I’ve just finished reading noted anthropologist Richard Leakey’s lucid book on human evolution, ‘The Origin of Humankind’. In school, dreary teaching often made me feel as though science was fundamentally un-understandable. Biology was better than chemistry, which in turn was better than physics, the biggest bogey of all; still, this fear of science was almost as big a reason for my turning to an arts education, as my own interest in literature. Older (and hopefully wiser), in the last few years, I’ve realized the wonderful perspective science offers - the hugely expanded view of the world that it gives us.
Some people complain that science, and the knowledge it brings, destroys the mystery of things. Reading books like the Origin of Humankind, makes me feel, that there are more mysteries than ever, that science brings along with it. The book details the origin of humankind from the emerging of bipedalism - to the development of tool use and hunting - and finally to some of the features that define homo sapiens, such as existence of consciousness and a sense of self, the development of morality, aesthetic sense and technological progress beyond the ability of other species.
What is interesting is that, we laypeople, often tend to think of scientific discoveries as a linear, accumulative process - essentially, X discovers A1, after some time, Y discovers A1 plus…and so on. But, the scientific world doesn’t seem to quite work like that (or not all the time). X postulates a hypothesis for a particular problem, but Y and Z seem to have equally coherent reasons for quite a different hypothesis. In the world of anthropology, this is compounded by the extremely small quantity of fossil evidence available, and much potential for varying interpretation, since few fossils are ever intact. Take a look at Lucy, one of the most famous, and complete fossil skeletons ever found. She doesn’t really look complete, does she? But finding such an assembly of bones is the anthropologist’s equivalent of buying two lottery tickets that cash in at the same time!
So, the mysteries are not coming to an end any time soon. If the beginnings of bipedalism are more or less settled to everyone’s satisfaction, the reasons are not. And so on - for every problem reasonably solved, ten others spring up.
One fascinating thing about Richard Leakey’s book is that he throws light on how the scientific process, objective as it may be, is not immune to emotional and cultural bias. He talks for instance, about how the idea of Africa as the cradle of humankind was resisted for the longest time, due to racial bias. In more recent times, he points to how the intense desire to see humans as completely distinct and special, makes many scientists contemptuous of any research into animal minds.
The book is 10 years old now - in a field like anthropology, where more fossil discoveries as well as evidence from molecular biology is constantly changing things, naturally, some of the book’s facts may not hold up now. But that is not the point; what is important is that the book provides a view into the origins of humankind, a view that lay readers can understand. The interested reader can always get updated on more recent work.
If only school syllabuses made science seem so human and approachable! Reading wonderful science books like this, makes me realise that science is not something ‘out there’ but makes the here and now more understandable.
- Related Posts You May Like
- Never Let Me Go
- Anatomy of an abduction/V.Sudarshan
- The Invisible River
Posted on August 13th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Book Reviews, The Literary life
Apu,
Do read the structure of scientific revolutions by thomas kuhn
Thanks. I checked it up on wikipedia, and it does sound very interesting - a book on the science of doing science!
Apu:
Science is primarily about curiosity - about our world and life. Naturally it enables people to ask questions and admits that many questions are yet unanswered. What is more important is the consciousness that we do not yet know all the questions that need to be asked.
The philosophy of science, where Kuhn’s book (above) is often cited as required reading, is a vast subject. Values - cultural, moral - guide agenda in science but most scientists are conscious that they should not guide the process of doing science. The exception to this is eugenics of course, which was prior to 2nd WW a well-funded area of research with proponents such as Aldous Huxley, but after that, dropped out of favour like a rotten apple. It is hard to quantify how much damage might have been caused to, say public health research, by plague-like avoidance of race related issues.
Shefaly - a number of useful points made! In many cases, the questions to be asked are not all clear, in which case, the answers are still far away! But - here, I have a grouse with people who smugly justify irrationality by saying, “science can never answer everything” - we may not have all the answers yet, but that is no reason to be complacent and stop questioning.
Reg race - the avoidance shows that the agendas of science naturally function within the context of society at that particular time…
Apu
‘Recognising limits of rationality’ is not the same as saying ‘irrationality is valid’. The former is a highly evolved capability, and very rare because underpinning it are rationality and multifaceted analysis. To relate the latter to limits of science is a style of argumentation which relies on an either-or framing of the world, which science patently is not about. Continuing to recognise limits of rationality and to ask questions requires hyper-rationality, which, it is safe to assume, doesn’t co-exist with a view that justifies irrationality.
Shefaly - phew! Yes - in many cases, including the pursuit of science - it would be important to recognise that not everything may be guided by rational behaviour. (I don’t know if I’m wrong, but I thought this is one example of recognising the limits of rationaility) - recognising the presence of irrationality is a starting point to combating it - or at least minimizing its influence, isn’t it? As you say, this is not the same as validating irrationality… useful distinction.