Jagadis Chandra Bose and the Politics of Science

Christin Hoene
{"title":"Jagadis Chandra Bose and the Politics of Science","authors":"Christin Hoene","doi":"10.14297/GNB.2.1.26-40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 6 June 1901, Jagadis Chandra Bose read a paper at the Royal Society in London, entitled ‘On Electric Response of Inorganic Substances’. Bose showed that external stimuli, such as poison or electricity, have a similar effect on living tissue, such as plants or muscle, and inorganic matter, such as iron oxide or tin. Bose recorded response curves for muscle, plant, and metal and was thus able to show parallels between the living and the non-living. This was not only revolutionary, but also unacceptable to parts of his audience. At this talk, Bose encountered two difficulties: firstly, in upsetting traditional disciplinary boundaries between physics and physiology, he, the physicist, undermined the authority of the physiologists who were present. Consequently, they attacked Bose’s findings on the grounds of the second difficulty, namely the common prejudice against Indians according to which the Indian mind, in its pursuit of metaphysic ideals, was unsuited to scientific thoughts and practices. The physiologists thus confounded Bose’s theory of unity between the living and the non-living with a theological bias according to which they believed that Bose could only have arrived at his results because of his predisposition for mysticism rather than by carefully executed experiments. They failed to see that both could be true: for Bose, the intuition to search for a unifying principle between the living and the non-living and the scientific rigour with which he strove to prove it were not mutually exclusive, but, in fact, mutually dependant.","PeriodicalId":153709,"journal":{"name":"Gitanjali & Beyond","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gitanjali & Beyond","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14297/GNB.2.1.26-40","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 6 June 1901, Jagadis Chandra Bose read a paper at the Royal Society in London, entitled ‘On Electric Response of Inorganic Substances’. Bose showed that external stimuli, such as poison or electricity, have a similar effect on living tissue, such as plants or muscle, and inorganic matter, such as iron oxide or tin. Bose recorded response curves for muscle, plant, and metal and was thus able to show parallels between the living and the non-living. This was not only revolutionary, but also unacceptable to parts of his audience. At this talk, Bose encountered two difficulties: firstly, in upsetting traditional disciplinary boundaries between physics and physiology, he, the physicist, undermined the authority of the physiologists who were present. Consequently, they attacked Bose’s findings on the grounds of the second difficulty, namely the common prejudice against Indians according to which the Indian mind, in its pursuit of metaphysic ideals, was unsuited to scientific thoughts and practices. The physiologists thus confounded Bose’s theory of unity between the living and the non-living with a theological bias according to which they believed that Bose could only have arrived at his results because of his predisposition for mysticism rather than by carefully executed experiments. They failed to see that both could be true: for Bose, the intuition to search for a unifying principle between the living and the non-living and the scientific rigour with which he strove to prove it were not mutually exclusive, but, in fact, mutually dependant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
贾加迪斯·钱德拉·博斯与科学政治
1901年6月6日,加加迪斯·钱德拉·玻色在伦敦皇家学会宣读了一篇题为《论无机物的电反应》的论文。玻色表明,外部刺激,如毒药或电,对植物或肌肉等活组织和氧化铁或锡等无机物都有类似的作用。玻色记录了肌肉、植物和金属的反应曲线,从而能够显示生物和非生物之间的相似之处。这不仅是革命性的,而且对他的部分听众来说也是不可接受的。在这次演讲中,玻色遇到了两个困难:首先,他打破了物理学和生理学之间的传统学科界限,他作为物理学家削弱了在场生理学家的权威。因此,他们在第二个困难的基础上攻击玻色的发现,即对印度人的普遍偏见,认为印度人的心灵在追求形而上学的理想时,不适合科学的思想和实践。因此,生理学家们用一种神学偏见混淆了玻色关于生物和非生物统一的理论,他们认为,玻色之所以能得出这样的结果,只是因为他对神秘主义的偏爱,而不是通过精心进行的实验。他们没有看到两者都是正确的:对玻色来说,在生物和非生物之间寻找统一原则的直觉和他努力证明这一点的科学严谨性并不是相互排斥的,事实上,而是相互依存的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Liz Niven To Whom I Return Each Day Beth Junor Jaydeep Sarangi Poetry and Art
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1