A scientist is a person who works to understand the world he was born into for the sake of his own purpose. This purpose may arise from his belief or from his purely human instinct. Let the source of the scientist’s purpose be the subject of another article. As a result, the scientist investigates the origin of a situation or an object with certain research methods and aims to reach the truth.
The most distinctive feature I have seen in scientists so far is that they have a great curiosity and desire to question. Another feature of them is that they do not defend an idea and have no obedience traditions. Because there is no such thing as exact knowledge in science. Awareness that new findings may refute existing knowledge in the future causes scientists to stay away from sentences that state definite judgments.
Therefore, a scientist does not defend knowledge or an idea like a fanatic; he/she doesn’t say “that’s exactly how it is”. He says to the other scientist who has an opposing view, “this is your opinion, I respect it”.
Wise is someone who feels the truth even though he/she has no knowledge or education on the subject. (In fact, the person who feels the truth is defined as “ârif” in Turkish and Arabic. However, there is no clear concept for individuals who feel the truth in English and the closest meaning to eve seems to be “wise”)
She/he looks at the situation or object and feels the truth. He doesn’t know how or why he does it, he just feels it. Just as every human being has a talent, the wise also has the ability to “perceive the truth”.
As absurd as it is to ask Usain Bolt why and how fast he ran, it is equally absurd to ask the wise how he sensed the truth. The most distinctive feature I have seen in the wises so far is their high comprehension ability. They can comprehend an event or a situation very quickly and very well. Another feature is that most of them are unaware that they are “wise”. Even the society in which he lives often does not know or understand that that person is “wise”.
In order to explain the difference between a scientist and a wise, it is necessary to give an example; You are in such a plain that at the end of the plain, there are impassable high mountains. When the scientist is asked what is behind these lofty mountains, the scientist begins to investigate with the available means. He counts, looks at the previous works and writings of other scientists, and finally says “there may be something like this behind these mountains”.
They ask the same question to the wise; he/she looks at the mountains and says, “There may be something like this behind these mountains”.
The important difference between scientists and wise is that scientists can provide evidence whereas wise cannot. When the scientist is asked, “What is your proof for this,” he says, “I sent a sound wave, I measured this and I got this result, some of the ancients had found a similar result,” and tells you the reason why he came to this conclusion. If you ask for proof of the wise, your hand will be empty. He/she has no proof, nothing to explain. But he/she feels the truth.
Scholars are scientists who are wise. (The situation in question for the wise is also valid for the scholar. People who feel the truth and have scientific ethics are called “âlim” in Turkish and Arabic. However, the “âlim” does not have a clear equivalent in English. I chose “scholar” as the closest meaning to “âlim”)
The scholar has the natural ability to sense the truth, as well as has knowledge of the method and ethics of science. These features give the scholar the title of “judge” among people, which gives him the ability to judge and guide on matters in his field of expertise.
As far as I can tell, the greatest characteristic of scholars is that they are aware that they know very little. Do not get it wrong; he/she is one of the most knowledgeable people in his field of expertise; but they are aware that even this much information is still very little information and this is not certain information. Since they see such a big picture and they are only a small grain of dust in it, humility is at the highest level in these people.
One of the features I see in scholars is that they are in a constant state of thought. Indeed, it is necessary to look for comparisons and connections between the findings they have obtained and the existing information. Therefore, the scholar is involuntarily in a state of constant thought.
Another important feature of scholars is that they only give opinions and judgments in their fields of expertise. They say “I don’t know” on subjects outside of their field of specialization. While some scholars specializing in more than one field, most scholars prefer not to leave their field.
So, who should we trust in knowledge?
First of all, we should definitely keep in mind that; Whether it is a scientist, a wise or a scholar, no one is faultless or infallible. Human nature can make mistakes or be mistaken; this is quite normal and human.
Therefore, even if the person whose opinion we take is a scholar, we cannot regard it as unconditionally correct without questioning and researching. So far, I have not come across a scholar whose views I can say are all true. Even if you say that if the wise person feels, then how can he be wrong, I can say that it is a quirk of life.
You can think of it like this; Lionel Messi, who is generally accepted as the best football player of all time in the world, sometimes fails to turn the penalty kick into a goal, no matter how good and talented he is. This does not change the general acceptance that he is the best football player in the world or that being the best football player does not mean that he will score all penalty turn the goal.
Here, what we need to do is to listen and evaluate all opinions on a subject, regardless of who they are, and to act according to whichever opinion is more consistent after it has been filtered through the mind.
To be able to do this requires the will to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. If you ask me, I can say that maybe this is the most enjoyable job in the world. Reading and listening to opinions and ideas with their reasons, then choosing the most consistent. This is great freedom! And this freedom advances human civilization.