The process of developing as a mind, requires insight into observations. It is through scrutinizing the nature of insight, that we can understand the specific function of moadot, in catalyzing human development. To illustrate the nature of "insight" let us consider the interesting case of the recent Israeli Nobel prize winner in Chemistry, Dan Shechtman.
Dr Schectman was blessed with a unique insight into Chemical structure, an insight so fundamental, that it contradicted accepted notions of science. As might be expected, Schectman's insight was not initially met with encouragement and support, quite the contrary. As reported in the press:
"I told everyone who was ready to listen that I had material with pentagonal symmetry. People just laughed at me," Shechtman said in a description of his work released by his university.
For months he tried to persuade his colleagues of his find, but they refused to accept it. Finally he was asked to leave his research group, and moved to another one within the National Bureau of Standards, Shechtman said.
He returned to Israel, where he found one colleague prepared to work with him on an article describing the phenomenon. The article was at first rejected, but finally published in November 1984 - to uproar in the scientific world. Double Nobel winner Linus Pauling was among those who never accepted the findings."He really was a great scientist, but he was wrong. It's not the first time he was wrong," Shechtman told reporters Wednesday.
What is particularly interesting about Dr Schectman, is that his battle to share his insight in physical science, brought about another, perhaps even more fundamental reflection upon the challenge the human social system imposes upon the process of attaining knowledge. The reality is that every new insight forces humility upon the scientific community. Much as man pays lip service to the notion that his "knowledge" is but a model of the laws of nature, people stake their reputations and grant money, on current thinking. It is extremely difficult to give up the security of the tried and "true" model, for the new. Schectman seems to have taken this lesson to heart, his great insight in Chemistry and subsequent battle, have resulted in a distinct maturity of outlook. Over time, his reflections on his personal journey, have left lasting impressions. A deep regard for humility in thought and the need of every individual for his fellow man
"The main lesson that I have learned over time is that a good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks," Shechtman, 70, told a news conference Wednesday at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel.
Fresh off Wednesday's announcement that he will receive the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Technion's Dan Shechtman was forthcoming in sharing the honor. "I think this is a great day for me, of course, but also a great day for the country," he said at a press conference.
The prize does not belong to him alone, he continued. "There are thousands of scientists that research the subject I developed, and I'm sure they all see the prize as an achievement for themselves as well, and indeed they deserve it."
4 comments:
The way people rejected Dr Schectman's findings is just an example of the multitude of misconceptions of the world we live in. Because people live and think based on misconceptions, they don't recognize the true value of the Torah.
[This occurs following the publication of Dr. Shechtman's first paper in Physics Review Letters (Nov. '84), about 2½ years after his first entries in his lab notebook.]
"The discovery now reached a wider audience, and Dan Shechtman became the target of even more criticism. At the same time, however, crystallographers around the world had a moment of déjà vu. Many of them had obtained similar diffraction patterns during analyses of other materials, but had interpreted those patterns as evidence of twin crystals. Now they started digging around in their drawers for old laboratory notes, and pretty soon other crystals began to appear with seemingly impossible patterns, such as eight- and twelvefold symmetries."
From: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011: Information for the Public, p. 3. [PDF via http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2011/info.html]
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Well said Hagyan."Knowing for sure" is an interesting category, one which demands a lot of humility.
One finds that דעות טובות leave too much equivocality to adequately regulate the conduct of the scientist in his work, though they are (almost?) enough for participation in a polity. The scientist, however, requires principles of conduct that are much "finer-grained", and which include the unmediated submission to the Ego-dystonic, brute given of "וחנותי את-אשר אחון", a "corollary" to הלכות יסודי התורה פרק א.
I think this relates to the episode of the golden calf, in the difference between the desire, "עשה-לנו אלוהים אשר ילכו לפנינו", and the possibility, "ילך-נא אדוניי, בקרבנו".
(One yearns for a time when a great Israeli like Dr. Shechtman will be quoted in Haaretz saying something like:
קווה קיוויתי יהוה; ויט אליי, וישמע שוועתי.
ויעלני, מבור שאון -- מטיט היוון:
ויקם על-סלע רגליי; כונן אשוריי.
וייתן בפי, שיר חדש -- תהילה לאלוהינו:
יראו רבים וייראו; ויבטחו, ביהוה.
[תהילים מ]
)
Post a Comment