What is ‘rational’? By that is it meant that there is hundred percent
commonality of understanding between any two humans? Take for example a
mathematical or logical statement… How is it arrived at? The starting
point or the assumptions A. B, C being given a set of steps leads to or
implies D. Such a construct is universal in that any human mind can
follow these and arrive at the same fact. So, by rational we also mean
that another human can follow the process and arrive at the same result
or conclusion that we had arrived at.
But is all science rational? Have we thought about what the inventors and discoverers do or thought during the process of their invention or discovery? They probably had the ‘notion’ – many a times not in terms of words even but only a ‘notion’. But doesn’t every person have that? Then what is that a scientist does? From that ‘notion’ he or she has to connect it to the known words and concepts and starting from these known things ‘rationally’ arrive at the ‘notion’ so that other human minds can verify it. This very process is what is called ‘Science’ – not that actual moment a discovery or invention is made. The brain is definitely not thinking along the rational lines at that moment. We are not talking about the normal scientific works here which are mere extension of a given idea; such as what happens if one changes this or that in a basic idea. We are talking about those breakthroughs that have reshaped a concept and which are the key milestones.
Now consider an area where there are not even adequate words to communicate the idea to another human – forget about the mathematics required or the logic required; the very words doesn’t exist and forming a new word (especially if it is abstract) it is very difficult to define the words with eulogies, metaphors and examples. So scientific advancement is only near the fringe of what is already known and can never be a thing that is drastically new. The reader might think of relativity or quantum mechanics – but these too are only reinterpretation of mathematical equations that are already known. Lorentz and other much before has worked out the transformations involved and the idea was to move from constancy of time between frames to constancy of the velocity of light. Also motion of a charged particle in an electric field was already known – what was required was an idea that during accelerated motion the charged particle need not radiate at all times contrary to the dictates of classical electromagnetism. The parallel to the planetary motion was also there.
Consider an isolated tribe living in the middle of a vast desert and near an oasis with a small body of water. The tribe has been living there generation after generation and knows only that place. Now one of the tribesmen, on a fine day might think that there is a possibility of existence of a place where like the water in the small pond, the water is so large like the sand around. This new thought excites him, but is he communicates this to his fellow tribesman. He does give it a try and talks to various people in the tribe – and begins to do this day after day; till he is probably called a madman and ignored by the tribe. But some among the tribe had at least understood the idea that there is a possibility of a large body of water. Now generations pass by and this becomes a story that is told by the elders to the youngsters initially as a joke and generations move by the large body of water becomes a definite idea. In the process, one of the tribesmen has thought of a name as ‘sea’ for the idea. The word ‘sea’ would get rooted in the sense that within the tribe if ‘sea’ is mentioned the idea that it is a large body of water would become common. May be at this point someone in the tribe might take it serious enough and set out to find it… But still it should be noted that as long as the word ‘Sea’ as a large body of water remains abstract – that is no one has really seen it still, the actual sensations produced in the individual minds will vary slightly. Each has a common understanding that it is a ‘large body of water’ but still one might think of it as blue, another as calm and yet another as undulating and yet another green and so on… The commonality of an abstract concept that is not derived ‘rationally’ will never be at hundred percent.
The narration above is to show that how an idea needs time to get established in the minds of the people and the time taken before shorter words are formed and the time required for the word to generate a common enough understanding. To push it a little further the narrator might know how the galaxy is formed and how it works… but it might be impossible to communicate that to another human as the time is not ripe with the required base concepts or math or even words. What the narrator has then is a ‘notion’ or perception that cannot be made rational enough for another human mind to get an identical understanding. In such a case what could be done? May be one could seed a near enough thought and hope that it matures over the generations to come when it could be made ‘rational’ for all minds to have the same understanding and hence as a science. But even before that is incorporation of words and symbols to the idea which form the basis of any language. Hence language that is made of words as such in itself does not have hundred percent commonality. Hence our difficulty in communicating to other humans over abstract concepts as the perception of the abstract concept is different for different minds.
Now the subject we are talking about lacks this commonality of understanding. A realized person does not have the words to communicate what he knows or the realization. Any parallels that he may tell will mean one thing to him but might mean very different thing to other human minds.
But is all science rational? Have we thought about what the inventors and discoverers do or thought during the process of their invention or discovery? They probably had the ‘notion’ – many a times not in terms of words even but only a ‘notion’. But doesn’t every person have that? Then what is that a scientist does? From that ‘notion’ he or she has to connect it to the known words and concepts and starting from these known things ‘rationally’ arrive at the ‘notion’ so that other human minds can verify it. This very process is what is called ‘Science’ – not that actual moment a discovery or invention is made. The brain is definitely not thinking along the rational lines at that moment. We are not talking about the normal scientific works here which are mere extension of a given idea; such as what happens if one changes this or that in a basic idea. We are talking about those breakthroughs that have reshaped a concept and which are the key milestones.
Now consider an area where there are not even adequate words to communicate the idea to another human – forget about the mathematics required or the logic required; the very words doesn’t exist and forming a new word (especially if it is abstract) it is very difficult to define the words with eulogies, metaphors and examples. So scientific advancement is only near the fringe of what is already known and can never be a thing that is drastically new. The reader might think of relativity or quantum mechanics – but these too are only reinterpretation of mathematical equations that are already known. Lorentz and other much before has worked out the transformations involved and the idea was to move from constancy of time between frames to constancy of the velocity of light. Also motion of a charged particle in an electric field was already known – what was required was an idea that during accelerated motion the charged particle need not radiate at all times contrary to the dictates of classical electromagnetism. The parallel to the planetary motion was also there.
Consider an isolated tribe living in the middle of a vast desert and near an oasis with a small body of water. The tribe has been living there generation after generation and knows only that place. Now one of the tribesmen, on a fine day might think that there is a possibility of existence of a place where like the water in the small pond, the water is so large like the sand around. This new thought excites him, but is he communicates this to his fellow tribesman. He does give it a try and talks to various people in the tribe – and begins to do this day after day; till he is probably called a madman and ignored by the tribe. But some among the tribe had at least understood the idea that there is a possibility of a large body of water. Now generations pass by and this becomes a story that is told by the elders to the youngsters initially as a joke and generations move by the large body of water becomes a definite idea. In the process, one of the tribesmen has thought of a name as ‘sea’ for the idea. The word ‘sea’ would get rooted in the sense that within the tribe if ‘sea’ is mentioned the idea that it is a large body of water would become common. May be at this point someone in the tribe might take it serious enough and set out to find it… But still it should be noted that as long as the word ‘Sea’ as a large body of water remains abstract – that is no one has really seen it still, the actual sensations produced in the individual minds will vary slightly. Each has a common understanding that it is a ‘large body of water’ but still one might think of it as blue, another as calm and yet another as undulating and yet another green and so on… The commonality of an abstract concept that is not derived ‘rationally’ will never be at hundred percent.
The narration above is to show that how an idea needs time to get established in the minds of the people and the time taken before shorter words are formed and the time required for the word to generate a common enough understanding. To push it a little further the narrator might know how the galaxy is formed and how it works… but it might be impossible to communicate that to another human as the time is not ripe with the required base concepts or math or even words. What the narrator has then is a ‘notion’ or perception that cannot be made rational enough for another human mind to get an identical understanding. In such a case what could be done? May be one could seed a near enough thought and hope that it matures over the generations to come when it could be made ‘rational’ for all minds to have the same understanding and hence as a science. But even before that is incorporation of words and symbols to the idea which form the basis of any language. Hence language that is made of words as such in itself does not have hundred percent commonality. Hence our difficulty in communicating to other humans over abstract concepts as the perception of the abstract concept is different for different minds.
Now the subject we are talking about lacks this commonality of understanding. A realized person does not have the words to communicate what he knows or the realization. Any parallels that he may tell will mean one thing to him but might mean very different thing to other human minds.
