As mentioned in the article, he became a naturalised Indian citizen und was it seems a proud indian nationalist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane#In_India ). As a non-indian though I’d still be curious to know in more detail what his reputation is in India nowadays!
We loved him in India but like many things, he is not familiar to a lot of younger Indians. Others distract them these days. He was very happy in India because of the genetic diversity that aided his research and as a true scientist, it delighted him. He was a little nuts, but he was one of us because he suffered the same ills of bureaucracy and red tape that plagued Indians as well. His wife was a scientist too in her own right. His Marxist/communist ideas found a comfortable place in India where being tolerant and acceptance of diversity of opinions is a survival tactic. Every time India veers away from this survival hack, the country descends into chaos..then learns its lesson and back up again until intolerance raises its ugly head again. It’s a cyclical thing. Unlike England, I think JBS was able to get lost amidst all the millions people without sticking out like a sore thumb but also continue to do the work of a brilliant scientist that he was..a true citizen of science more than anything else.
I'm not sure about that but you can see and hear him give the introduction to the bizarre (and almost certainly not true) Soviet film "Experiments in the Revival of Organisms" (1940). Haldane was a great scientist, but his judgement may have been blurred here due to his (then) support of the Soviet Union
Warning that should have been given : the video link above in the parent has a decapitated dog experimented on ... We don’t know if it’s fake or real, but certainly disturbing footage if you are a dog lover.
He only did the voice over iirc but wasn’t present. Neither did he conduct any of the experiments. I think it was his loyalty towards his Russian comrades that made him lend them his credibility.
The whole concept (of knowing [almost] everything) is obviously an impossibility. As a near ubiquitously accepted term it merely reveals what is considered "true knowledge" and therefore serves to illuminate the bias of an era or society. Or in more fancy terms: the paradigm.
It could also be a marketing ploy, which is no contradiction.
I expected more than just a book review based on the title of the post. There was absolutely no evidence presented for the extraordinary claim made by the title.
