The main aim of technology today is to moronify the society at large. Smaller and smaller number of people are using more and more of their intellect so that the others do not have to use theirs at all.
Invited review presented at International Astronomical Union /UNESCO Symposium 260 : The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture, UNESCO Paris, 19-23 January 2009.
Rajesh Kochhar
CSIR Emeritus Scientist, IISER:
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research,
Sector 26, Chandigarh 160019, India
Indian astronomical tradition has been characterized by antiquity, continuity and interaction with the outside world. Here we focus on some selected aspects of astronomy-culture interactions;
How knowledge about astronomical universe was used to regulate human conduct in the joint Indo-Iranian tradition.
How the religious and the ritualistic tradition influenced the astronomical pursuits.
How astronomical knowledge in turn modified the extant mythology.
We also raise an important general question : when and how does tradition gets frozen and emerge as touch-me-not
Human beings are born astronomers. Ever since they learnt to walk upright they have looked at the sky and wondered. The sky has remained the same but not its meaning.
We can distinguish between three phases in the history of humankind’s relationship with its cosmic environment: (i) propitiatory phase; (ii) negotiatory phase; and the current (iii) expository phase (this probably needs a better name). Each of these phases leads to and coexists with the next.
To begin with, sky was home to divinities who were to be feared and propitiated. As time progressed, human beings felt more secure and became intellectually more alert. Earlier awe made way for curiosity. Skies were now scanned for discovering patterns in the behaviour of the divinities. The knowledge so gained was put to practical use and employed to establish a negotiatory relationship with the celestial bodies.
The third phase , properly speaking, began exactly four centuries ago with Galileo. The cosmic environment was now be subjected to scientific scrutiny with a view to discovering and testing laws of nature. Earlier astronomy had measured angles; now it could talk of distances. The sky now acquired depth literally as well as figuratively.
There is an interesting correlation between the world geopolitics and our view of the cosmos, which does not seem to have been noticed before. For a very long time, the model universe had a centre. The pride of place first belonged to the earth and then to the sun. Even when galaxies were discovered our Galaxy was believed to be the largest. It is in relatively recent times, in the post- World War II era, that the universe has truly become egalitarian. Interestingly, this cosmic scheme has been mimicked on the earth as well. When the universe was centric, the earth, or parts thereof, also had a power centre, be it local or on a larger scale.
The Copernican principle now applies, at least in principle, on the earth as well. Is this a coincidence? Or is it that our perception of the cosmos influences the scheme of things on the earth just as this perception itself is fashioned by the situation on earth?
My concern today is to discuss the interplay between astronomy and culture in general in the Indian context. Much of the discussion belongs to the negotiatory phase described above. I have advisedly used culture in the plural in the title. This is not so much to describe the scope of this review as to draw attention to its limitations.
For a number of reasons, discussed in a different context elsewhere, most of the world attention on India’s past has focused on Sanskrit texts and the associated culture (Kochhar 2008a; Kochhar 2008b).
We have no clues whatever to the astronomical knowledge prevalent during the various phases of the vast Harappan archaeological tradition the roots of which go back to the very beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry in what is now Baluchistan (Kochhar2000). Also the astronomical knowledge residing in the fields rather than in the archives and especially belonging to communities officially termed scheduled tribes needs to be examined in depth. New scholarship must go beyond the Sanskrit India.
Source material
A discussion that involves ancient India must take note of the nature and limitations of the source material available. Scripts (Kharoshthi, Brahmi) were introduced into India about 3rd century BCE or some what earlier for writing Prakrit languages derived from Sanskrit. Script for Sanskrit itself, the language of Hindu scriptures, was adopted much later. Writing material came from plants or trees and had a short life. Paper was not introduced into India till about 8th century CE. The Vedic texts were in any case forbidden to be written.
Ancient Indian intellectual tradition has been oral. Texts were in the custody of specialist caste groups who memorized them and transmitted them to the next generation by word of mouth. The extant texts would have been supplemented with explanatory “notes” to serve an immediate purpose. What was not considered worth preserving was lost for ever. Also, it is not possible to assign firm dates to any early event or development. It is therefore not possible to construct a connected account about any aspect of early India.
We must cull relevant information from a variety of literary sources. Sanskrit provides texts at three levels. (i) The most important of these is the Vedic corpus, comprising priestly books composed by a large number of authors over a long period of time, which could be as much as two thousand years, say from 1700 BCE to zero CE (Kochhar 2000).The importance of the Vedic texts lies in the fact that scrupulous care was taken to preserve them in their original form. They are thus truly representative of the time of their composition even if that time is largely indeterminable.
The pride of place in the Vedic corpus goes to the oldest and the stand-alone text, Rigveda, containing about ten thousand stanzas. According to Kochhar (2000) it was composed over a period extending say from 1700BCE to 900BCE, although its earliest portions probably contain memories of still earlier time. (Some other texts, though closed later, may contain much older matter. )
There are a few stray astronomical references in the Rigveda, but for our purposes the more useful is the Yajurveda which is a manual for actual performance of ritual. It contains some observational material, such as bright stars visible on the journey of the moon ( the nakshatras) as also reference to the colures.
There is a solitary Vedic text, Vedanga Jyotisha, devoted exclusively to astronomy. It is the least understood of the whole corpus, partly because it was overtaken by developments. The oldest portions could be as old as 1400 BCE. Interestingly it deals only with the movements of the sun and the moon. Zodiacal signs and week days and other pre-Ptolemy elements would be introduced into India about 100 BCE, as part of interaction with the post-Alexandrian Greco-Babylonian world; see below. (Western scholarship especially during the colonial period tended to deny antiquity or originality to ancient India. As a backlash, many researchers have tended to unduly stretch the chronology backwards.)
The Vedic texts constitute the heritage of Hinduism. The youngest texts, like Manava Dharma Shastra, or Manu Smriti, which could be as recent as zero CE plus minus, represent transition to Hinduism proper.
(ii) The texts associated with Hinduism as practiced are the Puranas and the two epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. They were narrated to the public at large and used to be recast to suit the prevailing requirements of the narrators as well as the listeners. Interestingly only additions were made, no deletions.
(iii) In addition there are scientific corpus dealing with astronomy ( as also with health care, that is Ayurveda) which underwent deletion as well as addition.
So far we have listed sources in Sanskrit ( the term is used loosely to include pre-Sanskrit). (iv) In addition valuable information comes from Buddhist and Jain sources. The former include material from outside India.
Cosmic order and human ethics
The eternity around us has stood in sharp contrast to the short time-span of the human beings themselves. This chasm has been sought to be bridged by denying death finality. The “burial cultures” have postulated the physical rising of the dead, while the “cremation cultures” have distinguished between the body and the soul, and spoken of the indestructibility of the latter.
There is a beautiful concept linking the divine with the human that goes back to the joint Indo-Iranian times. Called rta in the Rgveda and arta (or asa) in the Avesta, it refers to the cosmic order, not in the sense of impersonal laws of nature as ascertained from the outside, but as an example of righteous cosmic conduct which the humans should emulate.
The sun, moon and other geocentric planets dutifully and predictably orbit around the earth. (Their predictability was a source of comfort, in contrast to the sudden ill-omened appearance of comets, meteors, etc.) The laws regulating the behaviour of these divinities are inbuilt into the system. But similar regulation of human conduct can come only from an explicit prescription of a code of ethical conduct. Emphasis on rta / arta is far more pronounced in the Avesta than Rigveda.
To bring the terrestrial and the celestial closer together the Vedic people assigned the attributes of one to the other. Planets return to their place in the sky; so do seasons on the earth. But human beings are born and die. In analogy with the planets, human beings should also have continuity. To achieve this, the concept of reincarnation was introduced. But in a certain sense planets are condemned to a life of incessant motion. An endless cycle of birth and death would be a punishment rather than a boon. Therefore the concept of what we may call truncated eternity was introduced, under the name moksha or nirvana, whereby a soul is liberated from the constraints of future birth.
The cyclic time
Far more important were the human attributes assigned to the gods. The concept of age, birth and death was introduced for the cosmos as a whole, and a cosmic chronology in the form of the yuga system was constructed by suitably scaling up the human calendar. The eternity of the planetary orbits was generalized to set up an oscillating universe without beginning or end.
For the mathematically oriented brave hearts, the technical details are explained in Appendix I. Here we may notice some important features of the scheme.
In the Vedic period, a year was taken to comprise 12 months and 360 days. Multiply these two numbers to get 360×12=4320. Now, suffix this number with the requisite number of zeroes to produce long structured time-spans. The basic unit is a mahayuga (mega-age):
1 mahayuga=4.32 million years.
A still bigger time-span, Brahma’s “twelve-hour” day (or night), or a kalpa, is defined as equal to 1000 mahayugas:
1 Brahma’s day=4.32 billion years.
Ancient Indians were probably the only people talking of such large numbers and of the endlessness of the universe. These numbers have been noticed by modern cosmologists in their textbooks as the cosmological timescales indeed turn out to be of the order of billions of years.
A maha-yuga, in turn, is composed of four ages or yugas : Satya or Krta; Treta; Dvapara; and Kali. The scheme has some interesting attributes:
ü 
Virtue decreases down the ages in the ratio 4:3:2:1.
ü Duration of the individual ages also decreases in the same ratio.
ü Kaliyuga is thus the shortest.
ü We are currently in the kaliyuga.
The scheme must have been found very attractive because it was used in entirely different contexts with the same terminology. These long ages were employed in astronomy. The terminology of the four yugas was also employed by the Puranas to periodize political history going back about 100 generations. This has caused much contemporary confusion.
The scheme was formulated in the kaliyuga itself. It is significant that the present age was postulated to be the kaliyuga. We are now in the worst of times. Things can only improve. Imagine, if we had been placed in any of the earlier yugas, things would have had to deteriorate further before they could improve. It is thus an inherently optimistic scheme. During the movement against the British rule in India, the dark kaliyuga’a making way for satyayuga was repeatedly invoked to enhance nationalist consciousness.
A pioneering name in the systematization of the post-Vedic astronomy was Aryabhata (b. 476 CE). Indian mathematical astronomy , which we may call Siddhantic (since the astronomical texts were called Siddhanta, proven in the end), focused on calculating geo-centric planetary orbits and especially the lunar and solar eclipses.
From 6th century CE till Kepler’s time , Indian astronomers were probably the only ones who could calculate eclipses with any degree of accuracy. The unbroken tradition was alive till as recently as 19th century. A Tamil astronomer computed for John Warren , a French astronomer in the service of British East India Company, the lunar eclipse of 1825 May 31-June 1 with an error of +4 minutes for the beginning,-23 minutes for the middle, and -52 minutes for the end ( Neugebauer 1983:435).
An Indian astronomer adjusted his parameters and obtained satisfactory match between the calculated sky and the actual sky. This match would disappear in a few centuries. A brilliant astronomer then appeared on the scene , and reworked the mathematics. Remarkably although the physical goal was the same different astronomers ended up setting up and solving different equations. Mathematics was a tool for planetary calculations. There are very few full-time mathematicians in the Indian tradition ( Kochhar 1993).
Sacred texts influence science
Use of early astronomical data in the ritual profoundly influenced the later course of astronomical developments. The yuga system with its nomenclature was borrowed by the astronomers. Thus the Surya Siddhanta would say that there were 146,568 revolutions of Saturn in a mahayuga, implying an orbital period of 29.4743 years.
Interestingly, at places Aryabhata chose to deviate from the Vedic yuga scheme. He split a mahayuga into four equal parts. Also , he set his kalpa equal to 1008 mahayugas (instead of the Vedic 1000). Since 1008 is divisible by seven, all kalpas, each 4.32 billion years apart will begin on the same day of the week. Some far sight indeed !
Like the (( divine) Rigveda astronomical texts were composed in verse, so that an astronomer had to be a Sanskrit poet first. Constraints of metre forced astronomers to use synonyms and take recourse to allusions. This introduced ambiguity at places. More importantly only conclusions were preserved and not the arguments leading to them. Generally speaking there was a tendency to present astronomical results as revealed knowledge rather than deduced.
Aryabhata believed in the spin of the earth and said so in his work. This however never became a part of the mainstream. He was severally criticized for this by his “adversaries”. Even later astronomers belonging to his own school felt so embarrassed that they tried to change a word here and there in his work to convey the impression that the great master like everybody else took the earth to be non-spinning. Today we give great credit to Aryabhata for his belief in earth’s spin. But it is important to keep in mind that our source of knowledge is his critics who were putting Aryabhata’s lapses on record. (As a belated compensation Aryabhata’s glorifiers now falsely credit him with belief in heliocentrism.)
As an analogy, we may note that we know about the deeds of revolutionaries fighting for India’s freedom from the charge sheets filed against them by the colonial government.
If astronomy had followed a prose tradition (as was the case with post-Vedic Upanishads) some later scholars could have revived and expanded on Aryabhata’s hypothesis.
Indian astronomers were not aware of the precession of equinoxes. A creative astronomer would adjust his parameters so that his computed planetary orbits matched the observations. With the passage of time the computed sky would differ from the actual. This ar necessitated the arrival of a new mathematician – astronomer on the scene.
Ancient India astronomical effort was society oriented rather than sky oriented. Its aim was to prepare almanacs pinpointing auspicious times for social and religious purposes. It is certain that most if not all students who learnt astronomy did so to become practising astrologers.
The ancient astronomical texts were unambiguously attributed to their named authors. But at the same time their contents were incorporated into traditionally-named texts that were passed off as having been revealed to the chosen ones (e.g. Surya Siddhanta). This pretension to divine connection no doubt increased the astrological market value of the texts and ensured funding of astronomical activity by the society.
(It is noteworthy that Buddha was against astrology. As long as Buddhism held sway astronomy went in decline. It is only on resurgence of Hinduism that astronomy revived. By the time Buddhism was exported, astrology had become part of it.)
Aryabhata’s influential and pioneering work closes with the stanza : “This work , Aryabhatiya by name,is the same as the ancient Swayambhuva [i.e. revealed by Swayambh] and as such it is true for all times. One who imitates it or finds fault with it shall lose his good deeds and longevity “. It has been argued-and with justification-that a man of Aryabhata’s known scientific approach could not have made such a pompous and intimidating statement. While this argument exonerates Aryabhata, it does indict his later-day followers , and tells us about the atmosphere in which such a statement could be made and attributed to Aryabhata himself (Kochhar 1993).
Old astronomical knowledge has remained a living tradition even if its role is not so obvious now. Spring and autumn equinoxes as well as winter solstice ( but not the summer solstice) are still celebrated as religious festivals. (Thus spring and autumn equinoxes are honoured by nine-day celebration each, called navaratri. Makar samkranti, the sun’s ingress into Capricorn , on about 14 January, is nominally celebrated as northward turning of the sun . Jupiter’s 12-year orbital period is commemorated by the Kumbh festival, marking Jupiter’s computed ingress into Aquarius.)
Traditional almanacs in current use still use old prescriptions. They have accumulated an error of 23 days due to precession of equinoxes, but nobody seems to mind. The reason is that phenomena like ingress into a zodiacal sign are not visible to the eye. Since eclipses can be timed now with great accuracy, their computation is not done traditionally but on the basis of modern algorithms.
Much of the contemporary interest still centres on the astrological universe.( Use of high technology as represented by the computers along with the insecurities introduced by globalization seems to have lent new legitimacy to astrology.) The interest in the progress since, for some reason, extends only to black holes and the origin of the universe. This is probably so because here the difference between the layperson and the expert gets blurred. All astronomical developments in between commonly leave the laypersons rather unenthused.
Science modifies sacred texts
We have already seen how astronomical tradition was influenced by the Vedic. But the traffic was two-way. Early Vedic mythology attributed the eclipses to a demon Rahu, who is explicitly named in Atharvaveda. Chhandogya Upanishad declares that a soul which has acquired pure knowledge is liberated from the body like the moon becoming free from Rahu. ( Kane V.1: 569) The correct mathematical theory of eclipses, which probably made its appearance in India about 100 BCE or so , points out that for an eclipse to occur the moon should be at one of its nodes, that is, at one of the two points where the lunar orbit intersects the ecliptic. The term Rahu was borrowed from the Vedic texts and applied to the lunar node, especially the ascending node (when the moon crossed the ecliptic moving northwards). The other node was termed Ketu. Maitrayani Upanishad mentions both Rahu and Ketu ( Kane V.1:569). Incidentally this also tells us that the Vedantic part of the corpus was still open say about zero CE.
At a more popular level an elaborate mythology was created to cut the old single demon Rahu into two . The head retained the old name while the torso was called Ketu. Subsequently the concept of Rahu and Ketu travelled outside India also. Burma knew of Rahu as Yahu ( Kochhar 1990) Interestingly, in China while Rahu stood for the ascending node, Ketu denoted the lunar apogee, an identification not known in India.
It is noteworthy that no religious, spiritual or revealed text or folklore has ever contradicted what the people at the time accepted as scientific knowledge. There is a basic difference between scientific tradition and the other societal traditions. Science is inherently progressive. It continually updates itself. There is no concept of frozenness associated with it. On the other hand the textual content of sacred tradition or folklore remains open for a while during which it takes note of contemporaneous scientific developments. But then it becomes static and at times even may see later scientific developments antagonistically. (Hindu society has tended to accept modern scientific discoveries through the side door, by pretending that they were known to the ancient scriptures!)
Appendix 1: Creation chronology
The Rgveda uses yuga in the sense of a time-span, an age, or a generation. Vedanga Jyotisha refers to a five-year yuga. Atharvaveda mentions in order 100 years, 1000 years, ayuta (10,000 years) and then two, three or four yugas. This suggests that a yuga here means an ayuta. The yuga-system as now commonly understood is set forth in the relatively late Vedic text Manusmrti (1.68-1.86), and expanded in the various Puranas.
In the Vedic times, a year comprised 12 months and 360 days. A human year was set equal to a day of the gods, so that a divine year (Dyr) would consist of 360 human years (yr).The divine year in turn was used to construct an elaborate chronology.
A mahayuga or chaturyuga (great age or four-age) was postulated as made up of four sub-ages or yugas: kaliyuga, dvaparayuga, tretayuga and krtayuga, with lengths in the ratio 1:2:3:4. The names are significant. The two middle ones obviously refer to the second and the third. The names of the two end yugas are taken from the game of dice, kali referring to one, and krta to four. The numbering is thus backwards, kaliyuga being the shortest and the latest.
It will be convenient to use mathematical notation to properly understand the formulation of the yuga system. A kaliyuga is said to contain 1200 Dyr. Let us denote the duration of a kaliyuga by the symbol k and of a mahayuga by m. dvapara, treta and krta are then 2k,3k and 4k respectively, so that
m=k+2k+3k+4k=10k.
For later reference, let us denote a krtayuga (=4k) by s. Then
6m=60k=15s.
We now construct a still bigger time-span called kalpa, comprising 1000 mahayugas. To complicate matters, let us introduce structure into a kalpa as follows:
1 kalpa
=1000m
= 994m+6m
=14 x 71m+15s
=14x71m+14s+s
=s+14(71m+s).
Let us call 71m a Manvantara (Manu’s interval) so called because this span is presided over by a ruler designated Manu. (There are thus 14 Manus.) We can now describe a kalpa in words. A kalpa begins with a dawn equal to a krtayuga. This dawn is followed in succession by 14 Manvantaras, at the end of each of which there occurs a deluge (pralaya) lasting a krtayuga. This complex scheme has perplexed many modern-day commentators. Thus, Ebenezer Burgess in his famous 1860 annotated translation of the Surya Siddhanta declared: “Why the factors fourteen and seventy – one were thus used in making up the Aeon [kalpa] is not obvious” (Ebnezer 1860:11). I think this scheme was constructed working backwards from the neat round figure of 1000.
To sum up so far, a kalpa comprises 1000 mahayugas, with one mahayuga equaling in length ten kaliyugas. It now remains to give recognizable values to these numbers. A kaliyuga was set equal to 1200 divine years. Recalling that a divine year consists of 360 (human) years, we can express the yugas in human years:
Kaliyuga =4, 32,000 yr
Mahayuga=4.32×106 yr
Kalpa =4.32×109 yr.
Kalpa becomes the basis for constructing a chronology for Brahma, the supreme creator. A kalpa is set equal to Brahma’s day or night. 360 kalpa pairs define Brahma’s year, 100 years making his life-span. Currently, we are in the midst of Brahma’s life. He has completed 50 years of his life. In the current kalpa seven out of the fourteen Manvantara are over, and so on.
References
Burgess, Ebenezer (1860) The Surya Siddhanta (reprint; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2005)
Kane, P.V. (1977) History of Dharmasastra, Vol. V. ( Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute)
Kochhar, R.K. (1990) “Rahu in Burmese tradition (Correspondence) ”. Quart. J. R. Astr. Soc., 31,257
Kochhar Rajesh (1993) “ Historical perspective”. In: Astronomy in India : Past, Present and Future ( eds.: Rajesh Kochhar and Jayant Narlikar) ( Pune : IUCAA)
Kochhar, Rajesh (2008) “Cultivation of science in the 19th century Bengal”. Indian Journal of Physics, 82(8), 1003-1082. (Akshoy Datta Memorial Lecture at Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Kolkata.)
Kochhar, Rajesh (2008) “Seductive orientalism: English education and modern science in colonial India”. Social Scientist, 36:45-63. (S.C. Mishra Lecture at 68th Indian History Congress, Delhi.)
Mani, Vettam (1975) Puranic Encyclopaedia (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass)
Neugebauer, Otto (1983) Astronomy and History: Selected Essays (New York: Springer)//
From the book: History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Vol XI, Part 1, Philosophical Conciousness and Scientific Knowledge : Conceptual Linkage and Civilizational Background, Edited by D.P.Chattopadhyaya, Published by Centre for Studies in Civilization, New Delhi, 2004
Till Science Transcends the Scientist:
Role of Human Factor in Science
Rajesh Kochhar
Most people would baulk at a phrase like ‘literature (or music) and culture’ on the
ground that the first term is already contained in the second. But they would
uncritically accept a construction like ‘science and culture’. The reason
probably is this. Like a poet or a painter, a scientist is also culturally anchored; but there
is a difference. When scientists discover fundamental laws, uncover patterns in nature or
establish linkages among seemingly disparate phenomena, they do so on behalf of the
whole humanity. Their work in fact transcends even humanity in the sense that laws of
nature as discovered on the earth will be recognized as such by scientists working
elsewhere in the universe even though one cannot even imagine what the cultural setting
of these extraterrestrial scientists would be.
In other disciplines, creative work remains the property of its creator. Science,
however, aims to liberate itself from the scientist. For a scientific theory, hypothesis or
model to become established, be accepted as received wisdom and treated as textbook
material, its author’s name must cease to be proprietory and become merely descriptive
instead. Till such time as science transcends the scientist, human factors like values,
judgements, foibles, idiosyncrasies, prejudices and biases play a role, but not afterwards.
It is notable that controversies in science are not settled by the contestants but by
time. Timescales needed to establish theories are longer than those associated with
individual scientists. At any point in time, science raises questions that cannot be
answered by the scientists of the day. It is on such questions that scientists take positions.
The issues are settled not because one set of scientists succeeds in convincing the other,
but because new evidence accumulates and slowly the issues resolve themselves. The
controversies however do serve. an important scientific function. They bring the issues
into sharper focus and encourage further observations/experiments.
An important question that needs to be addressed is this:
When the existing evidence is not adequate to choose between two competing models or
hypotheses, what are the arguments proffered by the adherents of each side in support of
their point of view, and how these arguments influence the future course of development.
We can illustrate the above points with the help of some examples, drawn from
astronomy and cosmology. In 1920 two leading astronomers of the day, Harlow Shapley
and Heber D Curtis, participated in a ‘great debate’ on the scale of the universe.
The debate raised a number of important questions: Was the galaxy
bigger than hitherto assumed? Yes, Was the sun at the centre of
M
From the book: History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Vol XI, Part 1, Philosophical
Conciousness and Scientific Knowledge : Conceptual Linkage and Civilizational Background, Edited by D.P.
Chattopadhyaya, Published by Centre for Studies in Civilization, New Delhi, 2004
Rajesh Kochhar
250
our galaxy? No. Was our galaxy the only one in the universe, or were there others like it?
[It was one among many].
“In the debate, both participants supported their conclusions with formidable arrays
of observational data that they themselves had secured. Both had carefully scrutinized
observations by others and checked their results. Written statements were prepared by
both men and exchanged before the meeting. Each had made minor revisions after
reading his opponent’s views, but neither found it possible to accept the others principal
conclusions.”1 Significantly, “nor were other astronomers able to decide definitely
between the two points of view.”2 The debate provides “a glimpse into the reasoning
processes of eminent scientists engaged in a great controversy for which the evidence on
both sides is fragmentary and partly faulty. This debate illustrates forcefully how tricky it
is to pick one’s way through the treacherous ground that characterizes research in the
frontiers of science.”3 The scientific issues involved in the debate were resolved over a
period of two decades when the frontiers of knowledge got progressively pushed further.
Three decades later there erupted another controversy, this time on the origin of the
universe. Did the universe begin by exploding from a hot dense state (‘big bang’), or was
it without a beginning (‘steady state’). (Interestingly, the now standard technical term big
bang cosmology with the same initials as British Broadcasting Corporation, was coined
rather pejoratively, in 1948, by Fred Hoyle.) The steady state model was finally proved
wrong by the detection in 1965 of the three degree kelvin microwave background
radiation, which proved that the universe was hotter in the past. While the controversy
lasted, it brought into focus philosophical postulates (Was there need for a ‘perfect
cosmological principle’?) as well as questions of methodology (What constitutes
Popperian testability in areas such as cosmology?). How do proponents of a theory
respond to its rejection? Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics, held a rather
extreme view. “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents
gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the
beginning.”
While it is true that many propounders stick to their views till their physical or
intellectual death, there are any number of examples where the proponents of a view have
willingly abandoned it when new evidence to the contrary came along. In one respect
however Planck was right, that is, about the growing generation. Even though attempts
are still on to salvage steady-state model, the new generation of researchers is being
brought up on the standard big-bang. (I was once told by an American academic that his
pro-steady state proposal was turned down by funding agencies on the ground that
younger generation should not be involved it. An otherwise well-respected American
astronomer was refused telescope time for his non-standard observational programme,
and moved over to Germany, a reversal of the historic scientific traffic.)
Human factor has played a role in the case of mathematical
theories as well. Einstein himself intervened in his entirely
self-consisted gravitational theory, erroneously called General Theory of Relativity
(GTR), by introducing an arbitrary term to prevent the theory from permitting expansion
of universe which he thought was unphysical. Once the universe was observationally
shown to, be expanding, sensibly the theory was left alone to
Till Science Transcends the Scientist: Role of Human Factor in Science
251
speak for itself. The Nazi attempts to brand GTR as Jewish science were short-lived, for
two reasons. First, the well-known failure of Newtonian gravitation to explain Mercury’s
orbit had already created a slot for an improved theory, even if nobody had any clue as to
what the new theory would look like. More importantly, within four years of its
enunciation, a prediction by GTR (bending of starlight by sun) was experimentally
verified.
Einstein was fortunate that the verifiability of his theory was within the capabilities
of the technology of the day. Subramanya Chandrasekhar was not so lucky. He was the
first to apply Theory of Special Relativity to problems of stellar evolution. His
mathematically rigorous work on the white dwarf stars, which essentially predicted the
existence of black holes, was ridiculed by Sir Arthur Eddington, the then most influential
astronomer in Europe. With a haughtiness one associates with Viceroys rather than
scientists, he declared: “I think there should be a law of nature to prevent a star from
behaving in this absurd manner.” Sir Arthur was blinded by his self-righteousness; the
others by the glare of his personality.4 It was not that one hypothesis was competing with
another. It was an exact mathematical theory that was pitted against refusal to listen.
Eventually, the discovery of the pulsar stars and quasar galaxies vindicated
Chandrasekhar. Interestingly, though Chandrasekhar won a number of academic awards
for his subsequent researches, it was only in 1974 that an award citation referred to his
pathbreaking white dwarf work. Eddington’s prejudice had delayed the development of
relativistic astrophysics by forty years! Ironically, a film on white dwarfs recently made
by BBC was titled ‘Absurd Stars’ and showed a photograph of Sir Arthur rather than
Chandrasekhar, making light of the former’s prejudice. Therefore, the journey of a
scientific theory from its enunciation till its enshrinement in textbooks is often a long
one. It is in the interim period that human factors come into play.
NOTES
1. Struve, O. and Zebergs, V. 1962. Astronomy of the 20th Century. New York: Macnultan. p. 416.
2. Ibid. p. 444.
3. Shu, F. 1982, The Physical Universe. An Introduction to Astronomy. Mill Valley: University Science Books.p.286.
4. Struve and Zebergs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Kochhar, Rajesh. 1995. ‘Transcending the Limits: Chandrasekhar’s Stellar Contribution”. Times of India,19
October.
2. Shu, F. 1982. The Physical Universe. An Introduction to Astronomy. Mill Valley: University Science Books.
3. Struve, O. and Zebergs, V. 1962. Astronomy of the 2Oh Century. New York: Macnultan.
