[Based on a lecture delivered by K.S. Krishnan, broadcast over All India Radio on 15th, 16th and 17th December, 1956].
Lecture-I.
I DEEPLY APPRECIATE the honour of being invited to give this year's Sardar Patel Memorial Lectures. I wish to thank sincerely the organisers for giving me this opportunity to pay my tribute to the memory of one of the greatest statesman that modern India has produced. The title of these lectures is "The New Era of Science" in which, naturally, we are all interested, whether our direct interests lie in science or elsewhere. The recent outburst of cultural activities - the numerous seminars, conferences and exhibitions - organised in Delhi and elsewhere in connection with the Buddha Jayanti celebrations has tended to highlight one major trait that characterises all living ancient civilisations like ours, namely, the remarkable resilience that they have shown all through the ages, and the capacity for absorbing and assimilating newer and widely different currents of thought. Otherwise these civilisations would not have survived so long. We were of course aware of this trait previously, but the recent seminars have brought it to light rather prominently. Sanskrit scholars have a felicitous way of expressing this resilience. The word puranah means literally 'the ancient ones' but the scholars, taking advantage of the elasticity so peculiar to the language, have taken the word to mean purapi navah, that is 'more fresh than ever before', which again serves to emphasise the peculiar genius of our civilisation to assimilate and integrate many different cultural currents; realising 'unity in diversity' has luckily been one of our major virtues.
The virtue, which is so eminently characteristic of our cultural life, has unfortunately not been so apparent in our political life. Indeed at many stages in our long political history, this virtue has been conspicuously absent. Even in the golden age of Asoka, to which we all refer with a certain pride, the integration of the country was predominantly cultural rather than political. Real integration, extending not only over the cultural but also over other fields, is of a more recent date. At any rate its study growth is recent and it had to await the nurturing care with which Mahatmaji and his distinguished colleagues cherished them. It is, therefore, not without significance that we fondly refer to him as the Father of the Nation. The accomplishment of this task of integration oof the country on the political side was in a large measure that of Sardar Patel, whose anniversary we are commemorating today.
There is close analogy between the virtues involved in cultural integration and those needed for the cultivation and advancement of the pure sciences, and similarly between those involved in political integration and in technology. In this context, it may be significant that in India we took to the pure sciences much more readily than to the applied sciences. With our great cultural and academic traditions and the new political awakening, one may confidently look forward to a bright scientific and technological future for the country.
Now the main purpose of science is to understand Nature in all her varied aspects, and learn to control Nature and to use this mastery over Nature for the good of mankind. I am aware that even the mere mention of 'control over Nature' brings immediately to one's mind its misuses too, some of them frightfully inhuman. Indeed when I was thinking of a suitable title for these lectures I thought of "The Atomic Age", but for the reason just mentioned I fought shy of using it. I know also that many people who are not quiet sympathetic to science have asked the question: "Why then apply science at all if its results are liable to be so grossly misused"? They would quote very eminent authorities too. The well-known toast for science is: "Here is to science. May it be of no use to anybody at any time". The great mathematician Gauss, who would rank with Archimedes and Newton as one of the greatest mathematicians may be regarded as the Queen of the Sciences, then the theory of numbers should be regarded as the Queen of Mathematics - and he proceeded to give the reason - "because it is the least useful". But the reply to these critics would be this: The ideal of knowledge for its own sake is a very ancient one, at least as old as Plato. It is also a laudable one, and has proved to be of immense value. This Platonic ideal has and has proved to be of immense value. This Platonic ideal has inspired creative thought over all the intervening centuries in many centres of learning. It expresses the natural yearning of the creative artist to be left alone without being bothered by interference from those he would regard as the Philistines.
I may be permitted a digression here. As some of you know, what are now called non-Euclidean geometries were developed about the middle of the last century by two or three independent groups of mathematicians. It is a typical example of a problem which had resisted the attack of very able mathematicians for more than two thousand years, and for which, very strangely the solution was found almost simultaneously by two or three independent groups of workers. Gauss certainly had the solution, probably earlier earlier, but questioned why he had not published the solution he made the characteristic reply that he feared the outcry from the Boeticians. In the context, Gauss was obviously thinking of the Boetians among the mathematicians themselves, and not of the uninitiated multitude.
I permitted myself this digression just to emphasise that when Gauss claimed for the theory of numbers the unique virtue of "being the least useful" he was merely voicing forcibly the traditional distinction between the arts and the crafts, between knowledge for its own sake, i.e., knowledge that is not usable and which for that reason was regarded as high-brow knowledge, and knowledge which is applicable. It was a distinction nearly as marked as the distinction between Gentlemen and Players at Lord's. Intellectual aristocracy is not peculiar to any one country or climate. I would remind ourselves at this stage, lest we feel very superior, of a proverb which is probably Sancho Panzia's - that wisdom may not be all ancient nor is all folly outdated. There is hardly any branch of mathematics nearly twenty-five years ago, the question was pointedly raised, probably in the context of Guass's claim for the theory of numbers that it is the least usable, whether for example the theorem of partition of numbers found any practical application. Presumably the questioner regarded it as the least likely of application among the results in number theory itself. The answer was, surprisingly, affirmative, and came from one of the scientists in the Bell Telephone Laboratories who had been applying it effectively for his work on the splicing of cables. There are two research papers on this subject in the Bell System Technical Journal to which I may refer the reader if he is interested.
I mentioned just now that there is hardly any branch of abstruse mathematics which is not ultimately applicable. In the same manner almost any result in science which is applicable for the good of mankind can probably be equally effectively misused. "Belligerency", as David Sarnoff remarked, "is an attitude of mind and not a property of matter and therefore does not concern science as such". The cure of misuses of science is to stop the misuses, and not to stop all the uses of science. It would be like throwing out the baby along with the bathwater. Blackmailing, for example, might be a form of telling the truth but we do not for this reason think the less of the virtue of truthfulness.
I may add incidentally that the corresponding Sanskrit word 'satyam', so dear to Mahatmaji, has always been regarded as excluding misuses. "Satyam Yatha Drishtartham Hitaroopa Vachanam" is an old definition of the word, i.e., "The content should conform to the best of one's personal knowledge, and its expression such as would conduce to the good of humanity". It is unfortunate that one has to use the same respectable word 'science' even when it is grossly misused. It reminds me of a well-known Tamil classic in which the author deplores that the cultured and the vandals have the same external animal appearance.
Most of the sentiments expressed by the ancients about the control of the senses and of the temptations are applicable to the proper uses and the misuses of science. The ancient teachers insisted on strict disciplining and proving of character of the disciples before they ventured to impart any knowledge, particularly knowledge of profound import: though it might imply monopoly of available knowledge, and might as such be of value even today - probably I should say particularly I should say particularly today.
Rajaji, my very distinguished predecessor on this platform - you may remember he initiated the Sardar Patel Memorial Lectures last year - has a modern rendering of this safeguard. It was not in his Patel Lectures, but elsewhere when he was in one of his characteristic Jules Vernian moods. What we need for the purpose is a gadget for monitoring the operations of the human mind and the moment it recognises the image of an evil thought fleeting across the field of view, the monitor will operate a relay that will automatically freeze all further thinking and immunise the brain.
"To ask well is to know much" is an old proverb. All our great epics start with something asking such a question. 'Prapacha' is a hoary word. The demand made of our gadget is one such. It implies that it is in the minds of men one should seek a solution. It is not a problem in the physical sciences, but one concerning the human mind. After attending some of the sessions of UNESCO, one almost hears the words of the first paragraph of the Declaration, namely, "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
I said that the major objective of science is to understand Nature. It immediately implies a certain faith, which, however, has since been wholly justified by our wide experience, that underlying the working of Nature and the operation of all natural phenomena there is a certain inherent order, and conformity to certain invariable and fundamental physical laws. Nature, as Einstein remarked, may be profound, but she never cheats, that is, she plays the game strictly according to the rules. The rules of course are of her making but she never changes the rules to suit the vicissitudes of the game. There are no exceptions to these rules. The main purpose of science is to discover these fundamental laws of Nature, to unveil the ultimate pattern to which natural phenomena, and all the events in Nature, conform. In this sense, the function of science is more one of unveiling than one of creating.
The virtue, which is so eminently characteristic of our cultural life, has unfortunately not been so apparent in our political life. Indeed at many stages in our long political history, this virtue has been conspicuously absent. Even in the golden age of Asoka, to which we all refer with a certain pride, the integration of the country was predominantly cultural rather than political. Real integration, extending not only over the cultural but also over other fields, is of a more recent date. At any rate its study growth is recent and it had to await the nurturing care with which Mahatmaji and his distinguished colleagues cherished them. It is, therefore, not without significance that we fondly refer to him as the Father of the Nation. The accomplishment of this task of integration oof the country on the political side was in a large measure that of Sardar Patel, whose anniversary we are commemorating today.
There is close analogy between the virtues involved in cultural integration and those needed for the cultivation and advancement of the pure sciences, and similarly between those involved in political integration and in technology. In this context, it may be significant that in India we took to the pure sciences much more readily than to the applied sciences. With our great cultural and academic traditions and the new political awakening, one may confidently look forward to a bright scientific and technological future for the country.
Now the main purpose of science is to understand Nature in all her varied aspects, and learn to control Nature and to use this mastery over Nature for the good of mankind. I am aware that even the mere mention of 'control over Nature' brings immediately to one's mind its misuses too, some of them frightfully inhuman. Indeed when I was thinking of a suitable title for these lectures I thought of "The Atomic Age", but for the reason just mentioned I fought shy of using it. I know also that many people who are not quiet sympathetic to science have asked the question: "Why then apply science at all if its results are liable to be so grossly misused"? They would quote very eminent authorities too. The well-known toast for science is: "Here is to science. May it be of no use to anybody at any time". The great mathematician Gauss, who would rank with Archimedes and Newton as one of the greatest mathematicians may be regarded as the Queen of the Sciences, then the theory of numbers should be regarded as the Queen of Mathematics - and he proceeded to give the reason - "because it is the least useful". But the reply to these critics would be this: The ideal of knowledge for its own sake is a very ancient one, at least as old as Plato. It is also a laudable one, and has proved to be of immense value. This Platonic ideal has and has proved to be of immense value. This Platonic ideal has inspired creative thought over all the intervening centuries in many centres of learning. It expresses the natural yearning of the creative artist to be left alone without being bothered by interference from those he would regard as the Philistines.
I may be permitted a digression here. As some of you know, what are now called non-Euclidean geometries were developed about the middle of the last century by two or three independent groups of mathematicians. It is a typical example of a problem which had resisted the attack of very able mathematicians for more than two thousand years, and for which, very strangely the solution was found almost simultaneously by two or three independent groups of workers. Gauss certainly had the solution, probably earlier earlier, but questioned why he had not published the solution he made the characteristic reply that he feared the outcry from the Boeticians. In the context, Gauss was obviously thinking of the Boetians among the mathematicians themselves, and not of the uninitiated multitude.
I permitted myself this digression just to emphasise that when Gauss claimed for the theory of numbers the unique virtue of "being the least useful" he was merely voicing forcibly the traditional distinction between the arts and the crafts, between knowledge for its own sake, i.e., knowledge that is not usable and which for that reason was regarded as high-brow knowledge, and knowledge which is applicable. It was a distinction nearly as marked as the distinction between Gentlemen and Players at Lord's. Intellectual aristocracy is not peculiar to any one country or climate. I would remind ourselves at this stage, lest we feel very superior, of a proverb which is probably Sancho Panzia's - that wisdom may not be all ancient nor is all folly outdated. There is hardly any branch of mathematics nearly twenty-five years ago, the question was pointedly raised, probably in the context of Guass's claim for the theory of numbers that it is the least usable, whether for example the theorem of partition of numbers found any practical application. Presumably the questioner regarded it as the least likely of application among the results in number theory itself. The answer was, surprisingly, affirmative, and came from one of the scientists in the Bell Telephone Laboratories who had been applying it effectively for his work on the splicing of cables. There are two research papers on this subject in the Bell System Technical Journal to which I may refer the reader if he is interested.
I mentioned just now that there is hardly any branch of abstruse mathematics which is not ultimately applicable. In the same manner almost any result in science which is applicable for the good of mankind can probably be equally effectively misused. "Belligerency", as David Sarnoff remarked, "is an attitude of mind and not a property of matter and therefore does not concern science as such". The cure of misuses of science is to stop the misuses, and not to stop all the uses of science. It would be like throwing out the baby along with the bathwater. Blackmailing, for example, might be a form of telling the truth but we do not for this reason think the less of the virtue of truthfulness.
I may add incidentally that the corresponding Sanskrit word 'satyam', so dear to Mahatmaji, has always been regarded as excluding misuses. "Satyam Yatha Drishtartham Hitaroopa Vachanam" is an old definition of the word, i.e., "The content should conform to the best of one's personal knowledge, and its expression such as would conduce to the good of humanity". It is unfortunate that one has to use the same respectable word 'science' even when it is grossly misused. It reminds me of a well-known Tamil classic in which the author deplores that the cultured and the vandals have the same external animal appearance.
Most of the sentiments expressed by the ancients about the control of the senses and of the temptations are applicable to the proper uses and the misuses of science. The ancient teachers insisted on strict disciplining and proving of character of the disciples before they ventured to impart any knowledge, particularly knowledge of profound import: though it might imply monopoly of available knowledge, and might as such be of value even today - probably I should say particularly I should say particularly today.
Rajaji, my very distinguished predecessor on this platform - you may remember he initiated the Sardar Patel Memorial Lectures last year - has a modern rendering of this safeguard. It was not in his Patel Lectures, but elsewhere when he was in one of his characteristic Jules Vernian moods. What we need for the purpose is a gadget for monitoring the operations of the human mind and the moment it recognises the image of an evil thought fleeting across the field of view, the monitor will operate a relay that will automatically freeze all further thinking and immunise the brain.
"To ask well is to know much" is an old proverb. All our great epics start with something asking such a question. 'Prapacha' is a hoary word. The demand made of our gadget is one such. It implies that it is in the minds of men one should seek a solution. It is not a problem in the physical sciences, but one concerning the human mind. After attending some of the sessions of UNESCO, one almost hears the words of the first paragraph of the Declaration, namely, "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
I said that the major objective of science is to understand Nature. It immediately implies a certain faith, which, however, has since been wholly justified by our wide experience, that underlying the working of Nature and the operation of all natural phenomena there is a certain inherent order, and conformity to certain invariable and fundamental physical laws. Nature, as Einstein remarked, may be profound, but she never cheats, that is, she plays the game strictly according to the rules. The rules of course are of her making but she never changes the rules to suit the vicissitudes of the game. There are no exceptions to these rules. The main purpose of science is to discover these fundamental laws of Nature, to unveil the ultimate pattern to which natural phenomena, and all the events in Nature, conform. In this sense, the function of science is more one of unveiling than one of creating.
