TWAS Paolo Budinich Science Diplomacy Lecture/ 23 August

[Science Diplomacy]

TWAS-AAAS International Science & Diplomacy Programme
  - The Paolo Budinich Science Diplomacy Lecture -

by *Professor Yousef Sobouti*
TWAS Fellow
Director and Founder
Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS)
Zanjan, Iran

at the *Giambiagi Lecture Hall, Adriatico Guesthouse (AGH)*
on Wednesday,  23 August 2017 – 17:30

Understanding Others the Science way

Yousef Sobouti

Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences-Zanjan,
And
Iran Academy of Sciences


*Understanding Others the Science way *
/
//Abstract/

As long as one is not dealing with speeds close to that of light, 
Newton's law of motion is exact. Observations support it. On the other 
hand many of the tenets of topics such as sociology and the like are not 
so blessed. Opinion of one expert on the topic may differ from those of 
others, while there no supporting hard evidence to settle the 
differences. I would like to generalize this point of view and, in a 
crude sense of the word, classify the wealth of human body of knowledge 
into two categories, Evidence-based Exact Sciences, and Opinion-based, 
and not so exact knowledge.

There is a distinct difference between the two categories. Credibility 
of a theory in exact sciences comes from concordance with observations, 
not from the name of standing of the author of the theory among the 
community of experts. This is not often the case with prophesies of the 
opinion-based knowledge. To varying degrees, credibility of a doctrine, 
depends on who is the author of the doctrine. For instance, Newton had 
also formulated a corpuscular theory of light, which later was shown to 
be incorrect. At the time of Newton there were not accurate enough 
experimental data to prove or disprove the corpuscular theory. The fame 
of Newton, however, made the idea survive for about 100 years until the 
time of Huygens and who revealed the wave nature of light.

Evidence-based sciences have a built-in mechanism to reconcile 
differences between opposing views. The supreme arbitrator is 
observation. There is no such arbitrator in the wealth of the 
opinion-based knowledge. Differences may call in harsh measures. 
Throughout the history of mankind many of the disputes over what is 
right or wrong have stemmed from opposing parties debate over vaguely 
conceived ill-defined issues, and find no common grounds to settle their 
disputes in peaceful ways.

Cannot a science way of thinking help one to understand the others?!