Category: philosophy

Sir MV on Education

In India, “National Engineers’ Day is celebrated every year on September 15 to honor the birth anniversary of Sir Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya, one of India’s greatest engineers”. Sir MV, as he was known, is one of the 20th-century Indians I admire. He was a forward-looking statesman who contributed immensely to building India (literally and figuratively). MV was a well-read and well-travelled person for his era, and wrote a few books and memos that are still pertinent to the current developments in India and the world.

Reconstructing India (1920)

One of his books, Reconstructing India (1920), reveals his thoughts on how and why India needs to reconstruct itself based on knowledge in science, technology and humanities. The title page is shown below, and the book is free to read online, thanks to the Internet Archive.

The book, as mentioned by MV in the preface, was written just after the First World War, and contemplates problems faced by India in light of geopolitical developments. In the 17 chapters of the book, divided into 4 parts, MV discusses specific issues faced by India, and proposes that political and administrative reforms can help India become a progressive society.

The largest part of the book is on economic reconstruction, in which he proposes contemporary methods (for the 1920s) to improve various sectors of manufacturing, including agricultural technology and communication media.

The third part of the book is on social reforms, and in there, he has a dedicated chapter on Education, which caught my attention, and I found it relevant even for today’s India.

Education, Humanities, and STEM

It is important that students of science and technology have a good exposure to some aspects of the humanities, including economics, history and philosophy. The pursuit and ability to choose good problems in science and technology critically depend on the social and economic structure in which they are practiced in universities and research institutions. MV anticipated this and highlights it as:

“Secondary and university education, though producing many able recruits for subordinate positions in the Civil Service, does not provide the men needed to carry on the work of agriculture, engineering, commerce and technology. The provision for training in economics and history is inadequate, and the study of those subjects is even discouraged. An attempt is actually made to teach economics in such a way as to render India’s emergence from a state of dependency difficult.”

Even in 2025, I would suggest that STEM students pay attention to economics, as it anchors them to understand the need and functions of a society, and therefore, their work can be calibrated accordingly. This is not to discourage open-ended research, but to understand how natural sciences are connected to the societal thoughts and needs. It gives us a broader understanding of the context, which is so important while understanding the evolution of ideas.

Comparative Education Systems

There is always a lot to learn from various societies and cultures. In order to do so, one needs comparative analysis. This helps one to choose some good elements from a society that can be emulated elsewhere. MV compares and comments on the 1900s British educational system in contrast to the German and Japanese counterparts. Note that India in the 1920s was still a British colony, and in a way, MV is critical of the system in which he himself was educated and trained. As he notes:

“Britain herself has had to pay a heavy price for her hand-to-mouth policy in regard to education. The educational chaos still existing there compares unfavourably with the great yet orderly progress made by Germany and Japan, both of which countries, after weighing and testing the educational systems of the world, absorbed the best of all.”

These were words written long before the Second World War, and give us a glimpse of how German and Japanese systems were functioning in the 1920s and had a lot to offer to the world. Of course, history took its own path, and German and Japanese society had other ideas.

Incidentally, I am writing this piece sitting in Leipzig (eastern Germany), and I am amazed by its architectural marvels that date back centuries. Indeed, German society had (and has) a lot to offer to the world. As MV indicates above, we need to absorb the best that is on offer. In doing so, we also need to reject that which is not good for any society.

Liberal Education and Financial Support

He further adds how liberal education adds value to a society, and calls not only the government but also the people to recognize the importance of financial support for education.

“Both the Government and the people must recognize that only by pursuing a liberal educational policy, and making generous financial provision for schools and colleges can they lift India out of her present low condition and ensure rapid progress.”

These words still hold good, and as a society, India has to re-emphasize modern education that helps us become not only better doctors and engineers, but also better human characters that can add value to the “modern” world.

Call to Action

In the final part of the book, MV makes a passionate appeal to the people of India, calling them to take action and move towards becoming a progressive nation:

“Do the people of India propose to profit by the lessons which world experience has to teach them, or will they be content to allow matters to drift and themselves grow weaker and poorer year by year?
This is the problem of the hour. They have to choose whether they will be educated or remain ignorant; whether they will come into closer touch with the outer world and become responsive to its influences, or remain secluded and indifferent; whether they will be organized or disunited, bold or timid, enterprising or passive ; an industrial or an agricultural nation ; rich or poor ; strong and respected, or weak and dominated by forward nations. The future is in their own hands.”

Indeed, the future is in our hands, and these words written more than 100 years ago still resonate loudly. We need more engineers like Sir MV. The reason he was so effective was that he combined thinking and doing. Importantly, the lesson we can learn from MV’s life and by reading this book, is that an open mind can grasp good ideas at any time and anywhere. Implementing those ideas is an equally important challenge, and MV was up to this in his own way. Are we, as Indians, open to this prospect and engineer our future?

Gardner’s Synthesis

Once in a while, during my research, I come across writing by scholars from other disciplines that gives me a perspective that not only helps me to grasp the complexity of learning across disciplines, but also resonates with some thoughts on education.

Howard Gardner is one such academic who works on developmental psychology and has researched extensively on cognition and education. He has written ~30 books and ~1000 articles, and blogs regularly, even at the age of 82 or so. His recent book is titled A Synthesizing Mind.

Howard Gardner is a renowned Harvard academic and, as his book describes him as follows:

“Throughout his career, Gardner has focused on human minds in general, or on the minds of particular creators and leaders. Reflecting now on his own mind, he concludes that his is a ‘synthesizing mind’—with the ability to survey experiences and data across a wide range of disciplines and perspectives. The thinkers he most admires—including historian Richard Hofstadter, biologist Charles Darwin, and literary critic Edmund Wilson—are exemplary synthesizers. Gardner contends that the synthesizing mind is particularly valuable at this time and proposes ways to cultivate a possibly unique human capacity.”

While exploring the book and the related material, I came across an interview with Howard Gardner. In there, he is conversing about the theme of the book and discusses the synthesis of thought across disciplines. One of the pertinent aspects of learning is to know how innovation can be fostered by cross-disciplinary exploration without diluting disciplinary rigour. As Gardner says:

“I am not opposed to disciplinary learning—indeed I am an enthusiastic advocate. Any person would be a fool to try to create physics or psychology or political science from the start. But if we want to have scholars or professionals who are innovative, creative—and innovation is not something that we can afford to marginalize—then they cannot and should not be slaves of any single discipline or methodology.”

As a physicist, I can relate to this thinking within my discipline, and how innovative ideas, over the ages, have emerged by bringing ideas from mathematics, engineering and biology into physics. Particularly, the combination of biology, physics and mathematics is one of the most exciting frontiers of human exploration today, and Gardner’s words apply well in this scenario.

Going beyond science, I am always intrigued and amazed by artists (especially musicians) who can create art that simultaneously draws the attention of specialists and generalists. This is not a trivial achievement, and as a scientist, I am always trying to understand how artists resonate so well with the public. Gardner, in the abovementioned interview, frames this problem by looking at the goals of science and arts, and draws a contrast that is worth noting:

“Most scholars and observers like to emphasize the similarities between the arts and the sciences, and that is fine. But the goals of the two enterprises are different. Science seeks an accurate and well supported description of the world. The arts seek to capture and convey various aspects of experience; and they have no obligation other than to capture the interest and attention of those who participate in them.

Of course, there are some individuals who excel in both science and art (Leonardo is everyone’s favorite example). But most artists—great or not—would not know their way around a scientific laboratory. And most scientists—even if they like to play the violin or to draw caricatures or to dance the tango—would not make works of art or performances that would interest others.”

I partially agree with this assessment, as I know a few scientists who are deeply involved in various forms of art (including music) and do it very well, even at the professional level. In a way, Gardner is re-emphasizing the “two cultures” debate of C.P. Snow. My own thoughts on this viewpoint are ambivalent, as I see science, arts and sports as important pursuits that cater to different facets of the human mind. Of course, when it comes to expertise, the division may matter. There is a lot more to learn about the interface of art and science, at least for me.

Anyway, Gardner is a fabulous writer, and his blogs and books are worth reading (and studying) if one is seriously interested in understanding how to synthesize thought across disciplines.

Since we are discussing synthesis of thought, which is a kind of harmony, and coming together, let me end the blog with a line from Mankuthimmana Kagga by the Kannada poet-philosopher D.V. Gundappa:

“ಎಲ್ಲರೊಳಗೊಂದಾಗು ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ” (Eladaralongodhagu manku thimma)

which loosely translates to: oh fool…be one among all (blend into world, living in harmony).

Harmony of disciplines and minds – how badly the world needs it today?

A bit of advice…to students

To paraphrase something I tell my students, especially when they are starting a research project –

There are certainly many people in the world who think better than us. But the competition reduces when it comes to the people who take their thoughts and ‘do’ something with them. Novelty of ideas is in the novelty of connections of ideas. There is always more scope for new connections of old ideas.

Generally, the game is won not in out-thinking, but in out-doing. This does not mean that doing excludes thinking. In fact, many times, doing fosters thinking.

A quantum survery – 3 thoughts

One of the joys of studying quantum mechanics, at any stage of a career, is to be aware of the fact that there is more scope for interpretations and understanding. This notion has not changed for several decades. A recent survey reinforces this thought.

There are at least 3 interesting points that I infer from the situation:

1) The interpretation of reality at the quantum scale is probabilistic. This has served us well in experiments and has led to the founding of quantum technologies. We are in a situation in the history of science where the philosophical foundations are uncertain, but the technological implications are profound.

2) Having more data is always good, but for a new leap of thought, we may have to pay attention to new connections among the data. Can AI play a role in this?

3) There is more room for exploration in the foundations of quantum physics. Philosophy of physics has a role to play in this exploration. Physics students and researchers with (analytical) philosophical inclination have an opportunity to contribution. This needs a grounding in understanding mathematics and experiments related to quantum physics. I see this as a great opportunity for someone to enter the field.

Conclusion: Good time to explore the foundations of physics*

*subject to support from society

Philosophy of Science – ideas – cartoon

Ideas in philosophy of science, especially in the 1800s and early 1900s, had their origin in physics. Two philosophers who were deeply influenced by physics were Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Below is a cartoon depiction of the same. Of course, the origins of ideas in philosophy of science have diversified in recent years, and biology and technology (especially AI) dominate the scene nowadays.

A note on experimental physics

Experimental physics is one of the crucial ingredients of physics. There are at least two major tasks within its realm. The first is to examine nature through observation. These observations can then be extrapolated into systematic measurements that can be quantified. The second aspect is that experimental physics serves as a platform to test hypotheses that are already formulated by theory. In this way, it acts as a conduit connecting theory to real-world situations. Additionally, it reveals the limitations of any theory, thereby serving as a valuable test bed.

These two tasks are essentially intertwined: an observation can lead to new hypotheses, and, conversely, a well-formulated hypothesis can lead to systematic measurements.

For example, while hunting for astronomical radio sources, an important discovery was made: the observation of the cosmic microwave background. This finding turned out to be one of the crucial ones in physics, providing vital insights into the Big Bang theory and becoming a foundational aspect of observational cosmology. Another example is the special theory of relativity, where the Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out ether, which enabled Einstein to formulate his theory with greater confidence.

These two examples offer a snapshot of the possibilities within experimental physics and highlight its essential role in the duality between theory and experiment in physics. In a way, experiments and theory complement each other, and are like two sides of a coin.

Conversation with Robert T. Pennock

Welcome to the podcast Pratidhvani – Humanizing Science

My guest this time is Professor Robert T. Pennock, University Distinguished Professor at Michigan State University, with appointments in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Philosophy, and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering: https://pennock5.msu.domains/

Robert’s research explores the deep connections between science, ethics, and philosophy. His recent book, An Instinct for Truth, presents science as a moral discipline grounded in intellectual virtues like honesty, curiosity, and humility.

At the BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, he leads interdisciplinary work on digital evolution, using artificial life systems to explore questions about complexity, adaptation, and the evolution of intelligent behavior.

In this episode, we explore his intellectual journey with an emphasis on philosophy of science.

Spotify Link

References:

  1. Robert T. Pennock – University Distinguished Professor. n.d. Accessed July 15, 2025. https://pennock5.msu.domains/.
  2. Wikipedia. 2025. “Robert T. Pennock.” April 27. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_T._Pennock&oldid=1287698177.
  3. Pennock, Robert T. 2019. An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science. The MIT Press. Amazon link
  4. American Scientist. n.d. Accessed July 16, 2025. https://www.americanscientist.org/author/robert_t._pennock.
  5. American Scientist. 2025. “A Measure of Trust.” January 22. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/a-measure-of-trust.
  6. Miller, Jon D, Belén Laspra, Carmelo Polino, Glenn Branch, Mark S Ackerman, and Robert T Pennock. 2024. “Citizen Attitudes toward Science and Technology, 1957–2020: Measurement, Stability, and the Trump Challenge.” Science and Public Policy 51 (3): 526–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad086.

ChatGPT – an experiment

Below is a small experiment with ChatGPT (GPT-4o, which is OpenAI’s most advanced model as of July 2025).

I asked for thoughts (from authentic sources) from Indian writers on the nature of the writing process (handwriting vs typewriting).

It confidently gave me quotations from Rabindranath Tagore, R.K. Narayan and U.R. Ananthmurthy. I was intrigued, and below is my conversation:

me: list the quotes from Indian writers above and give the exact sources

Chatgpt: I couldn’t find reputable sources for the exact quotes I previously suggested by Indian writers—so it’s safer to reconsider them.

This is something I have been observing with LLM chatboxes, especially when it comes to the sources that may not be mainstream. One may even say it is hallucinating, but after enquiring further, it said:

The quotes I initially provided appear to be popular paraphrases or second-hand interpretations, but none could be verified in primary texts or reliable interviews.

Then, it asked me if I wanted to use authentic sources to be presented to corroborate the initially mentioned sources. I said yes, and below was its reply:

Here are verified quotes from Rabindranath Tagore, with clear attributions to reliable sources—unfortunately, I couldn’t locate authenticated quotes for other Indian writers on writing methods

The quotes that it gave were peripheral to my initial question. It identified two to three quotations, but none of them were directly connected to my initial query.

There may be at least 2 hypotheses that I can draw from this, which need further testing:

  1. ChatGPT and its kind may be getting trained more intensely on sources that are mainly anglophonic, and its geographical distribution of sources may be skewed. Online literary sources from countries such as India may not be as dense as, say USA, the UK or even some European countries. Will depositing more authentic sources online, including their translations, help the authentic discovery of information from countries such as India?
  2. With the current developments and model training, there may already be a bias in the answers that LLM chatbots give. It may reinforce many viewpoints from Western repositories that may sometimes be disconnected or irrelevant to the user outside Western geographies. In that sense, new information is being built on old information. Are we entering a stage where data deposition asymmetry is creating an asymmetry of discovery?

I know these questions are not trivial to answer, but for LLM chatboxes to be authentic, they need to address questions with proper citations. I know some of them are trying to do that (eg, perplexity AI), but I find the links it provides for certain focused questions are not up to the mark.

My inference:

  1. I am cautiously optimistic about the developments and achievements in source-based LLM interfaces, especially when you feed an authentic source (eg, NotebookLM).
  2. But LLM chatboxes may be hyped when:
    • It comes to its capability of sourcing authentic information, and
    • The immediacy of replacements of existing knowledge systems.
  3. LLM chatboxes should be treated as an experimental tool for utilitarian tasks where the information can be verified independently.
  4. It is important to take the bottom line of ChatGPT seriously: ‘ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.‘

More is Different – A Brief Overview

P.W. Anderson (image from wikipedia)

In 1972, P. W. Anderson wrote what is considered one of the most remarkable essays in the history of physics, and the title of that essay is “More is Different.” In the essay, Anderson was trying to make a case for emergence, where new, interesting physical properties can emerge by the combination of matter, which you would not anticipate if you had just kept it as an individual entity.

One of the aspects related to this essay is also the thought that reductionism has its limitations and that groups act very differently compared to individuals. The higher-level rules that can emerge from the combination of small entities are actually very different from the rules that are applicable to individual entities.

For example, if you consider electrons in a solid, you have the emergence of properties of electrons such as magnetism or superconductivity, or, for that matter, putting molecules inside a compartment and, lo and behold, life arises out of that. This has turned out to be one of the most influential ways of thinking in physics because it opened up a new avenue for understanding complex systems not as just combinations of simple systems but as the emergence of properties.

Very interestingly, this essay does not actually mention the word “emergence” at all, but the concept is so fascinating that it has turned out to be one of the most influential essays ever written in physics. The whole point about this particular essay is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and P. W. Anderson has to be remembered for this magnificent essay.