Talking about Science: 2 Poincaré and The Search for Truth

 Many great scientists and philosophers have explicated the ideals of Science in many volumes. They discussed at length what the highest goals of Science are, and what Science needs for achieving these mighty goals.

Henri Poincaré, the great savant, began his essay “The Value of Science” 

with these remarkable words:

“The search for truth should be the goal of our activities; it is the sole end worthy of them.”

The Search for Truth is what Science is about, or what it should be about. But more than that: the search for truth is the only worthy goal of life. Therefore, it is not “salvation”, not “enlightenment”, and it is certainly not just “happiness”, as described in some philosophies and religions that is the most worthy goal of life; it is Truth. Moreover the truth that Science is searching for is not some “personal truth”. Scientific Truth has a value only when it is shared. Only by sharing can we attain some kind of objectivity and be of service to others.

Science Should Be About Helping Humanity

But, what about alleviating human suffering? - Poincaré’s answer is immediate:

Doubtless we should first bend our efforts to assuage human suffering, but why? Not to suffer is a negative ideal more surely attained by the annihilation of the world.

To which he adds:

If we wish more and more to free man from material cares, it is that he may be able to employ the liberty obtained in the study and contemplation of truth.

This sounds almost biblical: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32). 

Certainly, Poincaré is not inventing something new here. He is reminding us of a very old but often forgotten fundamental principle. And indeed, it is all too easy to forget it – and Poincaré realizes this difficulty as well:

But sometimes truth frightens us. And in fact we know that it is sometimes deceptive, that it is a phantom never showing itself for a moment except to ceaselessly flee, that it must be pursued further and ever further without ever being attained.

Moreover:

We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether illusion is not more consoling, yea, even more bracing, for illusion it is which gives confidence. When it shall have vanished, will hope remain and shall we have the courage to achieve? Thus would not the horse harnessed to his treadmill refuse to go, were his eyes not bandaged?

Can You Handle the Truth?

Indeed, truth can be cruel, and, sometimes, unnecessarily so. I realized this fact myself when I was once listening to a talk given by one of my mathematician friends. I had my camera with me and, when the speaker was yelling at one of his colleagues who was evidently unhappy with the subject of the talk, I took a photo. Later, I sent it to the unhappy colleague. When my friend learned about this fact, he was very upset with me. He asked me: “Why did you do it?” I answered: “Because it is true.” It took me awhile before I understood and apologized for what I did. I reasoned that while something is true – why not to reveal it? Perhaps: but in this case it was simply an unnecessary cruelty from me. For me it was “just an innocent joke.” To the individual in the photograph, it was not so innocent, and the greater truth was that the act lacked any useful purpose. Truth in Science is not a joke, it is a serious matter, and it serves a purpose. That purpose is increasing our Knowledge – about the external world and about ourselves so that we can help others, not hurt them.

Obstacles to True Science

There were, in the past, and even more so today, strong forces that prevent Science from achieving its goals. What are they? Some of them were indicated by Poincaré when he wrote:

And then to seek truth it is necessary to be independent, wholly independent.

It is not easy for a scientist to be independent and, in fact, with time, it has become more and more difficult. The time is long gone when amateurs, with independent wealth could conduct history-making experiments and develop revolutionary ideas that were opening new paths of scientific research.

Coming next: Tony Smith and “arXive.org”

P.S.1 0303-23 21:21 Concerning Science and Truth see Chris Langan most recent post Unfortunately to read it in full you would need to subscribe and pay.

"Flirting with Luddism: The Meaning and Value of Science

Science is great. Evil, insanity, and the Big $cience Oligarchy are not.
Chris Langan
1 hr ago"

Let me quote just one sentence relevant to the subject of my post:

"Science is not about truth. Direct replicated observation is about truth, but due to the problem of induction - a problem that has been understood since David Hume and arguably long before - empirical science quickly deviates from it due to uncertainty. "

P.S.2 04-03-23 15:51 Reading while having fish for the lunch. From Manjit Kumar - "Quantum Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" 

"‘We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom,’ replied Heisenberg, ‘but

the  radiation  which  an  atom  emits  during  discharges  enables  us  to  deduce  the frequencies  and  corresponding  amplitudes  of  its  electrons.’   Warming  to  his theme,  he  explained  that  ‘since  a  good  theory  must  be  based  on  directly observable  magnitudes,  I  thought  it  more  fitting  to  restrict  myself  to  these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits’.   ‘But you don’t seriously believe,’ Einstein protested, ‘that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?’  It was a question that struck at the very foundations on  which  Heisenberg  had  constructed  his  new  mechanics.  ‘Isn’t  that  precisely what you have done with relativity?’ he countered. A ‘good trick should not be tried twice’, smiled Einstein.   ‘Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning,’ he conceded, ‘but it is nonsense all the same.’

P.S.3 16:50

A good trick should not be tried twice:

https://twitter.com/CherylGilmer9/status/1631977278656638980