The Genius And Faith of Faraday And Maxwell ( The New Atlantis)
Yet, science does not exist in a vacuum, and studies in the sociology, history, and philosophy of science often emphasize how scientists’ broader beliefs and practices influence their work, and thus the way that science develops. Some scholars even argue (if not entirely convincingly) that scientists’ beliefs influence science’s settled content.
The strict separation we commonly observe between a researcher’s scientific ideas and his or her “personal beliefs” is a modern, and even recent, norm. From antiquity through the Scientific Revolution, science was viewed as a form of philosophy, and many of the thinkers we have retroactively dubbed “scientists” freely intermingled their speculation about the natural world with theological, philosophical, and mathematical writings, often expending a great deal of their scholarly time and energy on religious study. Kepler’s seventeenth-century laws of planetary motion, for example, seem to his modern readers like needles of scientific inspiration buried in a haystack of theological speculation. Newton and Boyle likewise intermingled physics and philosophical theology without apparent hesitation.
By the nineteenth century, however, natural philosophy had become more natural and less philosophy. Theology and natural science were substantially separated. Apologetic natural theology — arguing that God can be deduced from nature — was now mostly for the theologians. The language of physics had become measurement and mathematics, and the objective of science had become a description of the world of nature in its own terms, rather than through the purposes of a Creator. As a result, it is tempting to read the science of that era as if it were completely independent of the religious commitments of its practitioners. But it wasn’t.
Because Victorian scientists are of interest to us mostly owing to their scientific contributions, their religious beliefs tend to be treated as incidental conformities to the conventions of the day — as if these figures were proto-rationalists and proto-materialists who, without the benefit of our full present enlightenment, had not completely shaken off the superstitions of an earlier age. This caricature is demeaning and mistaken, as can be illustrated by the lives and ideas of two men who were arguably the greatest physical scientists of their time, and among the greatest of all time: Michael Faraday (1791–1867) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
The two men had very different backgrounds. Faraday was English; Maxwell Scottish. Faraday was the son of a blacksmith of limited means; Maxwell’s father had inherited a substantial estate and hardly needed to practice the law in which he had been trained. Faraday had only a basic, grade-school education; Maxwell had the finest education available. Faraday was one of the most popular scientific lecturers of his day; Maxwell gained a poor reputation in the classroom. Faraday knew practically no formal mathematics; Maxwell was one of the finest mathematicians of his time. Faraday’s research became dominant for experimentation in electricity and magnetism; Maxwell’s for electromagnetic theory. One experience they had in common: both were committed Christians. Yet even here fascinating contrasts existed between the religious traditions to which they belonged and the ways their spiritual commitments influenced and strengthened their science. Click link below for full article;
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell
Posted by F. Sheikh
January 2, 2015.
.
I read this article once.
Intellectually it is so dense that I felt intellectual strains and pressures during the process of reading and comprehending this article.
This article has tremendous amount of information. All of us should share this article with our children and grand children. But at the same time we should ask them to write critical reviews on this article. Those reviews should be posted as comments in this website http://WWW.THINKERSFORUMUSABLOG.ORG
Here is a question.
Can we establish the validity of our belief systems based on the belief systems of eminent scientists?
Dr.Abdus-Salam was an Ahmadi and he recited Sura-e-Mulk from Quraan during his acceptance speech of Noble Prize for Physics.
.
Note: Because Dr. Abdus-Salam shared his Noble Prize with another Physicist, we should read both speeches together.
We should also read acceptance speeches of Hindus from India when they accepted Noble Prizes for Physics. They are quite a few, definitely more than one. Most of them were born in Punjab.
There are lot of Jews who received Noble Prizes in sciences, we should read their acceptance speeches. Most Jews with high IQ are secular.
This article is intellectually so dense, you will love it to read and digest.
We should read and write our comments on this article. But we should not forget ASK A QUESTION by Editor of the Month. (4 questions)
.
Marwan Majzoob.
The question of personal beliefs or faith of scientists, influencing scientific discoveries, is often used by both sides in the debate over Creation vs Evolution to discredit the other side. I personally think that we humans are capable of keeping our faith/belief in a separate box in our brains and carry out research which might seem contrary to those beliefs. It is quite easy to bring up our ignorance or not knowing every thing, as a shield to justify the vague ideas while observing evidence contrary to those ideas.
In the article above I did not see any thing that links the Faraday’s experiments or Maxwell’s equations to their beliefs. They both are greatly admired by all, and me too, along with other great minds that humans have to show for – some believers, some non believers. I have no idea how the author (professor of nuclear science) said in the end; “These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments” ! However, I couldn’t help notice the disclosure underneath the article that this essay was “supported by a grant from The Religion and Innovation in Human Affairs Program – whatever it may be, but I guess professor of nuclear science must not have found any difficulty in writing all about the work of these great scientists and adding the last line for a grant. He certainly quoted some remarks by these men about their beliefs in general but not specifically linking to their achievements.
Babar
January 5th, 2015
Actually Scientific Analysis demands that the personal belief systems must not influence the scientific analysis.
Scientific Analysis means collection of empirical data and then establishing the interactions of various variables – consequently showing the cause and effect in any particular physical situation.
This whole process is called achieving “OBJECTIVITY”.
Objectivity vrs. Subjectivity are major approaches in acquiring of human knowledge.
.
Subjectivity in fine arts is acceptable.
Objectivity in Scientific knowledge is desirable.
.
B.M observation at the end of the article that who sponsored this article needs our attention.
.
I was also not able to see the impact of personal belief systems of both great scientists of 19th century (Faraday and Maxwell).
What do you think TF USA affiliates?
Marwan Majzoob.
Scientific knowledge is settled only after prolonged technical and peer
reviews. Ideas, theories may be initially proposed and influenced by
beliefs but their confirmation is necessary by technical means to
establish as scientific facts.
Science seeks to enhance our knowledge of the universal phenomena as they
exist while art is the individual expression of the way we perceive
things.
Nasik