The doubter is a true man of Science.

Essay 2024 The doubter is a true man of science. It can be challenging, courageous or, sometimes even revolutionary, to go against the mainstream ideology. More so, if you question one of the brightest minds of 20th century. When Erwin Schrodinger, a humble German professor, proposed the foundational theory of Quantum mechanics, the great Albert Einstein ridiculed it saying, 'God doesn't play dice!'. Einstein never even entertained the idea of uncertainity engrained in physical phenomenon despite upcoming observations supporting it.

This insistence to stick to established norms and quell dissenting voice pushed back the inevitable arrival of Quantum mechanics theory which underlies most of the advancements in Science today. Thus, the question arises: Who was a true friend of science? The great, 'infalliable' Einstein or the humble 'doubter' Schrodinger? This notion of questioning the established principles isn't just limited to Science or Western philosophy alone. Indian philosophy has long espoused this concept - even before the Christ Era. Anekantvaad of Jainism proposes that truth is no single entity; rather it exists in multi-faceted way. One must always entertain the idea about the fallibility of the apparent and the truth of the hidden. This essay is an attempt to understand why a doubter is a true man of science - not just an academic discipline but the general concept of rational thinking. Why doubt is necessary? The first step to truly understand anything is to discard the held notions that one already knows it.

The preconceived notion creates hinderance to the learning. By the very act of doubting, one accepts the limitations of human knowledge. Nature is far complex that human minds can decipher. Hence, we must resist settling to a perfect theory but be open to keep chasing that elusive perfection. Copernicus went against the Geocentric model of solar system because he doubted the overall simplicity of the model and its unscientific explanations. Moreover, scientific study is founded on the basic principles of questioning and observation. This doesn't mean questioning the obvious wrong - the much easier part. The rigour lies in also questioning the so-called established scientific theory that seem apparently correct. If one doesn't question science itself, they risk science turning into religion, with Einstein and Newton as Gods and scientists as orthodox clergies! What one achieves by mere doubting is not something trivial. They expose the often overlooked or sometimes oversimplified things. This ensures continued progress of the discipline.

One such scenario emerged when the blood flow in human body was understood as an open, sea-like system. But what is the beating-heart for then? William Harvey questioned this overlooked fact and gave the now accepted closed circulatory system of blood. The medical science owes its progress to the questions of a doubter. The acts of doubting must not be restricted to academic discipline of science only. The Indian Constitution lays a fundamental duty upon its citizens to develop a scientific mind. This must be applied to long-held religious and social practices too. However one must prevent the popular urge to discard every practice as archaic and dogmatic. Rational thinking and evidences must be our guides. The act of fasting on Navratri or Ramzan are well supported by medical science as they induce autophagy - a self-repair system of body. However the same cannot be said about practice of astrology. Horoscope importance and its application during business decisions or matrimonial alliances must be shunned by a modern, progressive society. In this process of doubting, we must be careful not to avoid questioning oneself too. It is easy to see the wrongs and fallacies of world but equally harder to direct our gaze inside us. We are a product of our upbringing, the society around us and the relationships we cultivate. Undoubtedly, some rigidities and stereotypes creep in. We must be our critic before anyone else. Our ego-defense will create friction but nonetheless, one must persist to constantly examine our beliefs and behaviours. This doesn't have to be revolutionary to start. It may well begin with questioning the harmless 'Husband-Wife' jokes to see whether we aren't also a victim of subtle patriarchal mindset. It may also begin with taking a pause before placing the order for next iPhone 18 and doubting what truly is the need of it, other than being bragadocious. Is one's doubter, another's skeptic? In the interest of being fair to act of doubting, one can wonder if the very act of doubting is right. This circular argument isn't just limited to realm of philosophical debates but manifests in real life scenarios as well. When the COVID-19 wave was at its peak and world was fortunate to have a vaccine, there was widespread vaccine hesitancy. Not just common folk but superstars such as Novak Djokovic shared this scepticism. No doubt, this vaccine hesitancy was an act of doubting - much praised in our essay - but when one has fallen in a burning pit, doubting the hand that pulls you up must take the second seat. Doubling can also, surprisingly, hinder progress sometimes. When Nikola Tesla introduced the world with Alternating Current, Thomas Alva Edison publicly doubted his invention's use. The latter used his money power and scientific stature to quash down Tesla's gift to humanity. As a result, Tesla died in penury and progress in electrical engineering was stalled. One's nature to doubt may also leave them disillusioned. It is often said that intellectuals can never be truly happy since they doubt the people around them, the relationships they build and even the notion of happiness itself. This can lead to Nihilism - the philosophy of absence of importance or value in life. This, moreover, doesn't only stop to interpersonal dimension. The social order around us is built on rules and predictability. Many a times, these rules might not make sense and fall against intelligent doubting. For instance, why must one stop at red light on a lonely intersection? However, we must follow these rules and be a part of the social stability order built around us. We must not allow chaos to disrupt established norms under guise of doubting. The Synthesis: Creative and tempered doubting The Buddhist philosophy of Middle Path or the Aristotlean Mean principle have long proposed what any virtue should be - a tempered, measured balance between the extremes.

Doubting is no different. One must not be a compliant sheep and walk head down and neither doubt incessantly to a point of nihilism. We must direct our rational thinking to pose evidence-based doubts and search for their answers. Doubting is just job half-done. The subsequent responsibility lies in going-down the path of uncertainty and exploring the unexplored. And for the society and governments, they must encourage the doubter. This translates to allowing a culture of dissent and avoiding the urge of silencing differences. As a placard during a protest march rightly said, "Dissent is not opposite of Nationalism. Indifference is." Concludingly, one must avoid the comfortable path of accepting scientific, cultural or social dogmas. We must go through the pain of doubting not just ideas and institutions around us; but also within: Leaders, experts or even our beloved parent are just humans; and by nature, humans are falliable. A doubter, hence is not only a true man of science but also our society, our civilization and our democracy. We must never outsource our doubting nature, whether to people or machines, because as Rene Descartes once said: "I think, therefore I am." or more appropriately 'I doubt, therefore I am'.