Over the past few decades, there has been an appreciable increase in efforts at science popularization by media persons, as well as professional scientists. This principally involves efforts in two directions: the first is to make scientific ideas accessible to a layperson, and the second is to develop a scientific attitude in her.
I assume that the reader understands what I mean by scientific attitude, so I will not bother with defining it. In the first aim, I think that science popularization has been eminently successful. The plethora of books and articles in newspapers and magazines, and the unprecedented impact of television, has made it possible today for one to talk about the Pathfinder mission to Mars, or the cloning of sheep, in almost any company, without committing a faux pas. In the second aim, I feel there has been only a limited amount of success. This article tries to identify some of the failures of the science popularization megamachinery, in developing a scientific attitude among laypersons, and the reasons behind them.
One of the most important steps in the development of a scientific attitude is perceived by many, as a relentless fight against SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEFS. Superstitious beliefs are easy to define within the scientific framework. Any idea or theory that cannot be tested using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, is superstition.
Many rationalist organizations have put in great amounts of time and effort, to fight superstition. In their zealous pursuit, they have run into opposition from religious and other groups, that take offense to the rationalists incapability in distinguishing belief, from superstition. Is there really any difference between the two? The answer depends on your point of view. In the scientific framework, there is no fundamental difference. In science, their is no belief that is absolute, except of course the implicit belief in the universal validity of the scientific method.
In my opinion, superstition baiters should take a more pragmatic approach to realising their goals. They must resist the temptation to fight every superstition, tooth and nail, as they do now. They must instead try to classify superstitions first. To my mind, a simple classification divides superstitions into four categories which are:
- Superstitions that cause harm to people.
- Superstitions that do no harm and but accrue no benefit either.
- Superstitions that benefit people.
- Superstitions that have roots in common sense, but may not be relevant in today's world, because of changed circumstances.
Let me illustrate each of the above categories with an example. In the first category, fall a lot of superstitions. The most extreme example is the belief that tantriks can cure people of snakebite. If the snake was non poisonous or did not get an opportunity to inject its full dose of venom, naturally the tantrik's cure works. Otherwise, it fails WITHOUT EXCEPTION. These are superstitions that need to be fought first. Curiously, this belief is not as easy to fight as it would first seem. The success rate for tantriks, for all snakebite cases brought to them, is about the same as (and possibly more than), the success rate of doctors with poisonous snakes. There are reasons for this: The tantrik assumes that all snakes are poisonous. He gains credit or discredit for all cases brought to him. Since non-poisonous snakebites generally outnumber the poisonous ones, the tantrik has a more than fair chance of being successful. The doctor, on the other hand, sends the patient home without any fuss, if he finds that the bite was by a non poisonous snake. His successes and failures get counted only for poisonous snake bites, where his success rate is not very high. About ten thousand people die of snakebite in India every year. Many of them can be saved, if they go to a doctor quickly, instead of going to a tantrik.
In the second category, fall many religious beliefs. I feel that such beliefs should not be aggressively shot down, as the result may be quite the opposite of what is desired. How does it matter if someone insists on sleeping in an East-West direction rather than the North-South direction, or shaves his head off when a parent dies? Resistance to superstitions in this category often leads to reactive claims and social strife. The increasingly widespread belief, that warriors of the Mahabharata age possessed nuclear weapons is one such reactive claim.
The third category might seem like a paradox to most rationalists. Let me clarify by an example. In many places in India, there are sacred groves (called devrais in Marathi)- virgin patches of tropical forest, where even the most powerful dare not pluck a leaf, for fear of retribution. The grove is supposed to belong to the guardian deity, and it sacrilege to even think of stealing from it. Today, many of these forests have been declared PROTECTED by the Forest Dept. But even today, protection primarily comes, not from Forest Dept personnel, but from the old beliefs. It might be possible to replace such superstition, with a rationale for conservation based on more scientific ideas. But would it work just as well?
The fourth category is also something that superstition baiters have not thought much about. In India, there is a widespread belief that it is inauspicious to travel on a amaavasyaa or New Moon day. Before the advent of electricity, such a belief would be plain common sense. It would be problematic to be stuck at night on a lonely road, with no moonlight to light up the way. It is a natural extension of this idea into a belief, that no religious or social ceremony should be performed on the New Moon day. People would not want their friends and relations to do any traveling on New Moon day, to attend such a ceremony. Another example: There is a taboo on eating certain pungent and spicy items during the rainy season (chaaturmaasa). Controling one's diet is an easy way of staving off disease during the unhealthy wet months of the Indian monsoon. Eating carefully, a simple common sense idea, was transformed by the passage of time into custom, tradition and religion.
There is one effect of this popularization of science, that its most selfless supporters do not desire, but nevertheless it does appear frequently. It is the deification of scientific ideas and by induction that of scientists. Scientists try to propagate the greatness of their beliefs, when all they should be propagating, is the greatness of their method. All they end up transmitting, is the greatness of their persona. Is this distortion of the message occurring due to the limitations of the scientist or her audience? I used to believe for a long time, that a great popularizer could overcome these barriers to communication successfully, and transmit the idea of the scientific method, to a layperson. I am not so sure now.