Contemporary science has always been critisized

In early of 18th century, knowledge begins to replace believes. People starts to recognize that believes which do not base on knowledge are superstitions. Though the effort for such understanding the meaning of nature was venerable but Thales, Socrates and the other ancient philosophers failed to a great extent to convince their contemporary people the true importance of science and philosophy. Their utterance took hundreds of year to inspire us.

Even after that, acquiring knowledge was restricted only to wealthy people. Physicist e.g., Carnot, de Broglie came from royal families and studied physics for pleasure. Therefore the lack of absolutely focused and whole hearted study of science resisted its rapid progress. A healthy and prolific procedure of achieving and advancing the science was slowly developed through building schools but was not accepted by the people widely. Novel laureate philosopher and writer Rabindranath Tagore depicted school as "factory" for producing educated people with a degree. I partially support as well as oppose to it. It is true that our institutions or organizations mostly do not encourage us in finding the meaning of things by ourselves; rather they educate us through the knowledge of book. This definitely confines our knowledge and constrain in forming a creative mind in us. This procedure of educating people should have been or still need to be modified; the students should be encouraged in finding pleasure in acquiring knowledge what they find mostly in other entertainments or sports. This is called "intellectual pleasure", which is much more admirable. A gradual and systematic development of ones emotional and intellectual ability can only be possible in institutions or organization. The alternative process will be less effective for common people.

Then comes the professionalism in science in the early 20th century. But it did not come alone, rather along with competitions or vise versa. By middle of 20th century struggling with scientific problems was not enough for people, but they had to fight for the opportunity to do research. This procedure is still alive. Professors had to find money to fund for work with him while his fellows had to find such professors to work with. But the quantity of research did not reduced by such process, rather increased enormously. People of infinite potential and capabilities secured most of the opportunities. But the quality of research had now victimized for severe judgments. In this context, it would be interesting to refer British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle's one of three famous lectures; where he mostly criticized the concept of funding and questioned the quality of work of his contemporary age, 1930 and commented that even only few years before around 1915, they had been more satisfactory. Let us look back to those years from our contemporary eyes; the genuineness and genius of work was far beyond such criticism.

Hopefully we now have enough background and knowledge to look at our contemporary age. The above all criticism has not ceased yet rather been fueled by the questions of practicing pure and basic science. On the contrary, the inclusion of computations facilities and technologies in pure science has created the "Golden age" of science. The huge computer speed has made it possible to simulate millions of unreachable constellations or incomprehensible complex crystals. Infinite number of theories and methods of solving scientific problems had been proposed in mid-20th century but never been possible to carry out in reality, because of the lack of enormous computer or technical facilities. We can now simulate crystals with thousands atoms and can get gamut of information with high accuracy. The absence of a sophisticated technology played a large part in our inability to proof experimentally the Bose-Einstein Condensations for 75 long years. This was possible to perform in 2001. Such examples are endless but still some of us believe or argue confidently that too much involvement of computational skill or technological sophistication is affecting pure science badly.

Our disease of criticism is historical and hereditary. But the basic principle of research and development has been unaltered for all generations. We are the tenant of the contemporary science which have been created, flourished and offered to us by our prior generations and our job is to receive it, honor it and add to it and one day faithfully hand it on to our next generations. This tradition lasts forever but only its execution undergoes changes.

Enough now, I guess! Here I wanted to compose an article on our role in contemporary science and not to criticize it; the later is now left for you.