guardian
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once said that "success in science depends not only on rational argument but also on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda." John Waller has brought together the historical evidence to support this hypothesis, presenting science as a series of "powerful human dramas in which naked ambition has at least as big a role as technical virtuosity".
In the battle for scientific progress, he argues, "unalloyed objectivity" is often the first casualty. Waller cites six scientists, including Louis Pasteur, the management science guru FW Taylor and the astronomer AS Eddington, who manipulated their data "to fit their preconceived notions of how things really are".
Eddington was already a believer in the general theory of relativity when he set off in 1919 to test Einstein's ideas. It was, he said, "one of the most beautiful examples of the power of general mathematical reasoning". The plan was to photograph the stars near the sun during an eclipse to determine whether light was bent to the degree predicted by Einstein. But eclipse observations are notoriously hard to assess and technical difficulties were compounded by cloudy weather.
The resulting photographs, says Waller, were of "embarrassingly poor quality". The expedition should have been a failure, but "under Eddington's hand, the eclipse results were subjected to extensive cosmetic surgery until they matched Einstein's prediction." As a result the expedition was unjustly hailed as a triumph for both the scientific method and Einstein's theory. "No doubt the prize was great," Waller writes, "but buttressing woefully inadequate data with personal prestige, power, and influence is too high a price to pay for it."
The urgent question that emerges from these fascinating case histories is how widespread such malpractice is in science. Unfortunately Waller admits that it's not possible to say "how typical such behaviour really is". One astronomer may have allowed his enthusiasm for Einstein's theory to affect his judgment, but 10 years later another, Edwin Hubble, had no qualms about overturning part of this same theory, the cosmological constant. It was, said Einstein, the biggest blunder of his life. Although in the short term ambition or authority may sway opinions, it seems that in the long run truth will out.
Waller's book follows on from Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's controversial but important study The Golem: What You Should Know about Science (1993), which covered some of the same ground. Collins and Pinch argued that there is a circularity in the logic of science and that scientists often see what they want to see. Science itself regards these forays into its past with suspicion. But scientists, of all people, should appreciate the importance of destroying myths and Waller shows how it should be done.
Waller also criticises the tradition of casting scientists as heroes in the struggle for knowledge. Science biographies, he complains, often leave "the historical truth trailing in the wake of legend".
Alexander Fleming, credited with discovering penicillin in 1928, is a case in point. Waller neatly dismantles the myth surrounding Fleming's role: "Had the accolades for the discovery and development of penicillin been allocated on merit, Fleming would not have made the short list." But Waller is pushing at an open door here. Nowadays popular studies of science, such as Judith Hooper's recent Of Moths and Men, show a sophisticated understanding of the social, institutional and psychological pressures in science. For better or worse, today's more sceptical reading public is more likely to believe a scientist is a sinner than a saint.
Of course, the danger of reducing science to a series of power struggles and ego trips is that you lose sight of its astonishing intellectual achievements. It is this that Rupert Lee celebrates in The Eureka! Moment. From Hans Berger's discovery of the electroencephalogram (EEG) for monitoring brain waves in 1929, to Dolly the cloned sheep and the ozone hole in the 1990s, Lee summarises the 20th-century discoveries that have transformed our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
Each entry is reduced with haiku-like concision into under two pages - quite a feat in itself. Interestingly, not one discovery in the book came out of the USSR. Although keen on prestigious research institutes, the Soviets "did not sufficiently encourage original thinking by individual researchers". Delightfully simple in conception, Lee's book is an invaluable quick reference guide to the scientific ideas that shaped the last century.
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend once said that "success in science depends not only on rational argument but also on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda." John Waller has brought together the historical evidence to support this hypothesis, presenting science as a series of "powerful human dramas in which naked ambition has at least as big a role as technical virtuosity".
In the battle for scientific progress, he argues, "unalloyed objectivity" is often the first casualty. Waller cites six scientists, including Louis Pasteur, the management science guru FW Taylor and the astronomer AS Eddington, who manipulated their data "to fit their preconceived notions of how things really are".
Eddington was already a believer in the general theory of relativity when he set off in 1919 to test Einstein's ideas. It was, he said, "one of the most beautiful examples of the power of general mathematical reasoning". The plan was to photograph the stars near the sun during an eclipse to determine whether light was bent to the degree predicted by Einstein. But eclipse observations are notoriously hard to assess and technical difficulties were compounded by cloudy weather.
The resulting photographs, says Waller, were of "embarrassingly poor quality". The expedition should have been a failure, but "under Eddington's hand, the eclipse results were subjected to extensive cosmetic surgery until they matched Einstein's prediction." As a result the expedition was unjustly hailed as a triumph for both the scientific method and Einstein's theory. "No doubt the prize was great," Waller writes, "but buttressing woefully inadequate data with personal prestige, power, and influence is too high a price to pay for it."
The urgent question that emerges from these fascinating case histories is how widespread such malpractice is in science. Unfortunately Waller admits that it's not possible to say "how typical such behaviour really is". One astronomer may have allowed his enthusiasm for Einstein's theory to affect his judgment, but 10 years later another, Edwin Hubble, had no qualms about overturning part of this same theory, the cosmological constant. It was, said Einstein, the biggest blunder of his life. Although in the short term ambition or authority may sway opinions, it seems that in the long run truth will out.
Waller's book follows on from Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's controversial but important study The Golem: What You Should Know about Science (1993), which covered some of the same ground. Collins and Pinch argued that there is a circularity in the logic of science and that scientists often see what they want to see. Science itself regards these forays into its past with suspicion. But scientists, of all people, should appreciate the importance of destroying myths and Waller shows how it should be done.
Waller also criticises the tradition of casting scientists as heroes in the struggle for knowledge. Science biographies, he complains, often leave "the historical truth trailing in the wake of legend".
Alexander Fleming, credited with discovering penicillin in 1928, is a case in point. Waller neatly dismantles the myth surrounding Fleming's role: "Had the accolades for the discovery and development of penicillin been allocated on merit, Fleming would not have made the short list." But Waller is pushing at an open door here. Nowadays popular studies of science, such as Judith Hooper's recent Of Moths and Men, show a sophisticated understanding of the social, institutional and psychological pressures in science. For better or worse, today's more sceptical reading public is more likely to believe a scientist is a sinner than a saint.
Of course, the danger of reducing science to a series of power struggles and ego trips is that you lose sight of its astonishing intellectual achievements. It is this that Rupert Lee celebrates in The Eureka! Moment. From Hans Berger's discovery of the electroencephalogram (EEG) for monitoring brain waves in 1929, to Dolly the cloned sheep and the ozone hole in the 1990s, Lee summarises the 20th-century discoveries that have transformed our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
Each entry is reduced with haiku-like concision into under two pages - quite a feat in itself. Interestingly, not one discovery in the book came out of the USSR. Although keen on prestigious research institutes, the Soviets "did not sufficiently encourage original thinking by individual researchers". Delightfully simple in conception, Lee's book is an invaluable quick reference guide to the scientific ideas that shaped the last century.
The reason why no discoveries from the USSR made the list, is because the compiler of the list was concerned with applied (not theoretical) science. The applied sciences, requiring expensive equipment, were not really invested into by the Russians, except military research (hence cybernetics was ignored, for example). In theoretical science, however, they easily make any such list. At first blush, Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic probability setup and Kantorovich's Theorem, from early 20th century, and recent Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture, for example. There are plenty results in theoretical physics as well...
ReplyDeleteR' Eidensohn, this is a question historians of science have struggled with for a while. There is a good book debunking myths about science and religion from both the left and the right. Sometimes kiruv people are rather whiggish about science insofar as it comes to attacking the Catholic Church re Galileo etc ostensibly to demonstrate the superiority of Judaism re science. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418 Also the professor I work for has a paper he wrote (PDF here-use just for personal use) about the danger history of science may pose to idealistic young scientists. Reminds me very much of shiurim about how honest histories of gedolim vs. inspiring biographies pose a threat to young idealistic bachurim.... http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/hsts414/doel/SB_H_S_rated_X.pdf Remember to count omer.
ReplyDelete