Monday, June 27, 2016

Should a Search For Truth Ever Be Subordinate: What is the position of the scientists as a member of society?


Should a search for truth ever be subordinate?

By Albert Einstein



            We are living in a period of such great external and internal insecurity and with such a lack of firm objectives that the mere confession of our convictions may be of significance even if these convictions may be of significance even if these convictions, as all value judgments, cannot be proven through logical deductions.



            There arises at once the question: Should we consider the search for truth—or, more modestly expressed, our efforts to understand the knowable universe through the constructive  logical thought—as an autonomous objective of our work? Or should our search for truth be subordinated to some other objective, for example to a “practical” one? This question cannot be decided on a logical basis.

            The decision, however, will have considerable influence upon our thinking and moral judgment, provided that it si born out of deep and unshakable conviction. Let me then make a confession: For myself, the struggle to gain more insight and understanding is one of those independent objectives without which a thinking individual would find it impossible to have a conscious, positive attitude towards life.

            It is the very essence of our striving for understanding that on the one hand, it attempts to encompass the great and complex variety of man’s experience, and that on the other, it looks for simplicity and economy in the basic assumptions.  The belief that that these that these two objectives can exist side by side is, in view of the primitive state of our scientific knowledge, a matter of faith.  Without such faith I could not have a strong and unshakeable conviction about the independent value of knowledge.

            This, in a sense religious attitude of a man engaged in scientific work has some influence upon his whole personality.  For apart from the knowledge which is offered by accumulated experience and from the rules of logical thinking, there exists in principle for the man of science no authority whose decisions and statements could have in themselves claim  to “Truth.”  This leads to the paradoxical situation that a person who devotes all his strength to objective matters will develop, from a social point of view, into an extreme individualist who, at least in principle, has faith in nothing but his own judgment.  It is quite possible to assert that intellectual individualism and the thirst for scientific knowledge emerged simultaneously in history and remained in separate ever since.

            Someone may suggest that the man of science as sketched in these sentences is no more than an abstraction which actually does not exist in this world, not unlike the homo oeconomicus of classical economics. However, it seems to me that science as we know it today could not have emerged and could not have remained alive if many individual, during many centuries, had not come very close to the ideal. 

            Of course, not everybody who has learned to use tools and methods which, directly or indirectly, appear to be “scientific” is to me a man of science.  I refer only to those individuals in whom the scientific mentality as truly alive.

            What, then, is the position of today’s man of science as a member of society?  He obviously is rather proud of the fact the work of scientists has helped to change the radically the economic life of men by almost completely eliminating the muscular work. He is distressed by the fact that results of his scientific work have created a threat to mankind since they have fallen into the hands of morally blind exponents of political power. He is conscious of the fact that technological methods, made possible by his work, have led to a concentration of economic and also of political power in the hands of small minorities which have come to dominate completely the lives of masses of people, who appear more and more amorphous.



            But even worse: The concentration of economic and political power in the ands of a few has not only made the man of science dependent economically, it also threatens his independence from within; the shredwed methods of intellectual and psychic influences which it brings to bear will prevent the development of independent personalities.

            Thus the man of science, as we can observe with our own eyes, suffers a truly tragic fate.  Striving in great sincerity for clarity and inner independence, he himself, through superhuman efforts, has fashioned the tools which are being used to make him a slave and to destroy him falso from within. He cannot escape being muzzled by those who have political power in their hands.  As a soldier he is forced to sacrifice his own life and to destroy the lives of others even when he is convinced of the absurdity of such sacrifices. He is fully aware of the fact that universal destruction is unavoidable since historical development has led to the concentration of all economic, political, and military power in the hands of national states.  He also realizes that mankind can only be saved if a supernatural system, based on law, would be created to eliminate for all time the methods of brute force.  However the man of science has slipped so much that he accepts the slavery inflicted upon him by the national states as his inevitable fate.

            Is there really no escape for the man of science?  Must he really tolerate and suffer all these indignities?

            Is the time gone forever when, aroused by his inner freedom and the independence of his thinking and his work, he had a chance of enlightening and enriching the lives of his fellow human beings? In placing his work too much on an intellectual basis, has he not forgotten about his responsibility to dignity? My answer is: while it is true that an inherently free and scrupulous person may be destroyed, such an individual can never be enslaved or used as a blind tool.



            If the man of science of our day could find the time and the courage to honestly and critically over his situation and the tasks before him and if he would act accordingly, the possibilities for  a sensible and satisfactory solution of the present dangerous international situation would be considerably improved

           

No comments:

Post a Comment