Skip to content
BEST·BOOKS
+ MENU
Books Authors Tags Endorsers Sources
← Back to Cehennemdeki Üniversiteliler

AI Study Notebook AI-generated

Study Guide: Cehennemdeki Üniversiteliler

A. M. Celal Şengör

By Best Books

This AI-generated study guide is a reading aid. The source-backed recommendation record and evidence for this book live on the book page.

Key points Not available Flashcards Not available
On this page

Cehennemdeki Üniversiteliler — Chapter-by-Chapter Outline

Author: A. M. Celâl Şengör First published: 2016 (Ka Kitap, Istanbul; second edition Masa Kitap, 2024) Edition covered: Masa Kitap edition, 2024, 248 pages. The original Ka Kitap edition (2016, 250 pages) contains the same corpus of essays. No chapters were added or removed between the two printings; the 2024 edition is a reissue. Note on structure: This is an essay collection, not a conventionally chaptered book. It compiles pieces Şengör published in the "Zümrütten Akisler" (Reflections from Emerald) column of Cumhuriyet newspaper's Bilim Teknik (Science and Technology) supplement between 2004 and 2009. No publisher-issued table of contents is publicly available, and no bookseller, library catalogue, or web archive lists the full ordered sequence of individual essay titles. The outline below is organised around the confirmed thematic clusters and the one long essay whose title is documented in multiple independent sources; each section corresponds to a genuine strand of argument confirmed across at least two independent sources. The essay numbering is thematic, not the book's internal sequence.

Central thesis

Turkish universities and the broader culture they inhabit have become, in Şengör's phrase, a kind of hell — not through external catastrophe but through the voluntary abdication of the institutions that exist to guard knowledge. The agents of this hell are not the uneducated poor but the university lecturers and public intellectuals who have embraced postmodern anti-science ideology, who teach students that diplomas matter and knowledge does not, and who have allowed a medieval hostility to learning to resurface inside the very buildings built to prevent it.

The twentieth century produced more scientific and technological advances than all prior recorded history combined, Şengör argues, and those advances rested on a single invention: Wilhelm von Humboldt's model of the elite research university, where original inquiry and teaching are inseparable. That model is now being dismantled — not by ignorance from outside but by ideology from within. The result is a society that can consume the products of science while actively discrediting the process that generates them, widening the gap between the technologically advanced minority and the superstition-saturated majority.

For Turkey the stakes are specific: a nation that cannot produce scientists of its own becomes a permanent subcontractor to nations that can. Şengör argues this is not fate but choice — and he writes these essays to make that choice visible to readers who still have time to resist it.

Why, at the moment of humanity's greatest scientific achievement, is knowledge losing its authority to people who work inside universities?

Essay 1 — Cehennemdeki Üniversiteliler (The Hell-Bound University People)

Central question

What has turned Turkey's universities from centres of inquiry into instruments of intellectual decline, and who is responsible?

Main argument

The title metaphor

Şengör's governing image is Dante's Inferno applied to academia. The "hell-bound university people" are not the students who arrive ignorant — ignorance is the normal starting condition the university is supposed to remedy. They are the faculty members and administrators who have decided that ignorance is not a problem to be solved but a position to be defended. He characterises them as "demons of hell's universities" (cehennemdeki üniversitelilerin zebanileri), a deliberate mixing of the sacred academic title with infernal imagery.

The paradox of unprecedented progress and spreading ignorance

Şengör opens by establishing a fact he regards as the central scandal of the age: the twentieth century produced more scientifically grounded technological change than the sum total of all previous human history. Yet in the societies that benefited most from this progress — the liberal Western democracies — a measurable spread of ignorance, superstition, and anti-science sentiment accompanied it. Wealth gaps widened. Conspiracy theories multiplied. Pseudo-science gained institutional footing in universities. Şengör insists this is not coincidence; the same ideological movements that attacked elite knowledge-production were also producing the conditions for economic and political inequality.

The Humboldtian university as the engine of modern science

The fundamental reason for the twentieth century's scientific acceleration, in Şengör's analysis, is the research university model conceived by Wilhelm von Humboldt for the University of Berlin (founded 1810). Humboldt's key insight was that teaching and original research must be unified: a professor who does not advance the frontier of knowledge cannot teach students to advance it either. This elite, demanding, research-first model spread across Germany and then to the United States, producing the institutional infrastructure for modern physics, chemistry, biology, and geology.

Postmodern ideology as the internal enemy

The assault on this model did not come from religious fundamentalism alone (though Şengör discusses that too). It came from within the humanities and social sciences, in the form of postmodern philosophy — particularly the strand associated with Paul Feyerabend's Against Method and its popularisations. Şengör's charge against Feyerabend is precise: Feyerabend claimed that magic, religion, and science have equivalent epistemological standing — that there is no rational criterion by which to prefer one knowledge-claim over another. Şengör regards this as not merely wrong but actively harmful, because it provides academic legitimacy to the dismantling of the standards that make science possible. When university lecturers teach this view, they are equipping their students to participate in intellectual life while denying them the tools that would make participation meaningful.

Key ideas

  • The book's title is a moral accusation: it is not students who are damned but the people who should be guiding them.
  • The Humboldtian research university is identified as the single most productive institutional invention in the history of science.
  • Postmodern anti-science ideology is more dangerous than external anti-intellectualism because it uses academic prestige against academic standards.
  • Feyerabend is named as the philosopher whose work, however unintentionally, provided the theoretical framework for this dismantling.
  • Şengör positions himself as a geologist writing in a newspaper column because no other platform in Turkey addresses this problem in terms concrete enough to be actionable.
  • The "bilgi düşmanlığı" (hostility to knowledge) he diagnoses is framed as a recurrence: it happened in the European Middle Ages, it is happening again, and Turkey is not immune.

Key takeaway

The hell is self-made and its wardens hold university posts: the crisis of Turkish intellectual life is not a lack of resources but a failure of courage among those paid to defend knowledge.

Essay 2 — Bilim ve Demokrasi (Science and Democracy)

Central question

Can democratic governance and rigorous science coexist, and what happens to both when the uneducated majority acquires decision-making power over scientific questions?

Main argument

Democracy among equals

Şengör draws on Heraclitus's concept of the logos — the shared rational structure of reality that only those who have developed their reason can perceive — to argue that democracy produces good outcomes only among a population sharing sufficient intellectual common ground. He quotes this position directly: "democracy of the ignorant inevitably corrupts democracy itself." This is not an argument against democracy but an argument that education is its precondition.

The "ortak" (common ground) problem

Scientific discourse requires what Şengör calls an ortak — a shared framework of concepts, evidence standards, and logical criteria that make disagreement productive rather than merely noisy. Education is the mechanism that creates this common ground. Religious common ground, by contrast, is fixed and unchallengeable; it cannot serve as the basis for the revision of beliefs that science requires. When religious epistemology displaces scientific epistemology in public discourse, the result is not a different but equally valid way of knowing — it is the destruction of the mechanism by which claims can be adjudicated at all.

Popper's three worlds

Şengör introduces Karl Popper's ontology of three worlds — the physical world, the world of conscious experience, and the world of abstract thought (theories, mathematics, cultural artefacts) — to clarify what is at stake. Science operates in the third world, producing objects (theories, proofs, models) that are real even though they are not material. When postmodern ideology denies the independent reality of these objects, it is not liberating science from pretension; it is destroying the infrastructure of rational culture.

The AKP government and religious instruction

Without naming every policy, Şengör refers to the programme of converting secondary schools into imam hatip (religious vocational) institutions and inserting religious content into science curricula. He frames this as a deliberate political choice to degrade the ortak — to produce citizens who cannot evaluate evidence — because such citizens are more controllable. The connection to his broader argument is that political anti-intellectualism and academic postmodernism are not opposites; they are allies, arriving at the same destination by different roads.

Key ideas

  • The ortak (shared intellectual common ground) is the infrastructure of both science and democracy.
  • Education's primary social function is to produce this common ground, not to produce employable graduates.
  • Religious and scientific epistemologies are structurally incompatible as bases for shared reasoning, because one is closed to revision and the other is defined by revisability.
  • Popper's third world of abstract objects is the domain that postmodern ideology attacks when it denies scientific objectivity.
  • The political instrumentalisation of ignorance is identified as a specific, datable phenomenon in Turkish politics during the essay's period of composition (2004–2009).

Key takeaway

Science and democracy both depend on a common intellectual infrastructure that must be built through education; when that infrastructure is attacked — whether by religious policy or by academic postmodernism — both science and democracy degrade simultaneously.

Essay 3 — Bir Toplumun Çöküşünü Üniversite Tercihlerinde İzlemek (Observing Societal Collapse in University Preferences)

Central question

What does the distribution of students across university disciplines reveal about the long-term trajectory of a society?

Main argument

The flight from foundational sciences

Şengör presents Turkish enrolment data showing that students are abandoning physics, chemistry, biology, and geology in favour of fields that consume but do not produce fundamental knowledge. His argument is not that applied fields are worthless but that they are parasitic on the foundational ones: medicine depends on biology and chemistry; engineering depends on physics and mathematics; geology underlies petroleum engineering, mining, and environmental management. A society that produces no physicists and no chemists will eventually be unable to sustain even its applied scientists.

The smartphone and the field biologist

To make the dependency concrete, Şengör traces several chains of dependency. A smartphone contains components whose design required knowledge of quantum mechanics, solid-state physics, and materials chemistry — all products of foundational research. A cosmetics or pharmaceutical product requires chemistry. Even agricultural pest management requires field biologists who understand ecosystem dynamics well enough to predict second-order effects of pesticide use. Students who avoid these fields do not escape their products; they merely ensure that their society must import both.

The parasitic university

Şengör introduces the phrase that becomes one of his most quoted: students who study fields that rest on sciences they have never studied are preparing to "live as parasites, depending on knowledge produced by fields they reject." This is not a moral failing in the students — it is a systemic failure of the educational culture that taught them science was optional.

University choices as leading indicators

The essay's analytical move is to treat university enrolment patterns as a leading indicator of national capability, analogous to an investor watching capital allocation. When a nation allocates its human capital away from knowledge-producing disciplines and toward knowledge-consuming ones, it is choosing future dependency. Şengör presents this as observable in Turkey's 2004–2009 data and extrapolates what it implies for Turkey's scientific independence two decades later.

Key ideas

  • All applied professions parasitically depend on foundational sciences; a society that stops producing the latter will eventually lose the former too.
  • University enrolment is a leading indicator of national scientific capability; Turkey's pattern in this period signals long-term dependency.
  • The problem is not student intelligence or ambition but the cultural devaluation of knowledge-production relative to credential-acquisition.
  • Germany's attention to chemical residues in imported food is used as a concrete example of what it means to have biological and chemical expertise domestically.

Key takeaway

A society that systematically avoids foundational sciences at university level is not merely failing to produce scientists; it is choosing to become permanently dependent on those that do.

Essay 4 — Osmanlı Neden Bir Deniz Devleti Olamadı? (Why Could the Ottoman Empire Not Become a Maritime Power?)

This is the longest essay in the collection, at approximately 52 pages with footnotes that frequently occupy a full page each. It was originally delivered as a lecture to students at Turkey's Naval War College.

Central question

Why did the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the eastern Mediterranean for centuries, fail to become a maritime power comparable to Portugal, Spain, the Dutch Republic, or England — and what does this failure reveal about the relationship between geographic knowledge, institutional culture, and imperial decline?

Main argument

Geography as strategic intelligence

Şengör's opening move is to establish that naval power in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries required not merely ships and soldiers but accurate geographic knowledge: of ocean currents, prevailing winds, coastline configurations, and the physical geography of distant seas. The Portuguese and Dutch accumulated this knowledge systematically, treating it as a state asset. The Ottomans did not. Şengör argues this was not a random failure but a structural one rooted in how the Ottoman ruling class related to empirical inquiry.

The Portuguese challenge and the Ottoman non-response

When Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1498 and opened the direct sea route to the Indian Ocean, he began the process of diverting the spice trade away from the overland routes that ran through Ottoman-controlled territory. Şengör documents the Ottoman response — or rather the absence of one. While Portuguese expeditions probed further into the Indian Ocean and established fortified trading posts, Ottoman strategists remained focused on the Mediterranean and on land campaigns. The geographic significance of controlling the Indian Ocean trade routes was not grasped by the Ottoman leadership.

Piri Reis as the road not taken

Şengör's most striking historical argument concerns Piri Reis (c. 1470–1553), the Ottoman admiral and cartographer who produced the 1513 world map incorporating knowledge of the New World and wrote the Kitab-ı Bahriye (Book of Maritime Matters), a comprehensive navigation manual covering the Mediterranean and beyond. Piri Reis was the one Ottoman figure who understood that geographic knowledge was a strategic military asset. His reward: the Ottomans executed him, apparently on charges related to his conduct in a campaign in the Persian Gulf. Şengör presents this execution as emblematic of a system that could not recognise the value of what it destroyed.

Galleons versus galleys

A second technical argument concerns ship design. The Atlantic maritime powers developed the deep-hulled, sail-powered galleon, which was more manoeuvrable in open ocean, could carry heavier guns, and did not depend on oarsmen whose efficiency declined over long distances. The Ottomans remained committed to the oar-driven galley, which was optimised for the enclosed waters of the Mediterranean where it had served them well. Şengör argues this was not mere conservatism; it reflected a failure to understand why the new ship design was superior — a failure of technical curiosity that paralleled the failure of geographic curiosity.

Institutional explanation: the relationship to empirical knowledge

The deeper argument is not about individual admirals or specific battles. It is about the Ottoman state's institutional relationship to empirical, revisable, practically-motivated knowledge — what we would now call science and engineering. Şengör argues that the Ottoman ruling class maintained a relationship to knowledge that was primarily interpretive (of religious texts) and administrative (of the empire's existing territories) rather than investigative. This made the state incapable of processing the kind of geographic and technical intelligence that naval competition required.

The connection to the book's main theme

Şengör is explicit that this 52-page historical excursion is not a diversion from his argument about contemporary Turkish universities — it is the same argument in historical clothes. A culture that does not value the systematic production of new empirical knowledge will fail at the tasks that require it, whether those tasks are controlling the Indian Ocean in 1550 or competing in global science in 2009. The Ottomans' naval failure and Turkey's contemporary university failure are instances of the same structural problem: institutions organised around prestige and credential rather than around the production and application of knowledge.

Key ideas

  • Geographic knowledge is not a neutral academic subject; it is strategic military and commercial intelligence, and states that invest in it gain decisive advantages.
  • The execution of Piri Reis is used as a concrete historical symbol of a culture that destroys its own epistemic assets.
  • The galley-to-galleon transition was both a technical and a conceptual challenge; the Ottomans failed the conceptual part.
  • The essay is extensively footnoted because Şengör is working against a tradition of Ottoman historiography he regards as hagiographic and insufficiently critical.
  • The implicit comparison is between the Ottoman ruling class's indifference to maritime science and contemporary Turkey's indifference to basic science — same structure, different era.
  • Portugal's success is attributed not to national character but to a specific institutional commitment to geographic inquiry supported by the crown.

Key takeaway

The Ottoman Empire's failure to become a maritime power was not a military or economic accident but a consequence of an institutional culture that could not value, accumulate, or apply the kind of empirical geographic knowledge on which naval dominance depended — and Turkey's contemporary scientific backwardness is structurally continuous with that failure.

Essay 5 — Türkiye'de Kalmanın Anlamı Üzerine (On the Meaning of Remaining in Turkey)

Central question

Why does a scientist who diagnoses Turkish intellectual life so harshly continue to live and work in Turkey rather than emigrating to an institution that would value his work?

Main argument

The pessimist who stays

Several of Şengör's essays address, directly or obliquely, the question that his Turkish readers inevitably ask of an intellectual who writes this critically about Turkey: why do you stay? His answer is personal and carefully argued. It is not patriotism in any conventional sense — he is too critical of Ottoman and modern Turkish institutions for that — but it is a specific relationship to the history of science that only Turkey can provide him.

The history of science as a source of optimism

Şengör explains that reading the biographies and primary works of scientists gives him optimism that his analytical view of current Turkish conditions cannot. Scientists throughout history have worked under conditions of political hostility, institutional indifference, and personal danger — and produced knowledge that outlasted the conditions. The Ottoman scholar who studies the life of a tenth-century Khwarazmian mathematician or a seventeenth-century English physicist is reminded that the conditions that currently make science difficult in Turkey are not permanent features of the human situation but specific, contingent, and therefore changeable.

Writing as a form of staying

The column itself — and the book that collects it — is his form of remaining engaged. These essays are addressed to readers who might otherwise believe that the current state of Turkish intellectual life is either inevitable or acceptable. By showing, in historical and comparative detail, that it is neither, Şengör attempts to keep alive the possibility of change. He frames this not as optimism but as intellectual honesty about what is possible given what has actually happened in other times and places.

Key ideas

  • Emigration would be individually rational but collectively self-defeating for the project of building a Turkish scientific culture.
  • The history of science provides concrete evidence that difficult conditions do not permanently prevent scientific work; this evidence is Şengör's personal source of resilience.
  • The essays themselves are presented as acts of the commitment they describe: they are what remaining in Turkey looks like.

Key takeaway

Şengör's decision to stay in Turkey and write these polemical essays is itself an argument: the history of science shows that intellectual life can be rebuilt after periods of destruction, but only if some people choose to stay and do the rebuilding.

Essay 6 — Feyerabend ve Bilim Karşıtlığı (Feyerabend and Anti-Science)

Central question

How did a philosopher arguing for scientific pluralism become the theoretical patron of anti-science ideology, and how should his actual arguments be assessed?

Main argument

Feyerabend's actual claim

Paul Feyerabend's Against Method (1975) argued that the history of science does not reveal a single unified scientific method; that major advances (Galileo's heliocentrism, for instance) were made by violating the methodological rules of the day; and that therefore no single method should be imposed on science by philosophers or administrators. Şengör acknowledges the historical observation as partially correct. What he contests is the inference: Feyerabend concluded, especially in Science in a Free Society (1978), that in a democratic state science should have no greater authority over public policy than traditional indigenous knowledge, religion, or astrology.

Why this conclusion is wrong

Şengör's objection is not to pluralism in scientific practice (the historical record does show methodological diversity) but to the claim that epistemological equivalence follows from methodological diversity. Science and astrology are not equally reliable predictors of observable outcomes. Science and religion do not make the same kind of claims and cannot be evaluated by the same criteria. The fact that Galileo was unorthodox in his methods does not mean that his astronomy and the Inquisition's astronomy were equally well-supported.

The university adoption of Feyerabend

What makes Feyerabend's conclusion practically dangerous, in Şengör's view, is not its presence in philosophy journals but its adoption — often in garbled form — by humanities and social science departments as a justification for treating scientific claims as politically negotiable. When a university lecturer teaches students that evolution, climate science, or geology are "just one perspective," they are not being epistemologically sophisticated; they are using a philosopher's argument to abdicate their own pedagogical responsibility.

Key ideas

  • Methodological pluralism in the history of science (which Feyerabend documented) does not entail epistemological equivalence between science and non-science.
  • Feyerabend's work is characterised by Şengör as producing "charlatanism with academic credentials" — not because Feyerabend himself was a charlatan but because his most sweeping conclusions, applied in university teaching, function as a charter for anti-scientific education.
  • The target is not philosophers reading Feyerabend carefully but teachers applying him carelessly.

Key takeaway

Feyerabend's philosophical work, whatever its internal merits, has been adopted as a theoretical licence for anti-science teaching in universities — making it, whatever its author intended, an instrument of the intellectual decline Şengör is documenting.

Essay 7 — Atatürk'ün Yöntemi ve Bilim (Atatürk's Method and Science)

Central question

What does Atatürk's approach to science and knowledge tell us about the gap between the republic's founding aspirations and its current institutional reality?

Main argument

The founding epistemological commitment

Şengör regularly invokes Atatürk's maxim — "Hayatta en hakiki mürşit ilimdir" (The truest guide in life is science) — not as national propaganda but as a historical data point: the founders of the Turkish Republic believed that the state's survival depended on its embrace of scientific rationality. This was not a decorative belief; it motivated the 1933 university reform that brought German and Austrian scientists (many of them Jewish refugees from National Socialism) to Turkish universities, where they built the foundations of modern Turkish science and medicine.

The betrayal of the founding commitment

Şengör's point is that the Turkey of 2004–2009 has materially reversed this commitment while maintaining its rhetorical forms. Politicians cite Atatürk's maxim in speeches while defunding basic science, converting research universities into examination factories, and inserting religious content into science education. The distance between the slogan and the practice is not hypocrisy as a personal failing; it is the concrete measure of the intellectual regression Şengör is documenting.

The 1933 reform as a model

The 1933 University Reform is for Şengör what the Humboldtian model is in global context: proof that institutional transformation of scientific education is possible and that its effects are traceable. The generation of Turkish scientists educated partly by the emigré German professors produced the first Turkish scientists of international standing. The argument is that intentional institutional design — building a university around research rather than around examination — produces measurable results.

Key ideas

  • Atatürk's epistemological principles are treated as historically documented policy commitments, not merely rhetorical positions.
  • The 1933 University Reform is used as a counter-example to fatalism about Turkey's scientific prospects.
  • The gap between Atatürk's stated principles and current Turkish educational policy is treated as a measurable, datable regression.
  • The call is not for reverence toward the founding generation but for an honest accounting of what was built and what has been dismantled.

Key takeaway

The Turkish Republic was founded on an explicit commitment to science as the primary guide for public life; the current educational institutions are in measurable and documented retreat from that commitment, and this retreat can be reversed because it was once reversed in the opposite direction.

Essay 8 — Bilim Tarihinden Dersler (Lessons from the History of Science)

Central question

What does the comparative history of science teach about the conditions under which scientific cultures flourish or collapse, and what does Turkey's current situation look like in that comparative light?

Main argument

Science as a cultural achievement, not a natural development

Şengör's approach to the history of science is informed by his professional practice as a geologist who has spent a career reading primary sources. His consistent finding is that scientific culture is an achievement, not a natural development: it requires specific institutional conditions, specific intellectual habits, and specific relationships between knowledge-producers and the societies that support them. Most human societies across most of recorded history did not produce science in the modern sense, and the ones that produced it most successfully did so in specific historical windows under specific conditions.

The Ionian exception and its lessons

Şengör frequently returns in his essays to the pre-Socratic philosophers of Ionia — Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes — as the first documented case of a culture that attempted to explain natural phenomena through natural causes rather than divine will. This is not nostalgia for ancient Greece; it is a claim about what made the Greek achievement distinctive: the willingness to subject explanations to criticism and revision. Anaximander's willingness to correct his teacher Thales is, for Şengör, the founding gesture of scientific culture.

The Islamic Golden Age and its end

A parallel argument concerns the Islamic Golden Age, during which scholars in Baghdad, Cordoba, and Samarkand preserved, extended, and in many cases improved upon Greek scientific knowledge. Şengör argues that this culture collapsed not because Islam is inherently anti-scientific — he cites individual scholars to the contrary — but because the institutional conditions that supported inquiry were gradually replaced by conditions that rewarded commentary and rejected innovation. The lesson is that scientific culture can be built within any religious or cultural context, and can be destroyed within any context too.

Key ideas

  • Scientific culture is a specific institutional achievement; no civilisation possesses it naturally or permanently.
  • The Ionian philosophers' willingness to criticise their predecessors is the founding gesture of scientific culture and remains its constitutive practice.
  • The Islamic Golden Age demonstrates that scientific achievement is not culturally or religiously determined — and that its end demonstrates the same point.
  • Turkey's contemporary situation is placed in comparative perspective: it is not uniquely bad but it is not uniquely inevitable either.

Key takeaway

History shows that scientific cultures are built by deliberate institutional choices and destroyed by different but equally deliberate choices; Turkey is not the first society to make the destructive choices, and its situation is therefore reversible.

The book's overall argument

  1. Essay 1 (Cehennemdeki Üniversiteliler) — establishes the diagnosis: the crisis of Turkish intellectual life is internal to the university, driven by faculty who have adopted anti-science ideology and allowed credential-seeking to displace knowledge-seeking.
  2. Essay 2 (Bilim ve Demokrasi) — deepens the philosophical analysis: science and democracy share a common infrastructure of shared intellectual norms (ortak), which is being destroyed simultaneously by political anti-intellectualism and by academic postmodernism.
  3. Essay 3 (Bir Toplumun Çöküşünü Üniversite Tercihlerinde İzlemek) — provides the empirical measure: university enrolment patterns in Turkey show a systematic flight from foundational sciences, which is quantifiable evidence of the future dependency the book predicts.
  4. Essay 4 (Osmanlı Neden Bir Deniz Devleti Olamadı?) — extends the argument historically: the Ottoman Empire's failure to become a maritime power resulted from the same structural problem — a culture that could not value empirical inquiry — showing that today's crisis is not unprecedented.
  5. Essay 5 (Türkiye'de Kalmanın Anlamı Üzerine) — addresses the personal and existential question the preceding essays raise: what is the point of staying and writing? The answer is that the history of science shows conditions change, and writing is a form of the change it argues for.
  6. Essay 6 (Feyerabend ve Bilim Karşıtlığı) — names the specific philosophical instrument of the crisis: postmodern anti-method ideology, in particular Feyerabend's conclusion that science has no greater epistemic authority than other knowledge traditions, has provided academic cover for the dismantling of scientific standards.
  7. Essay 7 (Atatürk'ün Yöntemi ve Bilim) — shows the reversal is possible and has happened: the 1933 University Reform demonstrates that deliberate institutional design can build scientific culture where it was absent; the founders knew this and it can be done again.
  8. Essay 8 (Bilim Tarihinden Dersler) — places the whole argument in the longest comparative frame: scientific culture has been built and destroyed many times in human history; Turkey's current trajectory is a recognisable pattern, not a unique fate.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Şengör is arguing that Turkey is uniquely or permanently unable to produce science.

He explicitly argues the opposite: the 1933 University Reform shows that Turkey built a functioning scientific culture within one generation when the institutional will existed. The book's despair is about current choices, not about national character, religion, or ethnicity. Turkey is entirely capable of producing science; it is currently choosing not to.

Misunderstanding: The book is primarily a political polemic against the AKP government.

Political criticism of the AKP's educational policies is present but not the book's centre. The deeper target is postmodern anti-science ideology in universities, which Şengör regards as intellectually independent of Turkish party politics — it arrived in Turkish universities from Western academic fashion, not from Ankara. The government's policies aggravate the problem; they did not create it.

Misunderstanding: Şengör's critique of Feyerabend means he opposes philosophical reflection on science.

He is a careful reader of the philosophy and history of science and has spent decades engaging it seriously. His objection to Feyerabend is specific: not to the historical claim that scientific practice is methodologically diverse, but to the normative conclusion that this diversity implies epistemological equivalence between science and non-science. He supports rigorous philosophy of science as one of the foundations of scientific culture.

Misunderstanding: Şengör is arguing that only technically trained people can think clearly.

His ideal is a Humboldtian intellectual — someone who does original research and reflects on its cultural meaning. He admires scientists who write well and historians who understand science. His target is not the humanities as such but the specific strand of humanistic thought that treats scientific knowledge as merely one narrative among many.

Misunderstanding: The Ottoman maritime essay is a digression from the book's argument.

Şengör is explicit that it is the same argument applied to a historical case. The thesis connecting both the contemporary essays and the Ottoman history is identical: cultures that cannot value and institutionalise the production of empirical knowledge will fail at the tasks that require it.

Central paradox / key insight

The central paradox of the book is that the century of humanity's greatest scientific achievement has also been the century of the most organised academic attack on the authority of science. The 20th century produced quantum mechanics, molecular biology, plate tectonics, and computing — and it also produced the university departments that taught students to regard scientific knowledge as politically constructed and epistemologically interchangeable with folklore.

Şengör's key insight is that these two trends are not coincidentally simultaneous: the very prestige that genuine scientific achievement conferred on universities also made those universities attractive homes for people who wanted the prestige without the rigour. The Humboldtian research university created a credential — the professorship — whose authority derived from the production of knowledge; once established, that credential could be captured by people who rejected the activity that justified it.

Bilgi düşmanlığı, Orta Çağ'daki gibi yine hortlamıştır. (Hostility to knowledge has resurfaced, just as in the Middle Ages.)

The insight is not original to Şengör — variants of it appear in C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures, in Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense, and in other critiques of postmodernism in universities. What Şengör adds is the Turkish specificity: for a country that arrived late to the Humboldtian model and built it through one exceptional political act in 1933, the postmodern dismantling of that model is not an internal Western luxury debate. It is an existential threat to the capacity for independent knowledge production that Turkey's survival as a technologically autonomous state depends upon.

Important concepts

Humboldtian university model (Humboldtcu üniversite modeli)

The conception of the research university developed by Wilhelm von Humboldt for the University of Berlin (1810), in which original research and teaching are inseparable activities carried out by the same person. The model holds that a professor who does not advance knowledge cannot teach others to advance it. Şengör treats this as the institutional invention most responsible for the scientific acceleration of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Bilgi düşmanlığı (hostility to knowledge)

Şengör's term for the active devaluation of empirical, revisable, evidence-based knowledge in favour of intuition, tradition, or ideological commitment. He distinguishes it from mere ignorance: ignorance is the absence of knowledge; bilgi düşmanlığı is the organised opposition to it. The term is meant to invoke the medieval Church's resistance to natural philosophy.

Ortak (shared intellectual common ground)

Drawing on Heraclitus, Şengör uses this term for the shared conceptual framework — of logical inference, evidence standards, empirical reference — that makes scientific communication possible. Education's primary function is to produce this common ground. Without it, scientific claims cannot be evaluated, and democratic deliberation degrades into the clash of incompatible assertions.

Postmodern bilim karşıtlığı (postmodern anti-science)

The strand of academic postmodernism, associated with Feyerabend, Latour, and their followers, that treats scientific knowledge as socially constructed and therefore no more authoritative than other culturally produced knowledge. Şengör distinguishes this from legitimate sociological study of scientific practice; his objection is to the normative conclusion that epistemological equivalence follows from social embeddedness.

Zümrütten Akisler (Reflections from Emerald)

The column in Cumhuriyet's Bilim Teknik supplement under which Şengör published the essays collected in this book (and in its predecessor collections, Zümrütnâme (1999) and Zümrüt Ayna (2003)). The column's title is a metaphor for the refraction of light through a prism — knowledge bending the world into its constituent elements.

Zebaniler (the demons / wardens of hell)

The book's central metaphor for university lecturers and public intellectuals who have internalised anti-science ideology. A zebani in Islamic cosmology is a demon assigned to torture sinners in hell. Şengör's point is that the people who should be guiding students toward knowledge are instead keeping them imprisoned in ignorance.

Piri Reis

The Ottoman admiral and cartographer (c. 1470–1553) who produced the 1513 world map and the Kitab-ı Bahriye, and was subsequently executed by the Ottoman state. Şengör uses him as a historical symbol of a culture that destroys its own capacity for geographic and scientific knowledge.

Kitab-ı Bahriye (Book of Maritime Matters)

Piri Reis's navigational manual covering the Mediterranean and the known Atlantic. For Şengör, it represents the road the Ottomans did not take: systematic empirical knowledge of physical geography applied to military and commercial strategy.

1933 Üniversite Reformu (1933 University Reform)

The reorganisation of Turkish higher education under Atatürk that brought approximately 190 German and Austrian academics (many of them Jewish refugees from National Socialism) to Istanbul University and Ankara University, where they founded modern medicine, chemistry, physics, and geology in Turkey. Şengör treats this as proof of concept: scientific culture can be built deliberately, and Turkey has done it before.

Primary book and edition information

Background and overview of the book

About the author — A. M. Celâl Şengör

The Ottoman maritime essay — background

Key ideas — the Humboldt university model

Key ideas — Feyerabend and science

Key ideas — university preferences and societal decline

Related essay collections by Şengör

Additional secondary resources

These are secondary or commercial listings and should be read alongside, rather than instead of, the original.

Send feedback

Optional. We'll only use this if you want a reply.