Europa & Palestine News « Europa & Middle East News

Racism, Prejudice and Discrimination in Science

Submitted by Dr. med. Nadim Sradj, M.A., Regensburg, Germany.
Contents: Intellectual Foundations, The Political Philosophy of Racism, Parallels between Physics in the Third Reich and Bio-Ophthalmology today, Conclusion

Synopsis: Racism in science is traceable back to, among others, Hegel’s German idealism. In his observations of world history, peoples are classified hierarchically and imperialistically. In the Third Reich one differentiated between ‘German’ or ‘Nordic’ or ‘Jewish’ physics. A theory has more enemies the more comprehensive and abstract it is, in particular at that point where a worldview senses an impact. An example for this is Einstein’s theory of relativity.

In our study, the rejection of the theory of relativity at that time is to be juxtaposed with the rejection of thermodynamics and catastrophe theory in ophthalmology in the present day. Einstein’s experience was that resistance not only came from experts, but that it was equally held by the majority of the society. This frequently applies today. The basis of racism, prejudice, and discrimination is irrational and psycho-pathologically motivated.

Our manifesto Global Science – 10 Theses for a Scientific Conception of the 21st century, which has expressly been advocated by UNESCO, is our constructive and progressive answer to this contradictory intellectual situation.

The seventh thesis of our manifesto warns of the misinterpretation of science as power in the service of raison d’état and particular interests. Corruption, xenophobia, and discrimination can only be effectively combated by independent, international jurisdiction.

Intellectual Foundations
History tells humanity who we are. One should expect that humankind learns from history.

When history is understood as ‘progress in the consciousness of freedom,’ as Hegel formulated it, its course is necessarily bound up with struggle and idealism. Freedom is the unfolding of basic human values (of what is true, beautiful, and good) under the premise of equality and justice. This principle has to be valid independent of race, religion, and ethnicity.

The dynamic within this thinking is represented by the spirit of the age, which manifests itself as consciousness. The actual consciousness increasingly extends beyond regional and national borders and is globally oriented. However, contrary to this development, we are also observing nationalistic and fascistic tendencies around the world. This is also present in Germany, where this thinking had its origin in Hegel. In his historical considerations, Hegel classified humanity hierarchically in three stages:
1. the Oriental, who does not know what freedom is. The one who rules in the Orient is the one who is free, and the remainder of the people are not free.1)
2. The Greeks and the Romans had a group of people who were free, namely the aristocrats.
3. The Teutons are, according to Hegel, all free. (!)

Hegel’s thesis of human self-consciousness leads to absolutizing humanity’s self esteem. Through this humans allegedly rise above animals. (According to Hegel, animals have no souls.) Humankind is the measure of all things. This anthropocentrism, in which there is no place for plants and animals, stands pitted against the biological principle of vitalism. The first thesis of our manifesto Global Science – 10 Theses . . . deals with this topic.2)

The ideological classification of peoples into those ‘civilized’ and less civilized has as a consequence that their respective members arbitrarily have their status enhanced or devalued. The hierarchical evaluation of scientific knowledge likewise demonstrates such a tendentious classification. Within the Western world, the USA is put in first place; scientific knowledge which comes from there is ascribed validity a priori, while, for example, knowledge from France or Russia has great difficulties being accepted. In the 1980s, keratotomy, which originated in Russia, (split cornea according to Fjederow) was viewed among Germany ophthalmologists as exceedingly dubious and was even labeled ‘malpractice.’ Nowadays, after this procedure took a detour through the USA, one can find an advertisement in every train station for corneal surgery as a way to avoid having to wear glasses.

Something similar is the case with the French theory of biological ophthalmology (bio-ophthalmology), which was presented in the annual report of the French Society of Ophthalmology in 1992 in a document comprising close to 800 pages.3) Now, after 20 years, there is hardly a German ophthalmologist to be found who has even heard anything about this groundbreaking work. The reason for this is not only the language barrier.

The Political Philosophy of Racism

In racism we differentiate between two types: physiological racism and ideological racism. In the case of the former, it involves a normal and rather passive differentiation according to likes and dislikes, membership in a social group or non-membership. In the case of an ideologically characterized racism, it involves, in contrast, a world view which as a rule is organized and put into practice by the state. This finds its pinnacle in the differentiation between ‘superior beings and inferior beings,’ where the intention is to disposed of them (holocaust). Racism reached its apex in the 20th century in the time of the Third Reich. Here one saw that all areas of human life and thought were included. Racist thought was not only noticeable in art. Rather, it was also noticeable in the exact sciences.

Einstein’s revolutionary theory shocked German conservative physicists. On the one hand, it appeared too abstract for the predominantly average researcher. On the other hand, it was tied to displacing conventional Newtonian mechanics. The sharp criticism Einstein had of Newtonian physics, which appeared “primitive” to him, became concrete with the example of light speed – something enormous – which had a new world view as a result.4)

General relativity theory and special relativity theory were published and discussed between 1905 and 1915. In 1921 Einstein received the Nobel Prize for physics and achieved world renown. After Hitler’s ‘legal’ seizure of power in 1933, which occurred with the assent of the majority of the population, terms such as “German,” “Aryan,” “Jewish,” or “Negro” physics arose.” Conservative and high-ranking German physicists, which in part were themselves Nobel Prize recipients, such as Philipp Lenard und Johann Stark, counted as part of the avant-garde of German racist physics. “German” physics was taught at universities. All theories which were of non-German origin were excluded (an example of the much vaunted ‘German functionalism’). On April 7, 1933, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service excluded individuals of non-Aryan origin from their offices. Within the German Physical Society, of which Max von Laue was the chairman, Jewish physicists were forbidden to participate in events. Their articles were removed from specialist journals.

The recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Werner Heisenberg, in his foundational work “German and Jewish Physics” (Munich 1922),5) described this situation in detail. In that work he quotes the German physicist Lennart: Jewish physics is consequently only a mirage and a degenerate appearance of foundational Aryan physics.”

The historian of science P. Forman described the intellectual situation in Germany between 1918 and 1927, i.e., during the Weimar Republic, by using the example of the reaction of conservative physicists to quantum theory in the following manner: “Terms such as: life, destiny, freedom, and spontaneity became manifestations of a dark deepness which withdrew itself from reason.”6)

In the time of National Socialism, racism and xenophobia were not limited. Rather, it was encountered among academics, artists, and writers. Einstein described the situation to Hahn in a letter in the following way: “The crimes of the Germans are truly the most detestable that the history of so-called civilized nations has to offer. The attitude of German intellectuals – viewed as a class – was not better than that of the populace.”7)

It is to be noted at this point that in other countries there have been similar racist oriented persecutions. In the USA, natives were virtually eradicated, and in Turkey there was animosity against the Armenian minority.

Parallels between Physics in the Third Reich and Bio-Ophthalmology today

We have learned from the philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn8) that the history of scientific development takes a revolutionary course. Occasionally a high price has to be paid for the progress. An example for this is the politically motivated murder of the co-founder of the Vienna Circle, Moritz Schlick, in 1936. This dramatic incident set the emigration of European intellectuals and scientists in motion. The consequences of this wave of emigration can still be felt to this day

The ‘Vienna Circle’ was a union of leading scientists from fields with the exact sciences and humanities. Their best known 20th century document was “The Scientific World Conception.”9) It is striking that no medical doctors were represented within the Vienna Circle. That perhaps explains the distinctive fact that while in the meantime all other faculties have had discussions of their methods and research strategies, medicine, on the contrary, has not yet even started with this. Even an authority such as the German physicist von Weizsäcker, who in 2000 in a publication in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt (a German magazine for physicians) called for introducing modern physics into medicine, has not received a hearing. Instead, conventional medicine continues to insist on what is in the meantime a 360 year old Cartesian subject-object dualism.10)

Similar to Einstein’s physics at that time, one has the same situation today in modern bio-ophthalmology. The more abstract and comprehensive a scientific theory is, the more enemies it has. Just as was the case with relativity theory and quantum theory, thermodynamics and catastrophe theory are largely rejected. This is the case in spite of the fact that as early as 1992 the French Society of Ophthalmology introduced these findings of modern physics and mathematics convincingly and coherently into ophthalmology in their almost 800 page annual report.

The rejection of the foundations of bio-ophthalmology, of thermodynamics, and of catastrophe theory is on account of de facto non-objective argumentation comparable to the rejection of relativity and quantum theories. As long as ago as with Poincaré, it has been determined that scientific theories are frequently not accepted according to objective and neutral knowledge. Rather, rejection is due to the particular interests of certain groups who agree upon their rejection or acceptance, and who in some cases even do so through secret agreements.

A variation of this conventionalism in medicine can also be seen in co-called multi-center, international studies. In this connection it can often be observed that one is dealing with what is basically only a matter of internal agreements, the goal of which is to push through agendas reflecting certain interests. At this juncture the so-called ‘ruling opinion’ takes on thoroughly dogmatic features. Politics, lobbyism, pressure groups, the press, mass media, and finally also public opinion are used to steer things in a certain direction, i.e., manipulation. The comparison with methods of the Mafia is sometimes foisted upon the stage. The effects can also be found in legislation and in legal decisions.

Conclusion

It is not polarization but rather pluralism and co-existence of partially diverging theories, methods, and hypothesis which should be the goal. Strategic balances between economics and ecology, between biology and technology, are called for. There is also the need for international jurisdiction in science in order to push through new, possibly uncomfortable, theories which possibly bring real progress but face the resistance of established institutions and organizations. The case against Galileo demonstrated that in the final event it is not dogma which conquers knowledge and truth. In the play by Brecht, Life of Galileo, Galileo says to his counterpart: “. . . he who does not know the truth is merely a fool. But he who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal.”11)

The third thesis of our document Global Science . . . assumes that significant scientific achievements are not only to be found in the Western world. Every people group has their own specific cultural tradition which is to be respected and from which other peoples can possibly learn. Asian medicine has been appreciated in the Western world for a number of years, and efforts continue to integrate it.

We have learned from history that developments seldom take a straight path. Rather, they normally involved trial and error. In science in particular, progress has always meant to overcome what has been established and declared to be right. As a result, scientific statements all have a provisional character.

Footnotes

- Hegel, G.W. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, Stuttgart 1961, pp. 61f.
- Sradj, N. Global Science – 10 Thesen zur Weltauffassung im 21. Jahrhundert, Regensburg, 2011.
- Biophtalmologie, Bericht der Französischen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft (SFO), Paris, Milano, Barcelona, Bonn 1992.
- (comp. Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. Die Evolution der Physik, von Newton bis zur Quantentheorie, München 1961, p. 132 and Einstein, A. Mein Weltbild, Frankfurt/M., Berlin, Wien 1981).
- Heisenberg, W. “Deutsche und jüdische Physik,” München 1992, pp. 10ff
- Forman, P. Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory 1918 - 1927 Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to an Hostile Intellectual Environment, in: Prigogine , I. Stengers,I. Dialog mit der Natur, München 1990, S.17
- Einstein, “Brief an Otto Hahn vom 28. Januar 1949,” www.mhoefert.de,
- Kuhn, Th. S. Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen (Structure of Scientific Revolutions), Frankfurt/M. 1967.
- Verein Ernst Mach (ed.) “Die wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung,” Der Wiener Kreis, 1929.
- Schmahl, F.D., v. Weizsäcker, C.F. “Moderne Physik und Grundfragen der Medizin” in: Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Jan. 2000, No. 97, Issue 4, pp. 165 ff).
- Brecht, B. Leben des Galilei, Schauspiel, edition suhrkamp, Berlin 1963, p. 81.