific temper - even in day to day affair people refused to ask questions- For a researcher it is a must - today it is missing
Researchers do not want criticisms as they think they are super human -
A criticism whether healthy or not is to be digested -- what is winning is not you or me it is Science at the end - one should accept the remarks --
Science, as I see it, is a loosely coupled emerging (!) system (or network, if you prefer that term) of disciplines of quite distinct flavors and smells: origins, goals, methods and other aspects may differ substantially, not just incidentally. It is loosely coupled, because there are neighbouring disciplines sharing a lot in theory and methodology, and others which have almost nothing in common, if at all. It is emerging, because new disciplines emerge steadily from coalescence of existing disciplines, bifurcation of existing disciplines or even from ... apparently nothing; conversely, existing displines may fade away and even stop existing altogether, except for in historical textbooks.
Why should that diversity make a halt for temper or temperament? My hypothesis is, that most scientists from whatever field of study are attracted foremost by the subject matter of a discipline, in conjunction with its methodology (required skills and competences). But other, secondary selection criteria of a more pragmatic, economic nature have arisen lately, as the "marketplace" for scientists is at the same time growing and filling up, so conflicts of interest and competition for the same scarce resources and intellectual recognition is steadily increasing.
What does that mean for scientific temper and temperament? Which role does it play? Is it like fuel driving a motor? Or is it just a by-product of scientific activity, acquired on the way, a kind of aroma signalling the presence of a scientific mind (even to outsiders)? Or is it the unique blending of genius and personality which has come to be associated with certain well-known scientists, who then became the "prototype" or "stereotype" of the scholar or scientist?
I don't know, but if we discuss this question in a halfway scientific manner, or - more to the point - with a scientific temper, we should allow for at least a taxonomy of temperaments and their distinctive roles in scientific enterprise. Or shall we say, that there is no place anymore for the typical scientific temper in a world in which "the scientific mind" has become a commodity on the research market driven by purely rational and economic motives?
Hi Everyone,
I thank Paul Vossen for reminding me of the interesting research work of Krasnoholovets.
Special thanks to Prof. Hemanta Barua for putting such wonderful questions which keep us actively searching in our brains and elsewhere also, for answers and sometimes for the much-needed cover !
Coming back to the question proper, probably everybody agrees that the good old days of an exhibition-able "scientific temper" is gone and we can no longer claim to be proud possessors of a covetable attitude called scientific temper. The attitude itself has become debatable and is no longer covetable.
Why such a turn -around of events ?
It is because of the fact that we are growing WISER day by day, with more closer and thoroughgoing scrutiny of the very enterprise called SCIENCE. But this turnaround of attitude in the scientists is yet to percolate down to the common people's minds i. e. the public perception, which is still being swayed by media propaganda and political hyperboles. It will take probably another fifty years or so for this to happen, may be even less than that given the information explosion.
At our present stage of scientific development, a complete analysis of the true depth of the scientific reasons behind natural phenomena can hardly go beyond the first few back-to-back whys. I have found that the number of back-to-back whys that science and scientific reasoning can successfully clear is less than equal to SIX !
(Ex: (Q-1) Why Apple falls ? --> Ans: Gravity . (Q-2) Why Gravity ? --> Ans: Curvature of space-time . --> (Q-3) Why curvature ? --> Ans: ??? TOE or may be any Quantum gravity theory that has Gravity as an effective theory !! ... and there we go --- it is less than six. )
You can try any phenomenon and tell me if you find any violations of this rule.
So, it shows the shallowness of scientific reasoning beyond a shadow of doubt and we should be very careful in formulating principles of life, justice, health and education etc. at the national and international levels keeping these very important findings in mind.
The bottom-line is that science cannot answer beyond a certain number of whys and the whys that are answered empirico-rationally by science automatically become explanations of the corresponding HOWS, begging another WHY in its sequel.
Thus scientific temper is untenable as an attitude to life or to any thing worth the name. But, it is helpful and it works well as a good and learned outlook up to a certain level of understanding and not beyond that.
Regards to one and all,
Rajat
My "twin" Nelson Elias has certainly hit the nail on the head in his remarks on scientific "temperament." But my dear friend Alexander refers to scientific "temper" as a kind of rejection of other attitudes that are not one´s own. I believe that we need to distinguish "temperament" from two meanings of "temper," one meaning attunement (as in the Well-Tempered Clavichord), the other signifying narrowness that throws up barriers to differences of opinion. When the adjective "scientific" is applied to "temper" and "temperament," then a specialized form of concentration of the attention is involved. "Scientific temperament" is a personal disposition to subordinate the attention to the reality being methodically investigated. "Scientific temper" is a concentration on that reality which does not admit of less rigorous attention, since the scientist "attunes" himself to the aspects of the object at hand being researched. He attempts to harmonize with that object, to "vibrate" in tune with it. This has nothing to do with "temper tantrums," which imply lack of control. No. Control is essential to "scientific temper," since without it science evaporates. Therefore scientific temper is still very much in existence and will last as long as science does.
Dear Nelson,
The fact remains that after all the attunement, harmonization and vibration in tune with the object of investigation and also having given a thoroughly focused concentration of attention, not allowing the rigorousness to wean even a whit, the end-result is a scientific theory or experimental result that is beset with difficulties and limitations stemming from the inherent limitations of empiricism and rationalism.
It is only because of this fact of the non-final and ever-changing nature of science that the scientific temper (whether with or without tantrums) becomes an unworthy possession.
Of course, one has all the freedom on earth to choose to have this temper, but one can also do well to go beyond and above it, and still continue to do science unhindered.
Probably one does better science when one has gone above the straitjacketing of accepted science paradigms. Otherwise, we only continue to fatten journals, adding nothing fundamentally new to the existing stock of scientific knowledge.
To question, to try to verify, not to accept without questioning and if found not to be in accord with established science, then reject --- all these attitudes constitute the scientific temper.
Sometimes however, in the name of being scientific, the so-called rationalists parade their ignorance in public and obdurately deny the existence of things or facets of Reality that do not, and have not, and probably, cannot come under the purview of science, as unscientific and hence not worthy of belief.
For example, Jesus and Buddha were not scientists and their sayings on ethical life and morality can never be judged scientifically. Their instructions and commandments are to be practiced first without much questioning and then only the fruits thereof can be realized.
There is much beyond petty empirico-rational science in the depths of man and of the universe that still remains un-researched and scientific temper, at the very least, has the negative impact of keeping us away from such wonderful systems of experiential knowledge.
But having said all this I must add that scientific temper does help up to a certain point and not beyond that.
For example, we can never decide on the basis of science, whether the killing of innocent people through dropping of bombs (made by scientists) is good or bad, or whether a rapist should get life-imprisonment or death.
Regards,
Rajat
Dear Rajat,
What exactly are the 'accepted' science paradigms that you have mentioned in your answer? If one must stay within such a paradigm, will one be able to think about anything outside it? In fact, will those who decide what is acceptable, and therefore what is not, allow one to think beyond their boundary of acceptance?
Dear Hemanta,
Thank you very much for the query.
The accepted paradigms vary from discipline to discipline. We may say that it includes all that is regarded as accepted/established in a particular discipline like physics or mathematics. And anyone who dares question their validity or tries to propose something that is not in consonance/conformity with them, then the "powers that be" will be up in arms against the proposer as well as the proposal. This was the fate of many including big names like Louis deBroglie whose matter-wave (hypo)thesis was rejected by the university authorities and only after Einstein's recommendations was it accepted and published, and The rest is history. One can cite many examples.
Similarly, Prof. A.K Mitra from (BARC) India wrote some paper on the non-existence of Black holes, but it was rejected by all the leading journals citing that the paper was mathematically alright but does not tally with current scientific opinion, and hence could not be published. It became a news item in India and elsewhere. The perfectly logical paper is available on the arXiv. These are just a few examples and one could cite many more of this kind of closed-mindedness.
In response to your second part, as researchers, we have to do our bit and let those acceptors/rejectors be happy with their own jobs. If we've sincerely searched for the truth, sooner or later it will gain acceptance, and we have to have an attitude of indifference to the future consequences of our researches. It is a difficult thing but there is no other way out at the present moment. Probably, avenues like RG and arXiv have already given enough signals of what is going to happen in future.
Regards
Rajat
Professor Mitra dared to challenge an accepted paradigm shift, and therefore his findings were rejected although the findings were mathematically sound. Yes, challenging a paradigm shift needs courage, but is not always considered acceptable.
@ Rajat Pradhan : "...Prof. A.K Mitra from (BARC) India wrote some paper on the non-existence of Black holes, but it was rejected by all the leading journals citing that the paper was mathematically alright but does not tally with current scientific opinion, and hence could not be published." !?!?
You aren't kidding? I can't believe it, but if you and my dear friend Baruah are saying so, I have to believe it. I really didn't know, that Thomas Kuhn's theory has such recent empirical confirmations. What kind of people are sitting in the editorial board of such journals? And what about other journals? Did Prof. Mitra eventually find another, more open, journal in which he could publish his scientific results for scrutiny, because it is not up to editors to judge about the scientific merits of his (Prof. Mitra's) findings?
Hemanta, I just wanted to say I have not gotten wiped off the planet earth (yet) and will be engaged in discussions after I finish my book project--way bigger challenge than I thought. Bets wishes to all! Angela
When discussing scientific temper/scientific habit of mind/"active passivity with respect to an open mind", a certain amount of awareness regarding the history of participation by interpretants is expected; given that the topic has been held in question by those who care for a very long time.
In the following video, Putnam equates temperament with sensibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNXUVImSyM
Given the many things we could talk about, Richard Bernstein ascribes recognition of an important distinction to Putnam:
“good philosophy…combines two different sorts of things: vision, some type of vision with a certain amount of argumentative finesse. And if you don’t have a sense of vision…it can turn into just pedantry. And…if you just have argumentative finesse and all that, it can become terribly boring. And the ought that makes the distinctive philosopher is the capacity to combine the two in an interesting kind of mix.”
Despite all this, a novice will have trouble understanding what all this is about without reference to a good case study or example. This is one reason why understanding temperament is such hard work. (cf. Lysaker comments on the hard labor of developing character).
i started my career in 1968 - even now I welcome suggestions/ criticisms as no man is perfect - if you want to grow welcome criticisms
I think that no scientific thought should be expected to be "the true thought" without a good intellectual challenge. I love it when people challenge my though and play devils advocate. But when discussions turn personal--like challenging one's qualifications, that is when the "temper" can flare for no reason. I also take that as a win if one has to challenge my authority rather than the theory. But a good constructive criticism is always enriching and is highly welcomed!
I found comparing the following definitions of truth helped anticipate important current discussion points affecting communication of science (eg., Stilgoe, Lock, Wilsdon, Why should we promote public engagement with science?: PUS 2014).
"Only everybody can know the truth"-Goethe
"The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth"-Peirce
Temper is all about ones ability to absorb or observe over and over again before making a move. This is what Nelson Meant and this is what it is. But as Prof Hemanta said at least in the surroundings where I am now, it is lost in past for most.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science