|
Origin of Man, science and speculation Sir This refers to Dr N. Subramanium's letter on the subject of the origins of man (D.E. 29-8-00). How gratifying that the learned doctor in Paris actually takes the trouble to consult encyclopedias to confirm fact, which though, could have been found in any decent text or review on the subject. There, however, seems to be a needless confusion between science and politics, objectivism and subjective hunches, scientific facts and socio-political agendas. It, for instance, is not clear what bearing our knowledge of lac Z gene has on the fossil finds in Africa. Or, the controversies on the interpretation of mitochondrial DNA. Nobody can say that science today has reached a stage of finality in evolution, or anything else. Indeed, scientific knowledge is still limited in many aspects. But, it is unbecoming of a scientific bent to turn despondent over these limitations of the present day knowledge. Mendel knew nothing of the genes when he discovered the laws of genetics that we teach today. When Sturvant and his colleagues played with Drosophila mutants they knew nothing about genetic material, not even whether it was DNA or protein. Nor did Griffin know that, when he discovered the transfer of genetic material and conjugation of genes in Staphylococcus. That question was resolved thirteen years later by Avery and his co-workers. After another ten years came Watson and Crick model of DNA. Only a full century after Gregor John Mendel did we get any clear idea of a gene. So ? Yes, revision, even overturning of well known hypotheses, is necessary when facts and finds demand it. In fact, we in India are about to revise the myth of Aryan invasion foisted on Indian history by the British colonialism. But that revision did not come from Tilak's speculations. It comes from the hard evidence excavated all over the country. From the breadth and extent of Indus civilization; from the pottery at Hissar, from deciphering the Indus Valley seals; from the recent find of caches of ornaments in the fields in Muzaffarpur. No revisionism that. It is being objective and scientific with history. One has to be more circumspect, more objective, and much less speculative, when dealing with the facts of science. One is always free to revise the facts of science on the basis of hard evidence, or just more plausible, sounder proofs. But not on subjective hunches. The dilemma of subjectivity and objective assessment is an ancient problem in knowledge. In fact, it was this indecision that effectively blocked progress in human knowledge for 2000 years after Aristotle. Indian thought, Indian philosophy as well call it, is a glorious example of it. The Vedas, the Upanishads, the sad darshanas, all dealt with knowledge (epistemology) on a subjective plane. A study of just post-Shankara Vedanta reveals a ‘school’ in almost each of his disciples. And, in every one of their disciples and followers, in turn. Even on as ‘clear’ a concept as avidya we have a dozen interpretations from Shankaracharya's followers themselves. That is the glory of subjectivism. Rejecting hard facts, it sits on the amorphous mound of subjectivity; and experience, each thought yield a new revelation. These revelations may all be correct. In fact, they may be the only valid insights. Or, not. That little ‘or’ brings in ‘belief’, your personal proclivity, preference or... prejudice, if you like. Vivekananda validates all the ‘philosophical’ insights from daulism through vashihst-duatvada to aduvatavada (non-dualism). Everything is right (and by analogy ‘everything is alwo wrong’ there, though you won't speak of that !) because in the realm of speculations nothing can be disproved. Buddha's silence, Charvaka rejection, Vedic assertion... all live for ever after - happily or unhappily. Pilate's question posed by Bacon -- what is truth -- goes unanswered, inspite of a thousand (or, is it a million?) answers. Of course, the evidence upon which the history of human evolution (and also that of many other species) rest is scanty in many respects. The species Australopithecus ramidus is based on the find of a part of skull (upper jaw with nose-bridge). Recently another report on the same origin of man posits that the ancestors of both apes and men were a kind of arboreal langur of Malayan forests. The evidence for this there is. But here one is talking of millions of years ago when man was more or less a beast uncoached in preservation and posterity. He preserved nothing and whatever you get are artifacts, bits and pieces left by the ravages of time and circumstances. Until and unless bigger bones are discovered, unless this evidence contradicts the other more provable, more believed evidence -- scientific evidence based on sound objectivity -- the human origin and evolution shall have to be interpreted and taught as is revealed in these bits of bone. There have been revisions and re-assessments recently. Controversies too, leading to redefinement of these. But, nothing that has come to light alters the broad picture about the evolution of man as detailed in the letter. Nor has the learned doctor disagreed with the details given there. It is a voice of heart (who knows, it may be the correct one!) that needs hard objective proof. For that is the way of science Science was able to tear apart the shrouds of subjectivism because it would believe anounce of objective data and reject a ton of speculation. Science also takes whatever (rather, what little -- verifiable, sound, objective) reality it can, and builds on it. Thus though we do not fully understand the working of ‘as simple a thing as lac Z gene’ we have used that lac Z gene for a verity of purposes from gene analysis to gene cloning. Almost all the vectors used in biotechnology research and applications, including the sophisticated expression vectors, use the lac Z gene. This scanty knowledge about the lac Z gene has culminated in the recent sequencing of human Genome. In fact a wealth of information about lac Z gene is available (and is applied too). But, full knowledge? No, sir. Why, our knowledge of even fruit fly of Escherichia coli genes is scanty. Yet, we are into gene therapy of the disease of as complex a thing as a human being. It may be ‘beyond the powers’ of present day science to be definitive about the origins of man, but it is well within the scope, scheme and philosophy of science to present as correct an answer to this question, as possible. That possibility comes from a rigorous adherence to facts, how so scanty, how so partially understood. That rigorous adherence alone can cure the raging racialism around us. It is there in Asia, America... and Dr Subramanium's Europe too. He may not have ‘any such problem’ yet he would do better to understand the problems his brethren in Germany are facing. Or, simply study how Indians were lampooned when the German Government proposed to invite Indian soft ware experts. Racialism is all around us. It is in Indians, Americans, Chinese and Japanese, Europeans and Afrians, too. Yours etc..... |
