Bertrand Russell and Independence in Science

 After these few examples let us come back to the issue of how it is important to be independent in Science, how important it is to have the freedom of expressing views that are not necessarily “mainstream science” approved. Bertrand Russell, one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century

 wrote in his book “Religion and Science”:

In any case, the argument against the persecution of opinion does not depend upon what the excuse for persecution may be. The argument is that we none of us know all truth, that the discovery of new truth is promoted by free discussion and rendered very difficult by suppression, and that, in the long run, human welfare is increased by the discovery of truth and hindered by action based on error. New truth is often inconvenient to some vested interest … And since, at first, it cannot be known whether a new doctrine is true, freedom for new truth involves equal freedom for error. (Italics, mine.)

And then he added:

The threat to intellectual freedom is greater in our day than at any time since 1660; but it does not now come from the Christian Churches. It comes from governments, which, owing to the modern danger of anarchy and chaos, have succeeded to the sacrosanct character formerly belonging to the ecclesiastical authorities.

Bertrand Russell wrote these words in 1935, so you might think that they are outdated. It is a part of my aim to demonstrate that they are, today, even more true than they were then. But even if Science was independent from politics, which it is not, even then there are problems within the scientific community which make the main goal of Science, which is getting to the Truth, difficult if not impossible.

And here is a quote from the article about the unorthodox Russian mathematical genius Grigori Perrelman:

Two young mathematicians from China, having studied Perelman's work, published a much longer and more detailed article - more than three hundred pages - with a proof of Poincaré's hypothesis. In it, they claimed that Perelman's work contained many gaps, which they were able to fill. According to the rules of the mathematical community, the priority in the proof of the theorem belongs to those researchers who were able to present it in the most complete form. According to many experts, Perelman's proof was complete, albeit briefly expounded. More detailed expositions did not contribute anything new to it.

When journalists asked Perelman what he thought about the position of Chinese mathematicians, Grigory replied:

"I can't say that I am outraged, others do even worse. Of course, there are plenty of more or less honest mathematicians. But almost all of them are conformists. They themselves are honest, but they tolerate those who are not. He then bitterly remarked, "It is not those who violate ethical standards in science who are considered outsiders. People like me are the ones who are marginalized."

Coming next: Questions About Science: Is Science rational?