>From Fr. Ivo's post (quoting Santosh's characterizations) in Rejoinder-1
>appears like:
The scientist has now become the "Inquisitor" and the padre is the supurlo
Goenkar.:=))
Humor aside, the following is a reality-check on Theoretical and Applied
sciences. In my field of Radiation Oncology, (treatment of cancer with
radiation), we have two research arms - clinical research involving patient
treatment & outcomes; and a basic-science field called Radio-Biology. The
radio-biologists are non-physicians, whose background and forte are mainly
mathematics and statistics. These scientists come up with algorithmic and
linear curves of cell growth and cell decline (kill), and develop complicated
formulas of how cancer cells and normal cells behave and how radiation works.
Then they are into meta-analysis and more recently into 'Cochran analysis' and
a whole host of computer modeling and theoretical constructs.
Yet in more than 50 years after the existence of this basic-science of
radio-biology, they have contributed very little to the practical application
of clinical radiation oncology. ALL repeat ALL ... their theories and
recommendation, on how to use the radiation, when put into practice have failed
to achieve the results they predicted. Of course, then these scientists come
up with reasons why the results were not achieved and are different. And then
they come up with a new construct / philosopy which becomes the model d jour,
generating even more scientific papers, review articles and textbooks. In the
meantime, Radiation Oncology has progressed with human trials and common sense
logic, as to what works in terms of radiation dose and the techniques of its
administration. Yet the important contributions of radio-biology to our field
are:
1. They may provide a theoretical explanations for responses and results seen
in the practice of patient care.
2. Radio-biologists keep the physicians on a narrow scientific path; making
sure that our conclusions are truly supported by the underlying data, meet
statistical significance and are not merely statistical coincidences.
Thus the practicing doctors need the theoreticians; and the theoreticians need
the clinicians. So too is the relation between religion and science. These two
very independent disciplines need each other to keep both groups honest and
striving to be better. As stated, the philosophical and theoretical constructs
are merely concepts in an individual's mind. At the time in history, they may
best explain the observed facts. As these observations change with time and
improved technology, these constructs in retrospect my look ridiculous. Yet for
a time they served a purpose to understand / explain events till other data was
available or our understanding evolved. Our future is built on our past. And
today will be the past of tomorrow.
I would give only two cents for the opinion of a clergy regarding science; and
the same amount to the scientists for their opinion on God and religion. And
perhaps the non-experts in these two fields would have to pay me to read their
views.:=))
Regards, GL
