Casual and informal conversations are sometimes the genesis of some very significant issues. These are issues which exist around us but are elusive of intellectual intervention in normal course of events. The title of this write up, which is about to follow is result of this inadvertent exercise only. It is a general presumption in the society that anything having scientific basis is essentially superior. Science is not an anathema to me, yet I vehemently oppose equating everything on the same scale. My logic behind it is that how can an ever evolving human and natural entity be confined within a scale common to all. In fact, science has limits and is prone to mutate into FRANKENSTEINISH entity if not imbued with ample doses of humanity. Hence, the premise on which I proceed is that humanities and science must be complementary and not antagonistic to each other.
Science is defined by Concise Oxford English Dictionary as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; a systematically organised body of knowledge on any subject.” This definition signifies the general sense that the word science conveys to the people. Science, in light of the important role it plays in life cannot be understood by a single definition except that a definition provides a perspective to the thought process. Usual connotation of science is deemed to be Physics, Chemistry, Biology and associated fields. Doesn’t it seem unfair that study of a particular subject is imparted an exalted status than other just because it has better economic ringing in present times? What shadows the sane thinking of people is that without interdependence vis a vis other domains of study, science per se is nothing more than a futile body of study. Any field of knowledge with supercilious undertone is bound to be pernicious. Therefore, we must avoid a tendency to draw a comparative analogy between two different fields of study which are unique in characteristics. The background of debate is painted with other domain of study which factors quite conspicuously in our lives, that is, Law.
Without going into technicalities of law, it may be generally defined as set of rules with uniform application which aim at preserving the social order. Law is inextricably attached to the concept of justice. Justice, which is crowning glory of all virtues, may be achieved by treading the path of law. Some of my friends questioned me as to whether law is a science or mere subject of humanity. Their prime intention however was to indicate towards the flexible nature of law insinuating towards its inferior nature to science. Unfortunately, such a point of view reflects quite bleak understanding of the innate meaning of science and humanities both. Nothing is absolute in this world. Even the philosophical concept of Relativism postulates that no point of view is absolute. It varies according to differences in perception and understanding. This inevitably leads to ascertainment of truth of the point of view in light of subjective comprehension of the point at stake. Science and Law both aim at narrowing down this difference so that uniformity thus achieved may be used for achieving a purpose which serves the good for all. In this process of attainment of uniformity, we make certain assumptions even if not absolutely true so that ideal hypothesis may stand the ground of testing. However, inordinate extrapolation of such an approach may yield grotesque results. Nature which is the most potent tangible force celebrates diversity and any effort to impose uniqueness over it is bound to be catastrophic.
This can be better understood by the fact that while deriving and proving the principles of science we assume certain ideal conditions, which in fact are absent in the practical domain. Such assumptions are made while deriving basic principles of laws of reflection in optics, laws of motion etc. Similarly, in the field of law the concept of reasonable manis a ubiquitous phenomenon. Law, in the similar manner, while laying down a particular principle assumes that a reasonable man would act in the similar manner in similar circumstances. If I wish to draw an analogy on this ground I can easily equate science with law. On the other hand, I would deliberately detest doing so because, if humanities and science are deemed to be two overlapping circles, I would any day keep law in the area which is common to both the circles. This approach, as per my sensibilities provides law unique humane touch along with the rigidity of scientific principles having uniform applicability on various grounds. Regrettably, those obsessed with science forget that the principles which they so haughtily quote are also result of evolution. The science has not been the same as it used to be prior to the Theory of Relativity. In fact, every new invention, innovation or discovery subtracts from or adds to the body of science. Even science is not absolute. Mere fact that a scientific experiment yields a tangible and time bound result does not mean that it is supreme. The votaries of scientific principles must infuse their grey matter with another fact that social experiments take time to yield results. It is so because they deal directly with dynamism of human nature, whose uniqueness is unparalleled.
Law is an essential part of that social experiment and hence draws from every field of study that is applicable to a particular situation. It is grateful enough to principles of Forensic Science for helping it to deal with criminal cases. Similarly, it is equally grateful to the field of sociology for helping it to tackle the issues pertaining to reservations granted to vulnerable communities; or philosophy for enriching its jurisprudence. If the definition of science, as stated in the starting paragraphs of the write-up is to be followed, law fulfils all the conditions and hence qualifies to be science. In fact every domain of study for that matter may be considered as science. Social Science in itself is the perfect example of the complementary nature of science and humanities. Weight is added to this argument by the adherence of the greatest contemporary innovator and inventor Steve Jobsto the idea of amalgamation of liberal arts with electronics. It is this view which has resulted in fruition of perhaps the sweetest APPLE of the contemporary human history, which has changed the way we live.
Moreover, I would most emphatically add that Science bereft of humanities and its associated principles would lead to devilish creations. What else signifies it best than J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Father of Atomic Bomb, quoting Srimad Bhagwad Gita after conducting the first nuclear test “”Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” These words would have never been uttered by him had he been unaware of the core humanitarian principles. Perhaps, without such understanding, efforts towards nuclear disarmament would have never been made. Apart from this, the recent purported discovery of the God Particle itself signifies that science is much more than what it followers think it to be. The whole field of metaphysics and association of many eminent scientists with it is testimony to the fact that science and humanities are and if not, then ought to be interlinked.
As far as law is concerned, it must be understood beyond the courts (as portrayed in feature films) where verbal jugglery rules the roost. Law is the pillar on which the human civilisation stands. It might sometimes seem to be delaying instant result, yet it is playing very important role restoring civility within the contesting parties during the whole process. Not everything deep is visible to the naked eye. That however, does not necessarily negate the existence of any such entity. Law with its multifaceted existence illustrates it most brilliantly. Like every other system, it is not perfect but is striving to achieve it. Remember, every step taken towards perfection is worthwhile and must be valued either in its success or failure. To my science aficionados, even ISRO fails in its mission sometimes but that does not render it sub-standard organisation. For anyone, seeking image of science while observing law, I would like to reverberate the voice of eminent jurist of sociological school Roscoe Pound, who very aptly said that, law is a tool of social engineering which aims at resolving the conflict of interests with minimum friction. I hope it would satiate those searching for inkling of science in the sea of law!
Small City Thinker 