|
Progress and
Science
The Following is a chapter from Dr. Abdul Wahab
El-Messiri's autobiography entitled "My Journey in the Seeds,
Roots, and Fruits"
translated from Arabic.
I recall, in my youth, a conversation with my
school colleague and my long time friend, Dr. Attiyyah Hamid,
regarding my dreams for Egypt, among which I mentioned the
agricultural mechanization. He surprised me, as he was more
agriculture savvy than myself (he lived in the rural Abi al-Matameer
while my experience was limited to Damanhour), by dismissing the
idea as a disaster. For if the agricultural mechanization was
introduced, unemployment rates shall soar among millions of
agricultural workers. His comeback was a complete surprise to me;
for newspapers and magazines did not waver in addressing
'mechanization' as the perfect solution for all problems. Dr.
Hamid’s reply, in fact, put forward the problematic of 'nature'
(matter/machine) and 'Man'; as Man is the ultimate end and shall not
be instrumentalized. This dialogue was impressed in my mind and did
not leave ever since.
…[this is to] put forward
the problematic of 'nature' (matter/machine) and 'Man'; as Man
is the ultimate end and shall not be instrumentalized. This
dialogue was impressed in my mind and did not leave ever
since. |
|
I arrived to the United States at a time the New
Criticism school was predominant in most of the English Literature
departments. This school emphasizes reading and analyzing texts; as
it avoids historical and social interpretations. A literary text
-according to the theorists of this school--is a self-sufficient
structure that resembles a flower vase and can be comprehended from
within without the need to grasp its context, its historical
background, the author's autobiography or intents. Thus, the
critical process, as introduced by the critics of this school, takes
the form of internal 'text de-codification' through what is termed
as "close reading". Such reading focuses on the text's internal
relationships (i.e., its associations and interactions) as it
excludes its historical, social, cultural and psychological aspects.
New critics used to believe that within each great creative work,
there is a perception of the paradox that characterizes the human
existence experience (some of them considered the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus Christ as the greatest Paradox; for that life
is born from his death and triumph is born from his downfall).
Moreover, they distinguish between the human phenomenon from natural
phenomenon through the paradox that can be conveyed by poetry
diction; as it is capable of addressing a certain motif and its
antithesis, together. This is in contrast to the abstract scientific
diction that can only treat abstract scientific rules, one motif or
its antithesis. Therefore, poetry and metaphor became intimately
attached to the very human existence; as human emotions can only be
expressed through such themes.
I did not embrace the New Criticism thinkers’
vision regarding the literary text; however, I was profoundly
influenced by some of its critical and philosophical premises, such
as its discernment between the scientific, (natural and materialist)
phenomenon and the human phenomenon, its misgiving in regard to
science as deemed insufficient paradigm to express the human
experience. I always endeavored to view the literary text as an
entity comprising numerous complex elements, one of which is
paradox; but it is not necessarily the most significant. The shape
of the text and structure resemble but (do not reflect) the
construction with a historical moment. I, hence, availed myself from
the 'close reading' methodology without subscribing to its
underlying 'anti-historical' paradigm.
The shape of the text and
structure resemble but (do not reflect) the construction with
a historical moment. |
|
I recall that in 1965, a friend of mine a French
Professor of physics and a member of the New Left, invited me to
accompany him and visit the atomic bomb inventor, Robert
Oppenheimer, in his home in Princeton, New Jersey. Oppenheimer was
the chief of the San Alamos team that 'succeeded' in utilizing
nuclear energy to perform the first nuclear explosion. The great
scientist served us tea and after we chatted about everything, the
New Left and American capitalism, I asked him: “What were your
feelings after you realized that your project has “succeeded” and
that the time for the first explosion became near?” He replied very
briefly: “I vomited”, i.e., he realized the savagery of the
scientific paradigm which directs his behavior during his work on
the atomic bomb and that it is a paradigm detached from Man, Man’s
values and ultimate ends. I was amazed by his reply that reminded me
of what Francois Rabelais; “If science is not connected to
consciousness, it shall lead to self-destruction”, and reminded me
of the Friday sermon cleric in Al-Habashi mosque in Damanhour as he
who used to seek refuge in God from science that does not avail.
Oppenheimer’s reply to my question supported my sense of distinction
between the human and the natural, that of the insufficiency of
science in acquainting with Man and Man’s system of values and
aesthetics and of the dangers involved in the separation between
scientific experimentation and human purposes (it should be
acknowledged that Oppenheimer spent the rest of his life fighting
the use of atomic bomb).
“If science is not
connected to consciousness, it shall lead to
self-destruction”. |
|
I started to experience deep doubts in regard to
some premises that were turned to obscurant secular absolutes such
as belief in science, progress and technology. I learned from Kevin
Reilly’s book The West and the World, that science has a
varying history and that the purposes of the Byzantine and Islamic
science differ, for instance, from those of modern science. I
started to find out, as an example, that the materialist thought
which emerged in the eighteenth century and received some
substantial credibility from various 'scientific' discoveries in the
nineteenth century was based on erroneous scientific hypotheses such
as simple causality law which was born in the hotbed of Newton’s
(mechanical materialist) outlook of the universe. Newton’s world is
a tightened closed one that is characterized by its mechanical
determinism. The Newton’s reasoning about the universe is predicated
on the mechanisms of the particle’s physical (configuration)
existence and the motion laws. Consequently, the materialist
scientific outlook emerged and argued for laws that govern physical
phenomena. Such laws are deduced from the induction based on
experimentation and observation; its first pillar is the doctrine of
causality and determinism and that no contemplation is possible
outside research laboratory and experiment results.
The above outlook remained completely in control
until the end of the nineteenth century. Henceforth, substantial
criticism had been aimed at that closed system with all its
hypotheses of determinism, objectivity, absolutism of space and
time, and the possibility of pure objective observation of reality
and hard causality. The latter most denotes that “cause” A renders
“effect” B as simple as “heat” causes steel “expansion”. The Quantum
theory, Heisenberg’s indeterminate doctrine, and the relativity
theory all together weakened these hypotheses. Consider, for
instance, the principle of confusion, i.e., the inability to
differentiate between the individual (unique) particles that are
micro-physically examined due to the removal of its uniqueness. So
if we have two particles in the same place and we desired to follow
the path of certain particle, the issue shall be confused; i.e., we
will be unable to differentiate one from another.
I, lately, read in the Time magazine, about a
scientific experiment performed on photons and showed that when they
are subject to certain experiment, they react and alter their
behavior. This is an entirely new matter; however, can we generalize
such pattern for the whole universe? For one of the problems
encountered by social sciences is the behavior alteration Man shows
when one realizes that he/she is the subject to an experiment; so
shall natural science encounter the same problem?
The Relativity theory demolished the borders
between subject and object; it gave the observer a great deal of
importance for his/her speed or stillness would alter the results of
measurement. The standards used to measure durations and distances
eventually rely on the monitor's point of view and the signal
framework which adds a subjective attribute to the measurement
process (in the classic physics, measurement results are independent
of the observer's speed). As a result, it is not possible any more
for physics to attain its (claims of) objectivity; i.e., Man is no
more able to see nature itself as one can only behold the "observed"
nature.
A non-materialist existence of atomic energy
appeared as the single undulatory existence (waves). The examination
of light phenomenon proved that photons behave in certain
experimental circumstances as composed of light particles and beams;
however, in other experimental circumstances, photons behave as
composed of waves. (One physicist sarcastically said: "On Saturday,
Monday and Wednesday, we define light as particles and beams; then
it turns to waves for the rest of the week".) This is known as the
"principle of dualism"; it is also a valid principle in the case of
atoms that sometimes behave as waves and other times as particles.
No single experiment could prove that photons are both particles and
waves, in the same time; for each experiment only reveals one
physical state, either particles or waves.
No single experiment
could prove that [light] photons are both particles and waves,
in the same time; for each experiment only reveals one
physical state, either particles or
waves. |
|
The logic of science used to only offer two
values: truth or falsehood, i.e., issues are either 'true' or
'false'. Nevertheless, now it is possible to have a trilateral logic
that has a median value of 'indetermination'; accordingly, issues
are deemed either true, or false, or indeterminate (i.e.,
undefined). It also can be said that "physical" reality, as Fu'ad
Kamil accurately stated it in his article titled: The Crisis of
Modern Science, "accepts two possible and equally sound
explanations (outcomes) but they can never be combined both in one
picture because the law of indetermination makes it impossible
perform any determinative experiment so as to determine which
explanation is the truth and which is falsehood." It seems that this
logic represents the final picture of the Quantum physics all the
way to the present moment.
Finally, if we ask: What is matter? The answer
cannot be obtained via physical experiments alone; rather it needs a
philosophical analysis of physics. As nature does not dictate one
particular situation on us; truth is not limited to one particular
diction.
As nature does not
dictate one particular situation on us; truth is not limited
to one particular diction. |
|
Perhaps, discovering black holes in the universe
has great significance on both scientific and symbolic levels. For,
inside these holes, the laws of physics and biology as well as time
and space all and light (the constant element in nature) is, in
turn, devoured. We can see the black holes' effects on their
surroundings but we do not fathom their (fathomless) secrets; as
they exist and play an essential role such that we cannot understand
some phenomena without them. Yet they are not subject to human
control and we do not fathom their secrets completely. Lately, the
chaos theory emerged and unleashed a new strike against the solid
closed materialist (outlook of the) world.
In addition, I realized that much of the so
called 'scientific laws' are, in reality, a priori philosophical
categories embraced by scientists but have none or a flimsy
relationship with the realm of scientific experimentation. If, for
instance, a scientist says that the world appeared by chance; such
statement only asserts his/her 'belief' in that fact or his failure
to understand the universe true origin. Similarly, when another
scientist addresses the 'automobile material', the scientist, in
fact, names something that he/she does not understand its. In both
cases, both scientists came from obscurant philosophical premises
that precede the experimentation process itself.
'scientific laws' are, in
reality, a priori philosophical categories embraced by
scientists but have none or a flimsy relationship with the
realm of scientific experimentation. |
|
A physicist and friend of mine told me that in
order to embark upon a “grand unification theory” requires the
absorption of and accounting for all the knowledge, facts,
information or their bases. This is though deemed impossible at
present; human knowledge was doubled during the periods: early
history-1750, 1750-1900, and 1900-1950. During 1950-1990, it was
doubled once every decade and after that once every five years. So I
asked him: “What if we store all human knowledge in a super
computer?” He replied: “The difficulty of retrieving and/or
utilizing all that knowledge still has to be encountered”. Another
scientist told me that a class of problems is known as
'theoretically tractable' and that solving them shall require that
the current generation of computers to work for thousands of years
to that end; perhaps that is all the time left for mankind on
earth!
The limitations of the human mind, on the one
hand, and the accumulation of information and scientific facts, on
the other hand, had rendered the cooperative team work an inevitable
necessity for scientific research while the scientific discovery
could not be but individualistic. This is the 'Catch-22 dilemma': no
single individual can absorb all science outcomes for they are so
voluminous and cumulative; however, one individual is supposed to
arrive at one or more scientific theory (such as the relativity
theory) which explains or reasons about the outcomes of various
sciences. Consequently, it now turns to be impossible to formulate a
general theorem based on the materialist/natural donnèe
available to us, as it was in the past. For we do not know some of
it although is known to others and some of that still awaits
solutions.
[I]t now turns to be
impossible to formulate a general theorem based on the
materialist/natural donnèe available to us, as it was in the
past. |
|
Our world had immensely expanded on the macro
level (heavenly bodies, stars, cosmos, etc.) and on the micro level
(particle, atom, etc). The realm of knowledge has an unprecedented
expansion. If we also consider the issue of narrow specialization
(i.e., the true scientist/scholar is the one who knows his domain
completely), we will gradually encounter the specialized scientist
who knows so much regarding his narrow specialized domain and
ignores so much regarding anything else. One scholar attempted to
epitomize the case as he said that specialization is to know more
about your narrow domain, then your knowledge expands more and your
domain gets narrower until you know everything about
nothing!
The Egyptian writer, Muhammad Sid Ahmed,
published an article in Al-Ahram daily, on a parallel
noteworthy observation: “...the most crucial accomplishment of Man
by the end of the second millennia is… Man’s ability to be liberated
from the limits of his own size within the universe, … the ability
to transcend his natural capacity so as to explore the mysteries of
the extremely tiny and extremely immense... that is Man’s
ability to intervene and reformulate nature laws .. For the first
time, the 'cultural' intervenes not in reformulating the 'natural'..
but in the realms of the very tiny and very immense that Man became
able to pioneer as he does not rely in this endeavor on the five
senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and feeling)... for they are
substituted by mathematical equations (formulas) based on
assumptions that may hit or miss... Thus, Man became reliant on
ambiguous tools which convey more than one explanation and are
vulnerable to confusion...Therefore, what promises to accomplish
miracles so as to upgrade human destiny may convey, within its
folds, the menace of misinterpretation or may crash into unknown and
becomes a source of an unparalleled chaos, 'self-destruction' and
forms of massive suicide of the entire mankind that, in turn, were
never tested before”. For such warning to be issued by some serious
thinker like Muhammad Sid Ahmed, the matter shall be taken quite
earnestly.
Modern science has gradually demolished the
notion of 'expanding science domain and diminishing the unknown' (a
naive idea that induced an optimistic scientist from the nineteenth
century to predict that within thirty years Man will know
everything; thus, there shall be no need for God, morals or
religion). After a century of scientific experiments, Man discovered
that with every exploration and control of something, a thousand new
unknown and uncontrollable things emerge; i.e., the more knowledge
man acquires, more ignorance is encountered. Along this situation is
our experience with the atom; that particular thing which moves
without any (known) law and is difficult to monitor. Nonetheless, at
every attempt to monitor atom, we discover new issues that puzzle
us. The next step on our agenda is to split the atom; once that is
accomplished, it is assumed that we will reach an earthly paradise.
Now we are in a dilemma in regard to how get rid of the nuclear
waste, however. We ended up concluding that it could annihilate us
as well as our planet, together. And we still hold to the "fire
ball", i.e., nuclear waste and arms that are capable of annihilating
the world several times.
After a century of
scientific experiments, Man discovered that with every
exploration and control of something, a thousand new unknown
and uncontrollable things emerge; i.e., the more knowledge man
acquires, more ignorance is encountered |
|
If controlling nature is science's greatest
illusion, the actual reality is to the contrary, however. This issue
surpass the atomic realm to some technological 'discoveries' which
we use in our daily life. So it has been reported that genetically
modified food could diminish the human immune system (as proven in
some scientific experiments); thus, the term 'Frankenstein food'. A
British scientist was dismissed from his job because he went on
asserting this premise; some of his students demonstrated in order
to support his assertions. Such does not differ much from what
happened to one of my friends in the U.S. as he performed some tests
on microwave ovens and found them gravely harmful to human health.
But before he could reach the final conclusion of his research, his
budget was withdrawn under financial austerity claims. Likewise, we
do not know the effects of computer and microfilm screens on human
body and eyes.
One scientist put forward several questions in
regard to simple matters that reveal the limitations of human
knowledge: Why humans are the only mammals that use their right
limbs more often than left limbs? Why do indoor plant conditions
change due to change in psyche and mood of their owners? Why do
schools of migrating birds take the shape of an arrow head when they
are flying? How can small animals (such as birds and fishes) manage
to travel thousands of miles towards a certain destination that they
have never hit before, generation by generation, and to reach there
exactly without a map or compass? How can some lost domestic
animals, which are not trained to migrate, travel alone thousands of
miles and find their owners? The answer to the above questions
depends on the premise that our world encompasses thousands of laws
and elements that were not imagined by the discoverer of the
thermodynamic laws that combined the laws of material existence and
motion in one framework in a primary attempt to put forward a single
comprehensive explication of the universe.
Why humans are the only
mammals that use their right limbs more often than left limbs?
Why do indoor plant conditions change due to change in psyche
and mood of their owners?... |
|
Lack of control has become an essential
characteristic of our age. The more mechanization and scientific
manipulation (of the world) the less control we shall attain over
such world. This is revealed through numerous aspects such as
environmental crises, failing to get rid of waste and the increasing
spread of 'psychological ailments'. Lack of control comically
appears perhaps in the two following simple examples: In the U.S. my
first name magically turned from Abdelwahab to Abdelwaha because the
Computer (software) was not able to find enough space for the last
letter of my first name. One employee suggested to me that I change
my last name to "Elm" and that should be it; it is an Anglo-Saxon
and short name! The Computer can handle it sufficiently. Finally I
had a problem with the Newsweek magazine; as they suddenly stopped
my subscription. After I complained to them they sent to me a letter
welcoming my desire to subscribe; so I wrote to them that their
letter was not a proper reply to complaint. So they sent to me
another stock (ready made) letter saying that they were sorry for my
subscription has expired. I answered with a third letter to notify
them of the problem and complaint; then I eventually received an
answer to my complaint stating that some mistake took place, they
will fix it and send the magazine issues to me. They also requested
that I ignore stock letters that I will henceforth receive, as the
Computer was expected to shower me with more unstoppable stock
letters! This was, in fact, the ultimate lack of control; yet in a
trivial matter such as billing or communications let alone serious
matters such as cloning, atomic energy or food genetic
modification.
Finally, there is the problem of scientific
experimentation. Several scientists (who achieved some important
discoveries in the genetic engineering field) stand against
experimentation in this field fearing its devastating consequences
considering the de facto separation between the experimental
(empirical) tendency and the human, moral and rational tendency.
Thus, experimentation itself turned to be the ultimate
end--regardless of its fatal consequences for the mankind. One
scholar expressed these concerns as, "In the past, scientific
experiment mistakes, such as a (devastating) blast or the like, used
to happen within the nature's cycle not as a challenge to nature's
laws; therefore, the nature's cycle was able to fix the damage.
Hence, if a certain area was polluted, it has to be deserted for
number of years so that natural factors may repair the man made
damage. The radioactive pollution may last for several thousand
years; it remains, however, within the temporal and natural cycle.
As for genetic engineering experiments, it is so different from the
old traditional breeding in the sense that it completely disregards
the biological limits for it is always possible to add genes from
virus, bacteria or animals to the plant genetic code (genome). These
experiments could bring about new creatures that the nature's cycle
cannot deal with; such creatures are beyond the domain of natural
evolution". The term 'genetic pollution' was lately coined to denote
the transfer of alien genes that had been introduced to some plant
(for the purpose of making it more productive or more climate
resistant) to another plant (e.g., harmful herb/grass) that could
make its eradication a formidable, difficult or impossible
matter.
I had described the fears of the Western man
from the value and the purpose-free experimentation through my
description of some metaphorical and mythological images that
engrossed the Western imagination. Among these images is the myth of
Prometheus who stole the fire from deities and gave it to Man (for
the purpose of enlightenment, of course; i.e., the greatest secular
myth). Then followed the Faust's myth who sold his soul to Satan in
return of full knowledge that enables him of full control of reality
and time (or so he thought). With the inception of the eighteenth
century, the Frankenstein myth emerged; such an ugly being that was
bred by an enlightened scientist in order to utilize it in his
service, personal and human. But, after a little while, the
'creature' killed the 'creator' and broke loose; wreaking havoc and
committing genocide. Thus, the outcome of human science is human
genocide; the conclusion of human science is inhumane. For,
Frankenstein is a natural mechanical man that moves within the
mechanical natural laws. Afterward, more myths appeared, such as
that of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, which indicate Man's fear for one's
concrete human identity vis-à-vis the abstract mind which moves
within the domain of scientific laws and inhumane mathematical
formulas. Therefore, after Prometheus stole the fireball from the
deities, with extreme confidence, so as to enlighten Man's world and
path, he became perplexed as for what he shall do with it
afterwards. And instead of utilizing fire, it started to burn his
fingers: the ozone layer holes, pollution, family deterioration, the
eradication of tropical forests, and the heating effects of
increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it became apparent
that Man's path was not enlightened; on the contrary, all that
progress shall lead to the detriment, annihilation and elimination
of Man.
The cost of progress had proven to be exorbitant
as it failed to cure most of the Man's spiritual and psychological
ailments; instead, it exacerbated them. Progress, as it was put
forward to us, is the application of the Western paradigm in
development and consumption. This paradigm is predicated on invading
and exploiting nature; (consider that 20% of the world population,
mainly in the West, consume 80% of the world natural resources).
Now, what if both China and India 'progress' according to Western
premises/standards? Does that not mean another billion automobiles
roaming in the roads, burning oxygen, releasing their immense
exhaust and polluting the earth atmosphere? What if Brazil, in turn,
progresses and proceeds with the eradication of the tropical forests
(in order to establish factories, commercial farms and highways and
to accomplish the 'prospective progress' a la Western mode,
for that is her national right)? Shall that not lead to exhaust one
third of the world's oxygen? If the Western notion of progress is
founded on the premise of limitless natural resources, practice
proved the contrary, however. Some minerals are depleting from the
earth, some animals and plants are considered extinct species every
year. The waste-processing problem is worsening as the volume of
waste increases scarily. (It is expected that within few years if
progress maintains the same rates, mankind shall need six more
planets like our Earth to extract enough raw materials and two
similar planets to dispose the waste of the savage consumption
related to progress). Besides, there is the nuclear waste that we
did not figure out a definite way to dispose of, yet. The progress
that was presumed to realize Man's pursuit of happiness had turned
to a threat against the very existence of Man on this
planet.
If the Western notion of
progress is founded on the premise of limitless natural
resources, practice proved the contrary,
however. |
|
There is a question that I put forward to myself
and others: Is the human nervous system capable of absorbing all
these feelings, thoughts and information that are relayed to Man
every day from one's social environment with an increasingly savage
and fast tempo? It is a question that we need to stop and wonder for
a little while in order to put it forward. Is it coincidental that,
in the last decade, the brain stroke syndrome hits more people every
year in the Arab countries and entire world than ever? Shall Man be
able to maintain strong imagination, meditation and historical
memory? Or will computers, under the illusion of control, will
render the imagination as obsolete, meditation as impossible and
historical memory as an out-of-date matters, respectively; as the
experience accumulation is not an important issue? Shall this
Man be similar to that of the technological Utopia: in control of
everything and under control, as well?
We may inquire regarding progress itself: Does
it necessarily realize happiness? An let us inquire with Malcolm X,
who said that in order for the state to deal with individuals it has
to turn them into numbers and figures lodged in the books, for the
state is able to send a human being to the space but does not know
how to deal with Men. Actually, the scientific revolution succeeded
in developing arms in an unprecedented manner throughout the mankind
history; however, if one compares the amount of fundraising which
medical researches get compared to the amount directed to the
development of arms and military technology, for example, the
picture will be clear; Man's inability of fighting influenza is
evidence of science's inhumane orientation and of the limits imposed
by our very human existence.
I had indicated in the introduction of my book,
The Earthly Paradise, that the essence of Western
civilization is to believe in the notion of deterministic, lasting
and fast "progress" until scientific progress had turned to be an
objective by itself. The logic of lasting progress and under any
price is the prevailing logic in the west and the entire world.
Nevertheless, it seems that the environmental crisis had been
worsening in the industrialized societies; for the first time in the
history of Western progress, a qualitative (modifying) factor is
introduced as intellectuals, as well as laymen, began to address the
real expenses of progress and environmental pollution. Is producing
a commodity by itself a measure of progress? Or shall progress and
decline be measured by standards outside the realm of 'stuff' and
quantity; for it is not possible to infer these measures except the
human phenomenon and historical environment? If it is a commonplace
in the West to address the pollution of environment (external
nature), the pollution (corruption) of Man shall be inevitably
addressed soon! As for the consumerist societies that believe in
their ability to satisfy all Man's desires and by defining them
quantitatively--disregarding Man's spiritual needs. Such societies,
I affirm, ignore the duality of Man and breed misery for mankind.
Such was my discourse at the time, though I used to consider myself
then not only secularist but also materialist. It seems, however,
that since the beginning I was a partial secularist; i.e., a
believer in the separation between the state and the church and not
in the separation between the entire human reality and moral values
and absolutes (as in the case of the comprehensive secularist
thinkers who call for the application of natural law on Man and
nature; hence, it is a form of the materialist existential monism,
as I shall delineate later). As a result, I demand now to revisit
the "progress cost" files, to compare revenue to its cost, and to
consider the materialist progress in view of the 'human
decay'.
The issue is that my
acceptance of scientific knowledge had become provisional,
critical and within limits. |
|
All the above induced me to have some
reservations and penetrations to some premises that are deemed
absolute, by some people, premises such as technological progress
and scientific (empirical) experimentation. That shall not be
construed as I totally reject scientific knowledge (as some fanatic
fundamentalists do), but I do not completely accept it as the only
possible knowledge (as some fanatic secularists do), if I shall use
the terms coined by my friend, Fahmy Huweidy, the Egyptian thinker
and thinker. The issue is that my acceptance of scientific knowledge
had become provisional, critical and within limits.
Dr. Abdel-Wahab M. Elmessiri
is a Professor Emeritus of
English Literature, Ain Shams University,
Cairo-Egypt.
Dr. Mazen
El-Naggar Researcher and
academic with interest in history and social
studies.
|
.jpg)
