The Worship of Science - The Neutrino Tunnel

 

Anil Hebbar

dMiramftSgpoernscohng 6,re Sai20u1l5d  · 

Was part of the briefing by Dr. Naba Mondal and other scientists of the India-based Neutrino project at TISS where the scientists had come during the Right Livelihood foundation's laureates program. Ms.Medha Patkar had announced her support to Vaiko's agitation against the project due to fears that the 2km long tunnel one km under the earth would be used to dump radioactive waste from nuclear plants. The scientists briefed on the project and tried to allay fears that the tunnel would ever be used to dump radioactive waste or contaminate water aquifers. Need to study the project thoroughly.

1Suraj Kumar

50 Comments

Share

Comments

• Aparna Krishnan

  Exactly my thoughts .

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Everyone except the scientists seem to know everything. Very surprised at these great knowledge people being so tolerant to mere scientists.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
  •  · 
    Edited
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  Can you substantiate your argument. 

  Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  All I am saying is that just being suspicious of motives of scientists wanting to study neutrinos is not enough argument to prevent an experiment.

  While it looks like this may be a waste of money, it is remote sensing satellite that is actually providing accurate information on crops and forest cover.

  Forcing governments and activists to respect data.

  So pretending that we know what of science is good or bad to control the direction of science, while looking a very laudable objectives, is very smug indeed, if not downright fraudulent.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  I think one needs to look for answers in the whole. A question has to be raised about an entire issue - the answer cannot be found in parts. In Hind Swaraj Gandhiji looks at modern civilisation as a whole.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Any structure will always have some part which is 'good', but the catch may be that when we take it in it comes as a whole - and we may need to decide if the 'whole' is desirable.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  While I respect Gandhi for his social acumen, I think there were many things on science which he was wrong.

  Who has this overall view?

  And who is to judge that is the right and beneficial view.

  Social activists?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  I dont know.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  If the experiment is benign then it is ok. What will happen when million tonnes of concrete and steel is poured. While gazillion powerful telescopes have been built light pollution has blockedd out the night sky. Beyond a certain point when knowledge and experiments do not serve humanity the animal kingdom, the mountains, plains and rivers. You may have given up your rights and subordinated to experts I have not.

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Mohammad Chappalwala

   okay let me be direct and ask some simple question.

  1)What is the logic you are advancing?

  2) How do telescopes cause light pollution? Are you even aware that light pollution is a big problem in using telescopes.

  3) How do you and the entire set of your advisers know what is the point at which knowledge stops serving humanity ?

  4) Is asking you hard questions wrong?

  5) You can retain your right to protest, not subordinate etc. However in any society you ultimately have to submit to authority outside of yourself either courts, legislature.

  If you choose not to subject to any authority outside of yourself well my question how is that being reasonable.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Moral axioms are needed. Humanity is a small part, and the axioms have to include the well being whole, animate and inanimate. And then, 'first do no harm' will probably be another axiom ... to not assume that something will not harm unless we are sure. We will naturally transgress there as we move, but a framework like this is needed. Because science is too limited, and two sides are argue till the cows come home.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Making insinuations, expression of fears, invoking the divine, invoking morality all this is not proof.

  Is divinity the answer instead of science?

  And how is not doing anything the better path?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Axiom, axiom. Like Hippocrate's 'First do no harm'.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  How is harm proven in this case?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Modern science has a poor track record of predicting harm.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Either stick to the point under consideration or let's open up a grand debate. Which one do you want?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  The harm of the neutrino project cannot be predicted.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  And against possible gains, i would rather the money was used to provide fodder for cows and save them for their poor owners. That gain I would bet on.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  So your fears are the proof?

  Is your submission that without addressing your fears the project should not proceed?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  i actually do not wish to debate. I do not know enough. i only placed some general points for consideration.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Sure you want a decision on how money should be spent. So do others? So why is your need bigger than others needs?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  just my perception.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Yes. I know where you are coming from. I even understand the position.

  I do not support the stand of opposition to this project.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  Thank you for reading and asking questions, i understand some portions were inarticulate.

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Look I think we have to allow brutal truth to prevail over ideology. Are we in agreement on that?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  point 1) the logic is that i am advancing is modern science, we will call it technics here has in the last 250 years or so decimated millions of species, polluted and dammed the rivers, clear cutted forests, mined and spread toxicity, vacuumed the oceans. all this does not require any proofs it is all around you. technics has led us far, can we agree on this?

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  point 2, here i was the most inarticulate, while we may have made telescopes to peirce the heavens, the vast majority of human population cannot appreciate the stars, the fog of human lighting has deprived us of that, you do see poetry and the joy of clear open skies with all the cosmic dance and acknowledge in your comment

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  point 3) links to point 1, if your actions based on your knowledge reduce, 1 glass of drinking water, reduce the amount of top soil, reduces the ability of a community to survive in that area for thoussands of years then that know is toxic

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Steel has been used as a plough and also a sword.

  Science has also been applied to save millions of lives. Create a lot of jobs and many more positive things.

  That you choose to only look at the negatives is unfortunate.

  The right question is why has science done so much good and so much bad.

  Are you willing to ask that question? Then I am willing to answer.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  point 4) thank you for your questions, it helps me to articulate better. prepares me as i can use it as intellectual defence course

  

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  point 5) being an anarchist does not mean that you do not submit to authority, i submit to the knowledge and authority of my plumber when i need his help, i will consult and talk to doctors when the needs arises, but i will also retain the right to take decisions

  

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Mohammad Chappalwala

   At 58 I don't know if I am old enough to advice. However let me go ahead and do that.

  Do not carry the burden of seeking logic to defend a belief. That will exhaust you

  Break free from ideology. View the pursuit of real knowledge as a joy. Seek aggressively, listen patiently, accept all human beings the activist, the poor, the rich, the famous, the unknown, the arrogant, the humble, the religious, the scientists all as your friends and equals.

  Every single one of them is worthy of your love.

  When you can do that and then question with love and receive answers. Then my friend your heart and mind together will lead you to places where you will find amazing bliss.

  

  2

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  steel would be difficult if not impossible to produce without coal. Without pyramid structures, structures where violence is used to maintain few people at the top and subordinating others, no one would want to work in a coal mine.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  I stop here. I wish you luck and may God be with you. Bye bye.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  Can you point out the beliefs?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  ok until we meet again

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Totally agree with 

  Mohammad Chappalwala

  's clear logic. Modern science and technology has clearly unleashed far more harm than good. And even the good, if traced back responsibly, will prove to have caused much destruction.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  There is a whole framework which explains this and I remember 

  Claude Alvares

  's and Winin Pereira;s writings also on this.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Love sir. That is the only belief. Learn to deal with all people with love. There is no great power or belief. We call god in all religions in first person, Jesus, Allah, Ram.

  This is an act of love.

  Only the stupid priest wants titles, Sahi Imam… 

  See More

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Science incidentally also covers the earlier processes, and these were not virulent as that of modernity. There was steel, there was a deeply intricate health system called ayurveda, there was mathematics and all else. Dharampal's Science and technology in the 18th Century is a must read. (available online for reading)

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  Now bye for the last time

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
  •  · 
    Edited
• Aravinda Pillalamarri

  The experiment is benign. http://www.thehindu.com/.../what-will.../article6764398.ece

  

  THEHINDU.COM

  What will be the India-based Neutrino Observatory’s impact?

  What will be the India-based Neutrino Observatory’s impact?

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Coming back to 

  Mohammad Chappalwala

  's point 

  Aravinda Pillalamarri

   - is it necessary. I would say, not really. Just ensure fodder for the cows. The vision of development that is really necessary and relevent to our nation does not need investment in cutting edge research IMHO.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Mohammad Chappalwala

  Yes 

  Aravinda Pillalamarri

  , while the experiment itself is benign the construction wont be. Apart from this it propogates the mindset of the dominant development culture of plundering and looting the planet is their right.

  

  1

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Aparna Krishnan

  Yes, what for.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Sree Oggu

  Balasubramaniam Thyagarjan and 

  Mohammad Chappalwala

  I have read the entire post and would like to make my comments.

  1. I am NOT against science as a tool to search for truth. As someone corrupted by human knowledge , science is the one that has been helping me to become unconditioned.

  2. Having said this, is it the purpose of science to solve world problems? What are the world problems? Hunger ? Poverty? Peace? Planet sustainability?

  I used to think that it is the purpose of science to solve these problems. But I am mistaken, perhaps. Nature does NOT need science to fix itself. Human being is the problem. Specifically, ego, or the desire to be supreme is the problem. Once we give that up and come together as humanity, we can collectively end all world problems, with common sense more than science.

  Proof: Jadav Payeng, aka Forest man. Jon Jondai

  3. Coming back to point 1. Why do we need to look for truth? Because we want to satisfy our curiosity, an attribute that only one out of the 100 million life forms, have. Life does not stop because because we find the truth. It does not accelerate either because we find the truth. Will we even find the truth? Are we equipped to find the truth. I see that finding the truth is a refined form of entertainment. As long as we can maintain the nature's balance, I am not against scientific experiments.

  So arriving at mathematical proofs for natural laws - is OK.

  Clinical trials, killing thousands of animals or injecting toxins to poor people e.t.c is NOT ok.

  Making a documentary on isolated amazon tribes - I dont know.

  Drilling oil - Not OK.

  Growing forests - Not OK.

  Growing diverse forests - OK.

  As for this observatory, I dont know.

  Finally, Balasubramanyam Tyagarajan, please dont shun away when a debate seems to attack you. You have raised good points and makes us think collectively to get clarity. We need people like you to speak.  Please accept my friend request. 

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  I am not running from a debate for or against. The last thing I am concerned is if things are against me.

  Each of us have fought our battles and have arrived where we are with conviction.

  What I find vexatious to my spirit is repeated assertions of the same statement in various ways.

  I can understand the commitment to a cause, however I am not committed to those causes.

  To me truth is important.

  I don't know if you have read the ...

  For saving a family sacrifice a member.

  ....

  The last line says for saving a soul destroy the universe.

  That soul means dharma, the soul is the same paramathman is in bits and parts in everybody.

  So I cannot accept that love will be selective to a class, or a tribe.

  Thus I can participate when I hear less of ideology and real pursuit of truth.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Sree Oggu

  I appreciate your act, 

  Balasubramaniam

  . Thanks. 

  To me also, truth is important, however bitter it is. However, how do we know what is truth. We will face variations and disguises of it. Through discussions like these I seek to get clarity. Truth, apparently is that which does not change.

  I have not heard the verse you are quoting. Can you point me to the original verse - in sanskrit perhaps?

  I dont have mastery over "love" to say if it cannot be selective. Because I do feel drawn to some people and some thoughts. If what you mean by "love" is the same as what I mean by "being open and unconditioned to be receptive to all forms of ideas", yes love cannot be selective. But that may be outside the scope of this post. 

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y
• Balasubramaniam Thyagarajan

  I feel truth is multidimensional and evolving. Thus each of us sees what we have been raised to see. What I mean by love is, that we cannot keep to the belief that rich people are evil, scientists are evil, the only virtuous people are those you admire.

  So one cannot start and continue discussion of pursuit of knowledge with classifying people as exploiters etc.

  These definitions are okay when one is learning something first time. However like Kalil Gibran says, Wearing the clothes of childhood as an adult is constraining.

  My complaint with belief that nature is good science is bad.

  Poor are good rich are bad.

  GMO is bad.

  Etc without serious reasons and exceptions to the rules, show lazy minds.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 6y