Science: Play or Profession?

Apart from the definition(s), it is to be understood that science, per se, is not the theme of this book. There are many books and articles devoted to the definition, delineation, and explanation of what science is, to discussing what its aims and activities should be, and even to philosophizing about what its limitations are. The relevance, however, of science to this book is that science, unlike subjects known as “liberal arts,” is very much associated with experimental research.

In terms of experiments, scientific research may be broadly classified into two categories with a slight overlap: (1) theoretical research and (2) experimental research. Some of the greatest works in physics, for example, quantum mechanics, are the out­come of theoretical research. The work of great theoretical scien­tists not only solve many scientific puzzles but also create new visions through which hitherto unknown relations between events can be predicted, leading to new experiments.

Several raw materials, heaped together or scattered here and there, do not make a house. It is the work of a builder to create a house out of these raw materials. In terms of science, theories are like finished houses, and experimental findings leading to some generalizations are more like house-building materials. Whereas the works of Michael Faraday are experimental, those of James Maxwell are theoretical. Some of the greatest figures in physics have been theoretical scientists: Ludwig Boltzman, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg. Scientist of that caliber, who also happen to be great experimental researchers, are rather few: Isaac Newton, Errico Fermi, Henry and Lawrence Bragg. But a large number of researchers, not only in physics but in other areas of science as well, are experimental researchers.

This is not to belittle the value of experiments. In fact, no the­ory is valid until it passes one or more crucial tests of experi­ments. In engineering and technology also, some works lay claim to being theoretical; however, considering their limited domains, albeit extensive applications, they are more in the nature of gen­eralizations based on empirical data.

As a side issue, is the work of Charles Darwin theoretical or experimental? It is true, Darwin spent time “in the field” collect­ing a lot of new “data” on his well-known expedition to the Galapagos Islands. But his work, embodied in writing, consisted of fitting together the many pieces of the puzzle to form a fin­ished picture, which came to be known as the Theory of Evolu­tion. Experimental? Maybe. Theoretical? Yes.

This far we have looked at science as an activity. Looking at the actors in this drama known as science is even more interest­ing. Leonardo da Vinci is acclaimed as a great scientist; yet, his fame rests on many unfinished works. His dependence on experi­ment and observation rather than preconceived ideas marks him as the precursor of the experimental researcher. Curiosity led him into many fields of inquiry: mechanics, anatomy, optics, astron­omy. Being primarily an artist, possibly he did not depend for his living on scientific activities.

Galileo Galilei’s interest in mechanics and astronomy, Johannes Kepler’s in planets, Gregor Mendel’s in mutation of plant seeds, Ivan Pavlov’s in conditioning dogs: all have something in com­mon, namely curiosity to observe the way these segments of nature operate. These men, quite likely, did not earn their livings by means of their scientific interests either. It is in this sense that Ervin Schrodinger, in his book Science, Theory and Man (1957), equates science with the arts, dance, play—even card games, board games, dominos, and riddles—asserting that these activities are the result of surplus energy, in the same way that a dog in play is eager to catch the ball thrown by his master. “Play, art and science are the spheres of human activity where action and aim are not as a rule determined by the aims imposed by the necessities of life.”

The activity of science has changed considerably since the times of Pavlov or Mendel, even since the times of Schrodinger. He writes, “What is operating here is a surplus force remaining at our disposal beyond the bare struggle for existence; art and sci­ence are thus luxuries like sport and play, a view more acceptable to the beliefs of former centuries than to the present age.” In the present age, the activity of science is no more a luxury; it has become a need, though more collectively than individually. An individual, even in a scientifically advanced country, may not be cognizant of the results of science in his or her daily life; nonethe­less, his way of life, even relative to bare necessities, is vastly dif­ferent from that of humans even 200 years ago. The difference, more than anything else, is attributable to the fruits borne by sci­ence. The percentage of people now involved in activities that can be considered scientific is very large compared to that of 200 years ago. Further, science, which was more or less the activity of isolated, private individuals, is now more the activity of an “orga­nization man.” An individual privately working out a theory or conducting an experiment or inventing a device is a rare excep­tion. Thomas Edison is said to have taken many patents before establishing the General Electric lab. But since his time, about a century ago, the so-called scientist now belongs to an organiza­tion. In this way, science is neither a luxury nor an activity of sur­plus energy. It is a full-time job, a professional career for many persons; it is no longer play.

Source: Srinagesh K (2005), The Principles of Experimental Research, Butterworth-Heinemann; 1st edition.