Translating the “Exact” and “Positive” Sciences: Early Twentieth Century Reflections on the Past of the Sciences in India (original) (raw)
2015, Transcultural Studies
Inductivist theories of science dominated the landscape of the philosophy of science in nineteenth century Europe. This paper explores their vocation in late nineteenth and early twentieth century India. In the first half of the nineteenth century British Indologists and educationists introduced scholars at the Oriental colleges in India to Francis Bacon's Novum Organum Scientiarum . Baconian inductivism was simultaneously interpreted as a methodology that highlighted the distinctiveness of the method of the modern sciences, as well as its similarities with the constellations of knowledge in South Asia. The paper attempts to show that in the second half of the century and later, inductivism as formulated in the writings of William Whewell and J.S. Mill sets the stage for the debate on the inductive nature of the sciences in India. Two Bengali scholars, the philosopher B.N.Seal and the social scientist Benoy Kumar Sarkar, turn to the writings of Whewell and Mill as resources as w...
Related papers
Cultivation of Science in the 19th Century Bengal
India was the first country outside the Western World to take to modern science. The initiative came in the later half of the 19th century from Calcutta-based M.D. turned homeopath, Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar, and resulted in the establishment of Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science in 1876. We place this initiative in the broader context of the transfer of Hindu community leadership from the landed class to the professional, and critically examine how the colonial government responded to it. We also discuss the achievements and the failures of the science movement in the 19th century. Given the class composition of the native leadership, science speculation was preferred to science application. While the Science Association succeeded in creating a general awareness about science and getting it incorporated into the university system, it failed to initiate basic research under its own auspices. It would be UK-trained government college professors who would place India on the world science map. We briefly touch upon how India’s attitude towards modern science has been fashioned by the colonial experience.
Well-Ordered Science and Indian Epistemic Cultures: Towards a Polycentred History of Science (2013)
Isis, 2013
This essay defends the view that “modern science,” as with modernity in general, is a polycentered phenomenon, something that appears in different forms at different times and places. It begins with two ideas about the nature of rational scientific inquiry: Karin Knorr Cetina’s idea of “epistemic cultures,” and Philip Kitcher’s idea of science as “a system of public knowledge,” such knowledge as would be deemed worthwhile by an ideal conversation among the whole public under conditions of mutual engagement. This account of the nature of scientific practice provides us with a new perspective from which to understand key elements in the philosophical project of Jaina logicians in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries C.E. Jaina theory seems exceptionally well targeted onto two of the key constituents in the ideal conversation—the classification of all human points of view and the representation of end states of the deliberative process. The Buddhist theory of the Kathaﰢvatthu contributes to Indian epistemic culture in a different way: by supplying a detailed theory of how human dialogical standpoints can be revised in the ideal conversation, an account of the phenomenon Kitcher labels “tutoring.” Thus science in India has its own history, one that should be studied in comparison and contrast with the history of science in Europe. In answer to Joseph Needham, it was not ‘modern science’ which failed to develop in India or China but rather non-well-ordered science, science as unconstrained by social value and democratic consent. What I argue is that this is not a deficit in the civilisational histories of these countries, but a virtue.
Indian Journal of History of Science
Mahendra Lal Sircar (who founded the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science in 1876), and Asutosh Mookerjee (who was instrumental in setting up the University College of Science, Calcutta in 1916), left a lasting impact on the future course of higher scientific education and research in India-not only through the workings of the institutions that they set up, but also through the strong ideas, visions and struggles associated with them as they took shape in the complex interplay of the compulsions of colonialism and rising spirit of nationalism. This essay analyses the differences in the approaches of Sircar and Mookerjee, the commonalities between them, and finally, the lessons that their efforts hold, for today.
2018
The present paper seeks to explore the paradigms of scientific development in colonial India. The history of colonial India during the eighteenth-nineteenth century spectacularly illustrate a close link between science and imperialism and my endeavor will be to underline the nature, course and significance of this link with the help of a little theoretical discussion to be substantiated by a few illustrative examples from certain scientific works. A history of science in India must also be a history of India, not merely a history of the projection of western science in India. Pre-colonial stage means Ancient and Medieval times was India's own science, technology and medicine, themselves subjected to wide internal variation and different historical influence and cultural practice and the legacies these provided for the subsequent era of British rule.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.