Writing
Essays. Longer thinking.
John Locke Essay Competition
Is Free Speech the Enemy of Science?
9 min readScience and Technology
In 1633, Galileo Galilei was brought before the Roman Inquisition. He was accused of defending a supposedly "dangerous idea" that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Since then, his trial has been a famous historical anecdote. But when we look deeper into it, it is more than just an incident or an anecdote. It symbolises a deeper epistemological conflict between authority and the spirit of inquiry. Science is philosophically defined as a way of iteratively performing correction over human errors. But when Galileo was silenced for performing this correction, science suffered. Nowadays, fake news floats around social media, and science suffers again. Free speech has different meanings in different contexts. According to Mill, social and scientific progress occurs through vigorous debate involving opposing points of view (Mill). To generate different points of view, people must have freedom of thought and speech. Progress cannot occur if the majority uses its power to suppress minority viewpoints. Thus, in the scientific context, and based on the AAAS Statement on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, scientific freedom is the freedom to engage in scientific inquiry, pursue and apply knowledge, and communicate openly ("Statement on Scientific Freedom"). In this context, we can establish that free speech in the scientific context is the freedom to engage in scientific inquiry and to criticise and ask questions. Science is better seen as organised scepticism, described as "a journey, over time, toward contingent understanding guided by experimental tests and sceptical questioning" (May). One of the main characteristics of science is fallibility. As Karl Popper argued, fallibility belongs to science as one of its best traits. Science has progressed because it assumes that statute and it is always open to checks, correction, and improvement. In this context, an enemy of science is an institutional authority that stops criticism or error correction of scientific theories. Science is dependent on organised scepticism, and any force that blocks this scepticism can be considered to be an enemy of science. However, these forces can also pose as an enemy if they do not regulate free speech. For example, fake news about scientific facts, such as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic against vaccines, can turn fatal and hinder scientific progress (Loomba et al.). Therefore, free speech is not inherently the enemy of science. The real enemy is either the suppression of free speech or the complete absence of any regulation of it.
To What Extent Can Mathematical Modelling Capture the Complexity of Human Behaviour?
6 min readMathematics
Imagine being able to model real life situations from falling off the stairs to lifting a dumbbell through a series of mathematical equations? Well, that's the essence of Mathematical Modelling and it extends beyond that as well. Essentially, Mathematical Modelling is the same as relating equations of motion to the real world, where we make assumptions, formulate a model of something like v = dS/dt in physics, solve the model and scrutinize it to understand its shortcomings. The concept of Mathematical Modelling came into existence more than 4000 years ago when the Babylonians (2000 BCE) used arithmetic models for astronomy. Over centuries, such modelling needs gave rise to what we now know as applied mathematics. Mathematical Modelling is seen almost in every industry nowadays, from STEM careers to social sciences, Mathematical Modelling is the base of almost everything. As Galileo stated, "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it" (Galilei, 1623/1957, p. 183). If mathematics can explain the physical world, the question arises: can it do the same for human behaviour?