Midweek Review
Strengths of Smallness: Nanotechnology

by Prof. Kirthi Tennakone
(ktenna@yahoo.o.uk),
National Institute of Fundamental Studies
Aesop’s fable, The Lion and the elephant, says: “A lion was enraged by a bird perched on a tree singing aloud. The lion talked to an elephant passing by and said, “Look at that tiny tot, its scream irritated my ears and awakened me. We are huge and rule the jungle but these minuscules are snot scared of us, doesn’t pay due respect. Can we do something to teach them a lesson?” The elephant said, “Don’t underestimate the aptness of small creatures. One day a tiny wasp chased me stinging. I could not do anything about it until the insect flew away on its own. You torture and slaughter sizeable innocent animals. When it comes to smaller ones you are helpless!”
The world has been brought to its knees by the coronavirus, which nearly billion times smaller than the wasp that pricked the elephant!
Humans have invented weapons lethal enough to exterminate their own species, but struggle to fight the nano-sized virus!
Today, with popular drone enthusiasm, helicopters weighing a few grams are in the market. However, a toy helicopter of the size of the wasp with similar sensing ability or combat drones of wasp’s retaliatory capability have not been turned out yet, but the possibility of such machines being created cannot be ruled out.
Nanotechnology aims to find ways of making things scaled down to dimensions of the order of one to several hundred nanometers – one nanometre equals billionth of a meter.
Amazingly, when we scale down dimensions, novel properties absent in larger versions emerge – which physicists refer to as the quantum regime, providing opportunities for more revolutionary developments. Minuteness has peculiarities absent in the big.
The beginnings of Nanotechnology and small things around us
Nanotechnology emerged as a promise and a fashion in the 1980s. However, peculiarities of smallness had been realized much earlier and sometimes seen in matters of everyday life.
Nano-sized objects exist everywhere. Some dust particles in the air, suspensions in water, and viruses in our bodies, have nano-dimensions. Coronavirus measures around 100 nanometers, whereas human cell it invades is larger. A comparative resemblance to Aesop’s bird and lion.
The human body utilises antibodies of size approximately 10 nanometers to fight viruses hundreds of times larger. Here the scales of sizes of things matter, reminding another wise saying of Aesop: A lion cannot catch a gnat, but a spider can.
A lotus leaf withstands wetting by water because the leaf surface is densely packed with extremely thin hair not visible to the eye. However, a dog or a cats get wet instantly when bathed because they have thicker hair spread further apart, in contrast to those on the lotus leaf. Similarly, nano-dimensional spikes on the wings of the dragon fly inhibit growth of bacteria. Face masks mimicking dragon fly wings would be in the market soon.
Veddas were the first to attempt art of nanotechnology in Sri Lanka
A remedy for snake bite practiced by Veddas has been to place the so-called snake stone at the site of the strike. The stone attaches itself to the wound and is said to fall after extracting the venom. Snake stones were made by grounding a piece of charred bone to a rounded shape. Around 1850, Emerson Tennent, the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon dispatched samples of snake stones to the illustrious British scientist Michael Faraday for examination. Faraday found that the stone was porous and constituted of minute openings. He suggested the pores may be sucking venom via capillary forces. Recent investigations have shown that although the hypothesis stands theoretically sound, the amount of venom extracted would not be sufficient to reverse poisoning. Faraday did many things which stand as benchmarks of nanotechnology in present day terminology. An iridescent red solution of gold nano-particles he made 150 years ago remain intact in a bottle displayed at the Faraday Museum, London.
The man who enlightened the world of the potential of nanotechnology was the American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. In a famous talk given at the California Institute of Technology in 1959, Feynman pointed out that if ways were found to fix different atoms and molecules in appropriate positions just like building a house or a machine out of component parts, marvelous things could be done – for example Encyclopedia Britannica may be encoded in a device of the size of a pin head. Now, we know this happens in nature. Human DNA encoding all information necessary to make a man or a women, weighs about one trillionths of a gram! At the time Feynman gave his lecture, tools were not available to manipulate assemblies of atoms and molecules. Around the mid-1980s, basic instruments needed for the purpose were developed, giving a kick start to nano-science and technology.
Progress in nanotechnology
Scientific discoveries and technological innovations progress hand in hand. New discoveries pave way for inventions. That, in return, facilitate technological advancements providing tools necessary to foster new discoveries? With the strength of modern instrumentation made available since early 1980s, the implementation of Feynman’s ideas seemed to be in horizon. Research in the area gained momentum; nanotechnology institutes and university departments in the theme mushroomed everywhere. Some scientists changed their colour like chameleons, claiming they were nanotechnologists. The result has been a proliferation of incremental advances in making smaller and smaller gadgetries. If not for the yet unresolved question supplying power, machines of the size of a grain of sand are now feasible. Engineering has reached an unprecedented degree of precision. Nanotechnology’s coveted gadget, the scanning tunneling microscope, can map surfaces to atomic dimensions. The gravitational wave detector measures the changes in a thousand kilometer distance to an accuracy more than one billionths of a millimetre. Even with this level precision now available, nanotechnology hasn’t achieved breakthroughs of the magnitude comparable to the development of the transistor or discovery of DNA. Major advancements take time and for that we need creative minds and preparedness.
Graphene: Nanotechnology’s prodigious child
Nanotechnology’s prodigious child is graphene – a one atom thick sheet of carbon atoms bonded to each other – pack of these sheets being graphite we have as a mineral. For a long time, researchers thought it would be a prohibitively impossible to pull out a sheet of graphene from graphite. In 2004, Andre Grim and Kostya Novoselov at the University of Manchester succeeded in doing this by using an ordinary sticking tape and won the Nobel Prize-demonstrating that to arrive at groundbreaking discoveries, sophisticated brains are more important than institutions with shining floors housing state-of-the- art instrumentation.
Graphene promise miracles. As a consequence of extreme thinness, it behaves very different from graphite. Mechanical strength and electrical properties of graphene surpass other materials. Electrons travel so fast in graphene invoking Einstein’s relativity into material science for the first time. Possibilities of applications of graphene in diverse variety of areas stands sky high.
Graphite is a basic raw material used to manufacture graphene. Sri Lankan vein graphite stands topmost in purity and other properties for the purpose. Graphite is a resource-limited critical mineral; the demand will escalate exponentially, once graphene based electronic become a practicality. Sri Lanka needs to prepare for this eventuality not only by manufacturing graphene but gaining know how make such electronic devices ourselves. Advanced fundamental research in modern context as well as higher education with stronger emphasis on physics, mathematics and electronic engineering is a prerequisite.
Periods of history signifying major technological advancements are often named after the use of materials. Future is destined to be the graphene age – present being silicon and past ages – iron and stone. As life is based on carbon – naturally non-toxic and recyclable to harmless constituents – a plausible solution to environmental sustainability would be to adopt carbon as primary structural and electronic material.
Nanotechnology is an amalgamation of many disciplines
Nanotechnology is an amalgamation of many disciplines––physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and medicine––with physics in the forefront. Excellence in these fields and team work determine success.
Improvements to existing products by incorporation components which literally implicate a nano-scale appear in the market – sometimes trivialities are exaggerated as nanotechnology.
Developing a marketable commodity benefitting the society, significantly impacting an economy, is not an easy task. Inventions or new ideas need to have a credible scientific basis. These generally follow from publications in peer reviewed journals and subsequent reconfirmation in the light of pros and cons. Patents safeguards the originality of an invention for a specified period of time. However, publications in print and patents alone does not guarantee a profitable marketing of a product. Unfounded statements based only on these outputs confuse the policymaker and the general public.
Nanotechnology is not everything. All issues on earth cannot be solved with its help. In less advanced countries, there exist many gaps in established technologies, greatly limiting industrial expansion. Sri Lanka still lacks centuries old technologies of fertilizer manufacturing. It is most unlikely that a quantum jump to nanotechnology would solve our fertilizer or energy problem. Proven conventional industries need to be established first.
Nanotechnology in developing countries
It is heartening that developing countries including Sri Lanka embarked on the theme of nanotechnology without awaiting the follow-up of the accomplishment of the West. Starting with research carried out at the Department of Physics University of Ruhuna in 1980s and Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy, Sri Lanka pioneered the nano-solar cell concept referred to as the “Dye-sensitized Solid-State Solar Cell” subsequently experimented in many leading laboratories in the world.
We have laboratories dedicated to nano-science and technology at Institute of Fundamental Studies, Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology, Industrial Technology Institute and Universities of Colombo, Peradeniya, Jaffna and Wayamba. Publication output from in the theme originating from these institutions is commendable.
Developing nation’s emphasis on nanotechnology is manifestly evident from the percentage share of research publications on this theme out of the total number originating from each country. According to 2019 statistics, this quantity ranks highest for Iran. Followed by Saudi Arabia, India, China, Egypt and South Korea in that order. The value of the aforesaid percentage for United States and United Kingdom are much lower (5.5 and 4.7 respectively) because these countries generate vast number publications in other areas. Nevertheless these two countries have excelled in major innovations and original findings in nanotechnology as well as other scientific endeavors – notably frontier fundamental research.
Statistics deliver an important message to developing nations. They have invested much in a thematic fashion expecting returns – immediate economic benefits. Their achievements are mostly incremental contributions to findings earned elsewhere – notably those regions where the percentage share of publications was less. Have they gained economic returns? The United States and other countries in Europe emphasizing basic science have done better in technology and science of the nano-scale. Developing countries will do better in gathering fruits of nanotechnology by paying more attention basic research and education and closing the gap in conventional advanced technology. The shyness to challenging fundamental studies and the habit of entertaining easier themes not mandated on the pretext of usefulness deters scientific progress – the result is neither advancement in knowledge nor applied innovations.
Quality research as well as good teaching determines the technology’s future and economic returns. Researchers should not always go for easy targets permitting quick results, but commit to challenges that require years of hard work. Similarly, commitment to teaching without repeating age old notes, sharpens understanding. As Feynman said, “If you want to learn something teach it.” Absence of these essential qualities is the root cause of the failure of scientific policies, projects and institutions.
Consequent to the pandemic the world faces an unrivalled crisis created by a nano-sized organism. Salvage is science and nothing else. Those who exalted superstition downplaying science as something Western, now appeals to science. Developing countries awaited vaccines and cures from West. Time of the pandemic would be an opportune moment for us in the developing world to analyze why we lag behind West when it comes to science. How should we prepare to face future calamities ourselves?
Midweek Review
Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.
The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.
The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.
Q:
The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?
A:
It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.
Q:
In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?
A:
I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.
Q:
You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?
A:
By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.
I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.
Q:
Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?
A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.
But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.
Q:
As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?
A:
How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?
Q:
Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?
A:
There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.
Q:
A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?
A:
What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.
My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.
Q:
Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?
A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.
Q:
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?
A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.
The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.
Q:
Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?
A:
Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.
The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.
Q:
Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?
A:
I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.
With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Midweek Review
Research: Understanding the basics and getting started – Part I

Introduction
No human civilization—whether large or small, modern or traditional—has ever survived without collectively engaging in three fundamental processes: the production and distribution of goods and services, the generation and dissemination of knowledge and culture, and the reproduction and sustenance of human life. These interconnected functions form the backbone of collective existence, ensuring material survival, intellectual continuity, and biological renewal. While the ways in which these functions are organised vary according to technological conditions, politico-economic structures and geo-climatic contexts, their indispensability remains unchanged. In the modern era, research has become the institutionalized authority in knowledge production. It serves as the primary mechanism through which knowledge is generated, rooted in systematic inquiry, methodological rigor, and empirical validation. This article examines the key aspects of knowledge formation through research, highlighting its epistemological foundations and the systematic steps involved.
What is knowledge?
Knowledge, at its core, emerged from humanity’s attempt to understand itself and its surroundings. The word “knowledge” is a noun derived from the verb “knows.” When we seek to know something, the result is knowledge—an ongoing, continuous process. However, those who seek to monopolise knowledge as a tool of authority often attribute exclusivity or even divinity to it. When the process of knowing becomes entangled with power structures and political authority, the construction of knowledge risks distortion. It is a different story.
Why do we seek to understand human beings and our environment? At its core, this pursuit arises from the reality that everything is in a state of change. People observe change in their surroundings, in society, and within themselves. Yet, the reasons behind these transformations are not always clear. Modern science explains change through the concept of motion, governed by specific laws, while Buddhism conceptualises it as impermanence (Anicca)—a fundamental characteristic of existence. Thus, knowledge evolves from humanity’s pursuit to understand the many dimensions of change
It is observed that Change is neither random nor entirely haphazard; it follows an underlying rhythm and order over time. Just as nature’s cycles, social evolution, and personal growth unfold in patterns, they can be observed and understood. Through inquiry and observation, humans can recognise these rhythms, allowing them to adapt, innovate, and find meaning in an ever-changing world. By exploring change—both scientifically and philosophically—we not only expand our knowledge but also cultivate the wisdom to navigate life with awareness and purpose.
How is Knowledge Created?
The creation of knowledge has long been regarded as a structured and methodical process, deeply rooted in philosophical traditions and intellectual inquiry. From ancient civilizations to modern epistemology, knowledge generation has evolved through systematic approaches, critical analysis, and logical reasoning.
All early civilizations, including the Chinese, Arab, and Greek traditions, placed significant emphasis on logic and structured methodologies for acquiring and expanding knowledge. Each of these civilizations contributed unique perspectives and techniques that have shaped contemporary understanding. Chinese tradition emphasised balance, harmony, and dialectical reasoning, particularly through Confucian and Taoist frameworks of knowledge formation. The Arab tradition, rooted in empirical observation and logical deduction, played a pivotal role in shaping scientific methods during the Islamic Golden Age. Meanwhile, the Greek tradition advanced structured reasoning through Socratic dialogue, Aristotelian logic, and Platonic idealism, forming the foundation of Western epistemology.
Ancient Indian philosophical traditions employed four primary strategies for the systematic creation of knowledge: Contemplation (Deep reflection and meditation to attain insights and wisdom); Retrospection (Examination of past experiences, historical events, and prior knowledge to derive lessons and patterns); Debate (Intellectual discourse and dialectical reasoning to test and refine ideas) and; Logical Reasoning (Systematic analysis and structured argumentation to establish coherence and validity).The pursuit of knowledge has always been a dynamic and evolving process. The philosophical traditions of ancient civilizations demonstrate that knowledge is not merely acquired but constructed.
Research and Knowledge
In the modern era, research gradually became the dominant mode of knowledge acquisition, shaping intellectual discourse and scientific progress. The structured framework of rules, methods, and approaches governing research ensures reliability, validity, and objectivity. This methodological rigor evolved alongside modern science, which institutionalized research as the primary mechanism for generating new knowledge.
The rise of modern science established the authority and legitimacy of research by emphasizing empirical evidence, systematic inquiry, and critical analysis. The scientific revolution and subsequent advancements across various disciplines reinforced the notion that knowledge must be verifiable and reproducible. As a result, research became not just a tool for discovery, but also a benchmark for evaluating truth claims across diverse fields. Today, research remains the cornerstone of intellectual progress, continually expanding human understanding and serving as a primary tool for the formation of new knowledge.
Research is a systematic inquiry aimed at acquiring new knowledge or enhancing existing knowledge. It involves specific methodologies tailored to the discipline and context, as there is no single approach applicable across all fields. Research is not limited to academia—everyday life often involves informal research as individuals seek to solve problems or make informed decisions.It’s important to distinguish between two related but distinct activities: search and research. Both involve seeking information, but a search is about retrieving a known answer, while research is the process of exploring a problem without predefined answers. Research aims to expand knowledge and generate new insights, whereas search simply locates existing information.
Western Genealogy
The evolution of Modern Science, as we understand it today, and the establishment of the Scientific Research Method as the primary mode of knowledge construction, is deeply rooted in historical transformations across multiple spheres in Europe.
A critical historical catalyst for the emergence of modern science and scientific research methods was the decline of the medieval political order and the rise of modern nation-states in Europe. The new political entities not only redefined governance but also fostered environments where scientific inquiry could thrive, liberated from the previously dominant influence of religious institutions. Establishment of new universities and allocation of funding for scientific research by ‘new monarchs’ should be noted. These shifting power dynamics created space for scientific research more systematically. The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge was founded in 1662, while the French Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences) was established in 1666 under royal patronage to promote scientific research.
Alongside this political evolution, the feudal economic order declined, paving the way for modern capitalism. This transformation progressed through distinct stages, from early commercial capitalism to industrial capitalism. The rise of commercial capitalism created a new economic foundation that supported the funding and patronage of scientific research. With the advent of industrial capitalism, the expansion of factories, technological advancements, and the emphasis on mass production further accelerated innovation in scientific methods and applications, particularly in physics, engineering, and chemistry.
For centuries, the Catholic Church was the dominant ideological force in Europe, but its hegemony gradually declined. The Renaissance played a crucial role in challenging the Church’s authority over knowledge. This intellectual revival, along with the religious Reformation, fostered an environment conducive to alternative modes of thought. Scholars increasingly emphasised direct observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning—principles that became the foundation of modern science.
Research from Natural Science to Social Science
During this period, a new generation of scientists emerged, paving the way for groundbreaking discoveries that reshaped humanity’s understanding of the natural world. Among them, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), and Isaac Newton (1642–1726) made remarkable contributions, expanding the boundaries of human knowledge to an unprecedented level.
Like early scientists who sought to apply systematic methods to the natural world, several scholars aimed to bring similar principles of scientific inquiry to the study of human society and behavior. Among them, Francis Bacon (1561–1626) championed the empirical method, emphasising observation and inductive reasoning as the basis for knowledge. René Descartes (1596–1650) introduced a rationalist approach, advocating systematic doubt and logical deduction to establish fundamental truths. David Hume (1711–1776) further advanced the study of human nature by emphasizing empirical skepticism, arguing that knowledge should be derived from experience and sensory perception rather than pure reason alone.
Fundamentals of Modern Scientific Approach
The foundation of modern scientific research lies in the intricate relationship between perception, cognition, and structured reasoning.
Sensation, derived from our senses, serves as the primary gateway to understanding the world. It is through sensory experience that we acquire raw data, forming the fundamental basis of knowledge.
Cognition, in its essence, is a structured reflection of these sensory inputs. It does not exist in isolation but emerges as an organised interpretation of stimuli processed by the mind. The transition from mere sensory perception to structured thought is facilitated by the formation of concepts—complex cognitive structures that synthesize and categorize sensory experiences.
Concepts, once established, serve as the building blocks of higher-order thinking. They enable the formulation of judgments—assessments that compare, contrast, or evaluate information. These judgments, in turn, contribute to the development of conclusions, allowing for deeper reasoning and critical analysis.
A coherent set of judgments forms more sophisticated modes of thought, leading to structured arguments, hypotheses, and theoretical models. This continuous process of refining thought through judgment and reasoning is the driving force behind scientific inquiry, where knowledge is not only acquired but also systematically validated and expanded.
Modern scientific research, therefore, is a structured exploration of reality, rooted in sensory perception, refined through conceptualisation, and advanced through logical reasoning. This cyclical process ensures that scientific knowledge remains dynamic, evolving with each new discovery and theoretical advancement.
( Gamini Keerawella taught Historical Method, and Historiography at the University of Peradeniya, where he served as Head of the Department and Senior Professor of History. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at the same university)
by Gamini Keerawella
Midweek Review
Guardians of the Sanctuary

The glowing, tranquil oceans of green,
That deliver the legendary cup that cheers,
Running to the distant, silent mountains,
Are surely a sanctuary for the restive spirit,
But there’s pained labour in every leaf,
That until late was not bestowed the ballot,
But which kept the Isle’s economy intact,
And those of conscience are bound to hope,
That the small people in the success story,
Wouldn’t be ignored by those big folk,
Helming the struggling land’s marketing frenzy.
By Lynn Ockersz
-
Business2 days ago
Cargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
Sports5 days ago
Sri Lanka to compete against USA, Jamaica in relay finals
-
Features7 days ago
The Royal-Thomian and its Timeless Charm
-
Features7 days ago
‘Thomia’: Richard Simon’s Masterpiece
-
Business2 days ago
Sri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
Features2 days ago
The Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News23 hours ago
Defence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Business5 days ago
Affairs of SriLankan Airlines could be turned around using local expertise – former CAA chair