September 29, 2007

Meghnad Saha’s debate with Anilbaran Roy

Scientism and social justice: Meghnad Saha's critique of the state ...
Saha’s debate with Anilbaran Roy has been reprinted in Santimay ... ried on a long and acrimonious debate in 1938/9 with a certain Anilbaran Roy on ...
Abstract Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 2002, Vol. 33, No. 1, Pages 87-105 Posted online on December 2, 2003. (doi:10.1525/hsps.2002.33.1.87) Scientism and social justice: Meghnad Saha's critique of the state of science in India Abha Sur
Meghnad Saha, India's most distinguished astrophysicist of the 20th century, was a zealous advocate of large-scale industrialization and scientific development. Yet Saha became an outspoken critic of the science and industrialization policies of the Nehru era that seemed in accord with his own views. This paper examines the nature of the differences—ideological and hierarchical—between the social outlook and worldviews of Saha and Nehru's coterie of scientists, and thus offers an understanding of the state of science and technology in India during their time.
Modern Science and Hindu Religion: A Dialogue between M N Saha and Anilbaran Roy SANTIMAY CHATTERJEE
A New Philosophy of Life M N Saha
Rejoinder ANILBARAN ROY
Rejoinder to the Rejoinder: 1 M N SHAHA
Rejoinder to the Rejoinder: 2 M N SHAHA
Rejoinder to the Rejoinder: 3 M N SHAHA
Rejoinder to the Rejoinder: 4 M N Shaha
Rejoinder MOHINIMOHAN DATA
Conclusion M N SAHA
The Scientist in Society ($12.75) Indiaclub.com Description This collection of essays and addresses-most of them quite inaccessible now, and some of them translated for the first time into English - offers a rare insight into the social concern that the first generation of modern Indian scientists brought to their commitment to science. Even as they sought in the dissemination of the scientific temper the enlightenment of the Indian mind cramped under superstition and obscurantism, their emphasis was on innovation, improvisation, and creativity. The Indian science project, as they conceived it, would be one that could stand on its own, devising its own machinery, and asserting its independence. The six scientists and their modern commentators provide a rich set of readings opening up a fresh view of a project that has been distorted and diluted over the years.

No comments:

Post a Comment