Why cannot India produce great science? Let me start with a simple observation. Last Sunday we were in the crowded eating zone of a large shopping mall. After we picked food, I told my friend that I had to wash my hands. Well, there is no wash basin in the entire eating zone. You have to go all the way to the toilet room to find a wash basin. This is interesting because, in Indian tradition, not washing hands before eating is considered unhygienic and uncivil. Yet, most of the expensive restaurants in India do not provide a basin for washing hands. Why? Because designers simply copy-paste ideas from the USA or Europe. They do not muster the courage to even add a wash basin. Or perhaps a designer once tried to include one but was rebuffed due to fear of losing peer approval.
This is the exact same reason why we cannot produce great science. If you have a great Idea, it is very difficult to get approval from your Indian peers because the idea has not been approved by peers in the West.
Before you decide to argue that science does not work in the same way, let me tell science is not as objective as most people think. As Max Plank once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Objectivity is a scarce resource in scientific discourses. You cannot even prove that 1 + 1 = 2 objectively if your peers are determined to prove you wrong.
Friday, 25 April 2025
Shopping malls can explain the low scientific productivity of India
Reynolds transport theorem and the Sputnik crisis
I have been teaching Reynolds transport theorem (RTT) for more than a decade as part of the courses related to fluid mechanics and hydrology. I always find students struggling to understand the concept. A couple of years back, I started wondering if there was any real value in teaching the theorem since I didn’t see anyone using RTT to tell what was not already known.
To those who are unaware, RTT can be used to derive the mass, momentum, and energy conservation laws. However, the three laws were derived much before RTT was formulated. What purpose does then the RTT serve? We need to understand the historical context of RTT.
In 1957, the USSR launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, creating fear of a communist takeover of the USA. American educators and policymakers thought the Russians had an edge due to their superior mathematical skills. The RTT was thus introduced by Shames in 1962.
What is the difficulty with RTT? RTT is an attempt to do what is commonly termed formal mathematics. Formal mathematics attempts to minimize the emphasis on observations. You will be referred to some axiom that is hard to relate to your real-world experience. That is exactly why students find RTT difficult. If this is not clear, let me cite the popular example 1+1=2. You can put two apples side by side and prove the statement. But formal mathematics would not accept it. This is why Russel took about 370 pages to provide proof, which anyway is not valid for all cases.
So, if you are finding a concept difficult to understand. Don’t put all the blame on yourself. Read the papers that provide a clear picture of something without introducing mathematics unnecessarily. In the context of fluid mechanics, you can just imagine a bucket draining water to understand the mass balance principle.
For more details on RTT, see: Gray, D. (2008, June). Why the Balance Principle Should Replace the Reynolds Transport Theorem. In 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition.
Peer review does not like novelty very much
Our most important work on streamflow modeling in recent years has been rejected by two leading journals. (The manuscript challenges the widely accepted notion that every landscape is unique.) . The first journal rejected the manuscript mainly because one reviewer had issues with the terminology we used and was not impressed because we argued back. The second journal's editor rejected it for reasons totally unknown to us; there was not a single comment that challenged our conclusions. In fact, among all the comments we have received from the two journals, there was only one comment that required additional analysis, which we did and showed that our conclusions remained unchanged.
Novel works are particularly vulnerable because the peer review system does not appreciate negative comments. How can you ensure there are no negative comments when your work challenges a dominant narrative? The difficulty is increased manyfold. Of course, I don't need to mention the racial and national biases that come into play.
In the meantime, I have put the manuscript in a preprint domain for everyone to review. I have also presented our results in various forums and received largely positive comments. We are pursuing several other projects based on this work. The peer review system allows insecure and incompetent people to hide behind the veil and create obstacles.
All journals should adopt the open review process pioneered by HESS. It is not a great solution, but at least it allows everyone to see the entire discussion.
(LinkedIn, December 2024)
How dark was the medieval dark age?
The medieval dark age (5th–15th century) in Europe was not that dark. The hypothesis that the Catholic Church was against science (search "conflict thesis") is a very simplistic view of the complex realities of the time period.
The Catholic Church, in fact, actively pursued science. It established many learning institutions, including those in Bologna and Oxford. I would go as far as saying that the foundation of modern (European) science was laid by clergymen when they declared that God designed the world according to mathematical principles (see the attached image), though it was not a very original idea. That very idea was, in fact, the main motivation behind most European scientists, including Galileo and Newton (yes, both were devout Christians).
Nevertheless, the conflict thesis holds grains of truth. Science did not progress much during the medieval period. Why? The Church actively discouraged induction or observation-based science because human sensory experience was considered fallible. The only method accepted as valid was deduction or pure logical reasoning based on fundamental laws, of course, approved by the Church.
The Renaissance (14th–17th century) was nothing but a gradual acceptance of inductive reasoning. Early Renaissance scientists did their work cautiously, as evidenced by Leonardo da Vinci’s statement: “It is true that nature begins by reasoning and ends by experience; but, nevertheless, we must take the opposite route: as I have said, we must begin with experience and try through it to reason.” Note that Leonardo never published his works; he was probably very much aware of the consequences. Bruno was burned alive for his views. Galileo’s life was spared only after he agreed to recant his views upon seeing the instruments of torture.
With time, science and Catholicism drifted apart. Today, most people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Most scientists identify as atheists. It is interesting how perspectives change with time.
For more details: Biswal, Troubles in the Newtonian Paradise: Hydrology Responds to no God Equation and the Rise of Machines
The importance of exams
As an instructor, the most difficult task I find is explaining the importance of exams to students. To begin with, I don't believe it is possible to assess someone's potential to perform any challenging task in real life through a 2 to 3-hour-long exam. Then, what is the purpose of exams? I think the only thing that can be evaluated in an exam is someone's ability and willingness to follow instructions.
Nevertheless, I want my students to be leaders and innovators, which requires a lot more skills that cannot be assessed in exams. It is particularly difficult to evaluate critical thinking in an exam, especially when the class size is large. Moreover, students often feel anguished when the assessment is subjective.
All I can say to students is: "The grade does not necessarily reflect your true potential." The correlation between CPI and success in life is quite weak. The attached image shows plots of GPA versus salary. Interestingly, the correlation weakens over time (Zou et al., PLOS One, 2022).
I believe it is possible to acquire skills with strong motivation. The time required may vary depending on someone's background. Should we assess the motivation level of students? Besides the impossibility of such a task, it is also not entirely fair, as motivation is "partly" the responsibility of the instructor and the system.
So, as a student, focus on learning. Grades should be of secondary importance to you.
What purpose will ONOS serve?
Indian institutions together are paying Rs. 1,500 crore rupees annually on journal subscriptions. ONOS will cost Rs. 2,000 crore rupees annually (link). The extra Rs. 500 crore rupees for providing access to institutions that lack resources for subscriptions appears to be a good deal. However, the actual benefit (in terms of usage and scientific output) will only be known after the scheme is rolled out. I am a bit skeptical for the following reasons:
1. The number of people given access may not be a very good measure. The actual number of users is hard to estimate. Most undergraduate students do not bother with reading scholarly articles. Institutions with PhD programs may already have access to relevant journals.
2. Under pressure from researchers in developed countries, most publishers are now embracing open-access publishing. About 50% of journals are now open-access, and this percentage is expected to increase in the future. Therefore, it is unclear whether the Indian government or the publishers are benefiting more from the deal.
3. The ONOS cost estimation does not account for the money spent on articles by Indian authors in open-access journals. I guess the cost of publication by Indian authors is significant. Sadly, ONOS does not cover publication in open-access journals.
Personally, I do not support either subscription journals or open-access journals. In this digital age, we do not need intermediaries like Elsevier at all. Individual authors and scientific societies should take responsibility for sharing knowledge. The money can be used for something else.
(December 2024, LinkedIn)
Your personality can make up for lack of skills.
A couple of hours ago, I arrived at Chennai airport. The guy from the hotel who came to pick me up took more than 15 minutes to tell me where he was, even though I was standing right in front of the airport exit gate the entire time! I was surprised by the lack of skills from someone who has been doing this job for four years.
Once we got into the car, I started a conversation with him. Despite being almost illiterate, he has worked hard to learn English and Hindi. He was confident enough to say that he didn’t like Rajinikanth and eloquently explained why he liked as well as disliked Hitler. He said that someone was helping him secure a job in the Middle East because he impressed him with his "good character." A short conversation is not enough to fully assess someone’s character, but I can confirm that he is an interesting person. Before saying bye, I told him to be cautious, as many people get cheated with the promise of foreign jobs.
By the end, I had completely forgotten about the initial 15 minutes of inconvenience I had with him.
(Posted on LinkedIn, December 2024)
