(For Discussion)

Uphold Scientific Realism

in Practice too

n         Om Saraf

The Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint as enunciated by Com. R.P. Saraf upholds the concept of not just realism but Scientific Realism. Realism accepts things as they really are, without any interpretation. On the other hand, Scientific Realism stands to know processes in their true nature, to test the authenticity of its conclusions according to the rules of science (both natural and social) and to deal with things as they actually exist.

This concept of Scientific Realism needs to be reiterated and reaffirmed at the moment since some well meaning friends have been after the passing away of Com. Saraf in June 2009 repeatedly contending that he had churned out such a comprehensive theory which is complete in itself. They have been asserting that Com. Saraf had written more or less on every subject worth the name and there is now no scope to add anything new to this theory. Going too far, they have been maintaining that no one among the organisation has the caliber comparable to Com. Saraf and hence no further research could be conducted to evolve and update Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint.

True, during the creation of Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint, Com. Saraf as an outstanding individual played the role of an ideological processing plant, while his team supplied the ideological raw material. Also, the conclusions drawn by him regarding nature and humankind on the basis of his research, study and experience remain valid even today and have not shown any major qualitative change. He highlighted the following five new points while differentiating his viewpoint from other such approaches.

First, change and development in human society occurs due to two factors of nature and human community. Second, the social change and development takes place through interaction between nature and human society, on the one hand, and that among human social units in society, on the other; this interaction is a two-sided motion—that of unity and struggle; the unity results in the combining of the given phenomena, while struggle leads to its division; both the motions constitute an indivisible whole with each of them occupying the primary position at one time while the other remaining in the secondary role and vice-versa. Third, a human being or human community has a bio-social character in contrast to the existing views that human nature is either biological or social. Fourth, humankind, having been a product of nature’s evolutionary process, is not the supreme phenomenon in the universe; other non-human phenomena on our earth have its own laws of development; humankind only interacts with other non-human things, sometimes in the primary and at other times in the secondary position. Fifth, there is nothing absolute in the universe; everything is under constant change; it is relevant only to a given time and space.

But since various phenomena in nature and humankind have been undergoing constant changes, though generally quantitative, those therefore need to be keenly studied and recorded.

Let us put to test the contention of our well meaning friends on the criterion of Scientific Realism which we follow as our concept on change and development.

1

Scientific Realism observes and studies the present or the past phenomena in their actuality. In doing so, it makes use of natural facts made available by natural science and social facts provided by man’s historical and social experience.

Being aware of the reality that the contemporary as well as earlier phenomena can be examined and analyzed as it is or as it was, we are committed to keep our eyes and ears open to actuality. It is also to be noted that this study has to be based on natural and social facts which keep on changing and growing like any other phenomenon undergoing movement and change. To study and record new facts, one has to explore these phenomena at all times continuously.

It is, therefore, wrong to presume that a viewpoint expressed by a personality, however eminent it may be, would be complete in itself. Same is true of the Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint which with the passage of time can grow and develop only on the basis of new facts.

2

Further, Scientific Realism contemplates every kind of natural and human phenomena in the universe as inter-connected and interactive. It also regards that these phenomena follow, in varying forms, the same principles of existence, movement and change. According to this concept, the nature is a general process which embraces in itself a number of never-ending specific processes, including that of human species. All these processes exist in different forms. Since this concept considers human society as a process whose mode of existence is biological, but whose mode of living and functioning is social, it visualizes human being’s nature as bio-social.

In other words, we can say various things or processes in the universe are in constant motion. The universe thus never gets tired and does not go on “holidays". The movement in things or processes is actually the mode of their existence. To be means to be in movement. The said processes act in distinctive manner respectively and follow a two-sided interaction (both internal and external) between two or more objects. This interaction takes place sometimes through the motion of unity and sometimes through that of struggle.

For example, the billions of stars that seem motionless to our naked eye are moving at colossal speeds. Every star is a sun with its own ring of planets following interaction within itself and outside with other stars. The stars and the satellites circling round them also revolve on their own axis and participate in the turning of the whole galaxy around its axis. Our galaxy moves in relation to other galaxies – sometimes moving in unity and sometimes in struggle with them. And there is no end to these courses of the universal round about. In this way, the universe is integrating and disintegrating. It never attains ultimate perfection.

And during the course of time, this interaction where either accord or discord prevails, leads to constant partial changes in quantity and quality of the said processes. As a result, there comes a decisive point, when every old process (having its specific characteristics) transforms itself into a new process (with its particular features). At this juncture both processes begin to have their different natures. This ever-going process of change and development occurs in every phenomenon including human society.

Being a unit of nature, human species too follow the same principles of existence, movement and change. The same is true of human thought which during its existence undergoes movement and transformation. The human thought too has been in constant motion. It has been assimilating new ideas and shunning the old ones or absorbing the proved and discarding the disproved ones, thus advancing it on newer heights.

Even the Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint evolved at such a time when it had been becoming increasingly clear that Marxism was one-sided and the explanation of reality and its various processes as made by it was neither ‘scientific truth’ as claimed by its followers nor a ‘falsehood’ as advocated by their adversaries. We had to accept that Marxism had become irrelevant but there was no other way out except to come to terms with reality which always demanded the rejection of dogmas, judgment of things on the basis of evidence and reviewing of all such concepts which begin to conflict with new facts and experiences.

Similar is the case with Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint. It should not be considered as a dogma. If at a later juncture, during further research or human social practice certain of its concepts conflict with new facts and experiences, then we should not be afraid of judging things on the basis of evidence and reviewing all such concepts.

3

Furthermore, Scientific Realism maintains that everything in the universe exists within the bounds of a given space and time. In other words, it means its existence and development is relevant to a given situation.

The concept of space and time can be understood like this: All things in the universe are variously placed in relation to each other and constitute parts of one or another phenomenon. Space is a form of organization of coexisting objects where they are extra-posed alongside, beside, beneath, above, within, behind or in front, etc. to one another and have certain harmonious or conflicting relationships. All things or phenomena are characterised by their duration, the sequence of the stages of their motion, their development. The dimension of time can be measured only with the help of certain standards (in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, etc.). The perception of time also allows us to assess the sequence and duration of events.

So we can say every phenomenon and its related laws pertain to a particular place and time. Accordingly, each one of them undergoes evolutionary changes in itself and its interacting phenomena, and becomes non-relevant to another given time and space. In other words, everything in the universe has a relative nature.

Similarly, every theory or ideology associated with an outstanding personality, how much eminent he or she may be, has been the outcome of a given situation and a given time. And as the situation tends to change, a theory or an ideology too begins to change gradually and a need arises to develop it further. This is true of Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint as it too has a relative nature.

4

Still further, Scientific Realism upholds that as the reality has been changing continuously, its countless phenomena and their respective laws go on evolving and updating themselves all the time in correspondence with the new changes.

Obviously, reality is never eternal. It tends towards change at all times. There is always a change taking place in each thing, each process of nature. Social processes too tread similar path. A transformation goes on continuously inside and outside the human being. In such a way, how can a viewpoint remain immune to these changes?

Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint has not fallen from the skies. It too has emerged from the human society. Undoubtedly, if it did not adapt itself in conformity with the new changes, it can neither evolve, not update itself. 

5

Still furthermore, Scientific Realism rejects all the absolutist, determinist and fundamentalist theories, which had either been projected by different branches of natural or social sciences, or some other disciplines but it makes use of, whatever positive, these outlooks had imparted during their respective times.

The above-said theories are renounced simply because they are one-sided and see only single side of a phenomenon. Similarly the contention that Com. Saraf has put forward a comprehensive theory complete in every respect is unacceptable because it has one-sided bias too. This contention virtually places theory and practice in separate compartments, while in human thought both are two sides of a single phenomenon, with each of them occupying the primary position at one time and the other in the secondary role and vice-versa.

Not only this, while maintaining that no one among the organisation has the caliber to conduct further research so as to evolve and update Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint, it confines the role of the organisation, that too in Com. Saraf’s absence, merely to practice and not to sum up its experiences and thus enrich theory in turn.

Conscious persons in an organisation are not like holy preachers who preach the gospel truth. They are similar to scientists who do research in their field, collect facts, analyze them, conceptualize their thinking, come out with their formulations and put them into practice through various initiatives and activities in interaction with their contemporaries, within and without.

6

In the end, I would say that even Com. Saraf had never claimed the Nature-Human Centric Viewpoint as the one offering a genuine and authentic account of every phenomenon. Everywhere, he has presented it as a model which may be useful in thought and practice. There was no place of dogmatism in his scientific-rational based thinking. He had always taken the stand that phenomena must be tested on the basis of evidence. His outlook always had been that whenever new facts and new evidence regarding a phenomenon would surface, he was willing to review that. He practiced it till his last breath.

Our well meaning friends are, therefore, requested to review their contentions and hence uphold Scientific Realism in practice too.

19.08.2016