It is probably true to say that no other theory in science has had as much impact on the public imagination as Einstein’s Theory of relativity. This famous equation giving the equivalence between energy and mass, is so simple that anybody with a secondary education could understand, and it became a cult formula that anybody who pretended to be an intellectual had to know.

The Theory of relativity with its new way of looking at space and time has had considerable impact in many areas of human activity. It is a landmark in science as an essential tool in the study of matter at the level of both the infinitely small and the infinitely big. On the technological side, the development of nuclear weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes have dominated world politics in a way that no other technological development had done before. Further, the Theory of relativity has enormous philosophical implications the full extent of which has hardly been analysed.

Scientists and laymen agree that the Theory of relativity is truly the creation of a genius; but what the laymen do not realize is that it is also the product of a successful methodology. Without that methodology, commonly known as the scientific method, the development of modern science in Europe as from the 17th century would have been impossible.

The spectacular achievements of science and technology, especially during the past 100 years, have induced non-scientists to apply the scientific method in other fields of human activity. Unfortunately those who have tried to do so in areas like sociology, politics or economics have claimed the label “scientific” for work that does not justify that label. It is important to know what the method is and why it has been so successful before we can consider its applicability in other fields.

Scientific method consists of a set of very simple rules for carrying out any scientific investigation. It defines a number of steps that should be followed in a particular order. The first step is the gathering of the facts about the phenomenon that we want to study. These facts, to be admissible, should be capable of being observed or reproduced by anyone, anywhere, using the appropriate equipment. They should be objective and not based on fancy or imagination. An important aspect of this first step is that no fact should be rejected.

The second step consists in the formulation of a theory to explain the observed facts. Certain assumptions are made about the physical world and, using the analytical tools available like mathematics and logic, the scientist develops his theory and draws certain conclusions. The successful theory should be able to explain all the known facts. But an important requirement is that it should also be able to predict hitherto unobserved phenomena that can be verified by experiment.

The third step is the design of experiments to test the predictions of the theory. This is a crucial step as it leads to the validation or rejection of the theory. Once proved right, the theory holds until new facts may emerge. Then, another theory to explain the old and the new facts has to be developed. The process thus goes on until a theory is developed, if ever, which explains all the facts.

Science thus moves forward by constantly overthrowing the applecart. No theory is secure in science. The scientist is never 100% right and this is part of his credo. It creates in the scientist the healthy attitude of always questioning himself. The scientist must accept criticism as part of the day’s work. This double requirement of modesty is one of the main strengths of scientific method; which all goes to show that modesty and humility are attributes of strength.

<I>The absence of method in our debates on national issues is sadly obvious. We have been talking about education reform for years. Yet we have not really agreed why we want the reform.</I>

Scientific method, as described above, is in direct contradiction to the previous methodology in science, prevalent since the time of the Greeks, at least in Europe, and which was based on authority. For a theory to be accepted, it had to agree with what Plato, Aristotle, the Pope or some other recognized authority said. If it did not, it was wrong. Galileo found that out to his dismay but he was wise enough and humble enough to bow down before the Pope and declare aloud that the sun went round the earth, although, the story goes that he whispered at the same time that that did not stop the earth from turning. This realistic approach to a difficult situation enabled him to continue his work. Had he stood against the authority of the day, he might have been burned at the stake and the loss to science would have been great. Obviously, with that type of methodology, progress was slow. The modern scientific method effectively kills such negative attitudes as arrogance, stubbornness and lack of objectivity, which are great barriers to progress.

Thus the scientific method prescribes a simple, clear, precise and logical procedure that all scientists have to follow and which constitutes its strength. But the success of the method is as much due to its approach as to the qualities that its practice demands and cultivates. The first of these qualities is sincerity of purpose: the scientist must sincerely want to find the truth. He should not have other motives like personal gain or fame that could lead him astray. The next quality is intellectual honesty. If the facts contradict his theory, he must accept that his theory is unsatisfactory and go back to the drawing board. In any case, even if he has been able to explain all the known facts, it is an absolute certainty that, sooner or later, someone will discover something that his theory cannot explain.

Newtonian mechanics was extremely successful. But the Theory of relativity showed that there was a higher truth that encompassed Newtonian mechanics. Newton was not proved wrong but incomplete. Faced with the complexity of the universe, the scientist is fully conscious that he knows very little. Newton himself said that he felt like a child gathering pebbles on the beach. The satisfaction of the scientist lies in having been able to contribute, even in a small way, to an understanding of this marvellous universe.

Another important attribute of the scientist is a capacity for hard work. It was Edison, one of the most prolific inventors of all times, who said: “Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.” In fact, the inspiration may only come after there has been a lot of perspiration. The scientist may spend years in solitary work before getting some result. Edison spent twenty years perfecting his electric light bulb.

Sincerity of purpose, intellectual honesty, modesty and humility, hard work, perseverance and patience; any undertaking that operates on the basis of such a set of qualities is bound to be highly successful. That explains why modern science has been immensely successful and also why the application of the scientific method in other fields has not been possible. It is not that the method is not applicable in other areas. It is rather that practitioners in these other fields are unwilling to submit to the requirements that the method demands.

People come up with theories and models that cannot be tested and yet the conclusions are imposed upon millions of people. What is called economic development is only the application of technology to production and not the result of economic theory which only tries to explain what has happened. In this case, the theory serves as a pretext for furthering personal or group interests. In religion, each religious group believes it is the sole possessor of the whole truth, that all the others are in the dark and must be saved even if it means killing them; at least their souls will be saved! How can we expect peace, harmony and prosperity from such attitudes and ways of doing things?

The absence of method in our debates on national issues is sadly obvious. We have been talking about education reform for years. Yet we have not really agreed among all the stakeholders why we want reform.The only thing that we seem more or less to agree on is that the failure rate at the CPE is unacceptably high. There are lots of facts about the system that are completely ignored in the debate. Similarly, we have not discussed and agreed on the objectives of the reform. So everyone defines the objectives in accordance with his/her personal or political interest. Under these circumstances, with everybody defending his own personal interests which he believes to be in conflict with those of other groups, it is impossible for the stakeholders to agree on the fundamentals of the problem, let alone to have a common vision and a

The same absence of methodology is prevalent everywhere. Take the traffic problem. I once drove the famous director of a famous Singaporean IT institution in the afternoon traffic from Port-Louis to Beau-Bassin. After a few minutes, he said: “You’ll never solve this problem; there are too many bottle-necks.” It had not taken him long, with his methodological mind, to identify one of the important facts about the traffic on that road at that particular time. We are trying to find the solution to a problem without knowing all the facts about the problem.

As a result, we spend our time arguing over the solutions because we have not agreed on what the problem really is and on what we want the solution to achieve. In science, there is an unwritten law which says: “If you want to have an answer, you must ask the right question.” To be able to ask the right question, you must know all the facts about the problem. Right now we are not sure whether we want to solve the traffic problem, to punish the motorists for causing the problem or to collect revenue for Government. Or rather we want to do all these things at the same time! Good Luck! Or rather Bad Luck for the motorists!

In Singapore, in the reclaimed land, the parking areas are planted with trees, obviously to provide some shade. But these trees have been carefully selected for one characteristic: they do not attract birds; so that, when you come back to your car, you do not have to face the unpleasant sight of your windscreen liberally splashed with bird droppings and the equally unpleasant task of having to clean it! When we have learned to do things with that sort of thoroughness then we will be able to talk about tigers and competitiveness. Otherwise we will remain what we have fast become: the nation with the begging bowl.

Kumara VENKATASAWMY</B>