.

l
l ^ H | C
^ N l ^
#
BELIEF SYSTEMS, SCINCE,
AND THE INVENTION OF REALI""
YOTJO 1+YH CO111>JO^
On the night of February 24, 1987, Canodilli asll"onmner lali
Shelton was looking through uetelescope at the L Campanas
Observatory in Chile; what he saw bcame Ih scc::\:hc e\eD1 of
the decade u the astronomical ',,'orld. On that t.gh!. SheltoD be
came the frst to see the star Sanduleak --b9 202 come to the
eD0 of its cosmic tthtt in that most spectaculor 'Jf cele!tial
frework . displays, a superno"a. According to CU!P1T nsiro
physical wisdom, such cvellts oecur when the hydl'ogen hat
fuels the thermonuclear furaces of stars a liltle bigger thao our
f -
Z
PARADIGMS LOST
suu rum Ou1 8oV1Dg the 0OD1T80\\Dg O108 O g18711 IO g8D
1b8 uQQ81 DaDd OV81 1D8 8XQdDg O10= O 1D81m8 1ad81OD.
8 8181'8 ma8S Lb8D 0O8Q888 1D OD U8 uDt 1D8 Qt88S1!^
Dud \0 U Qo1D1 VD818 1b8 81B1 11818 DOW tOQ 8081t81-
Dg m081 O \1B Q \D10 1D8 D\0181081 VOd 8aV1Dg b8b1Dd B
8ma 18Qd 8QU D8 0ODS811Dg 8O8 O D8u1TO08 81 8D
D0I8dDgD d8D8Q. 1D 801 8O d8D88 i 1D0 m8t8118 O 8u0D
8 'D8utIOD 8\B1' \D81 OD8 0uD0 D0D O 11 WOud V8gD mO18
\D8D 8 D\OD 1OD8 8Dd 8 QDD68d'8 WOt1b 50V8Ta m1IOD. At
\b1gD m8D 8uQ8WOV D8V8 D 888D ID 0S\BD1 g88X88 1D0
1mQO1LaD08 O 8uQ0IO78 1987a V88 1W0Od: 1 W8 \D8 IS1
te tb81 1IODOm8T8 8d 8X\8D81V8 OD8TV8OOD8 O 8 8t81
O16 11 0 8 8u1008 1 D8QQ8D8d 1D 1D8 11g8 MCg8-
umc1Oud8 g8]8X`O0 170,000 1gb1-88W duUD188D-
U8 D8X dOOY OD \b8 881TODOm08 8088 O lD1Dg8. D8
8uQ8OVa8 DaV8 8D OD88IV8d 1Om 811D O1 08D1u188 gODg
080k 81 8a81 a8 81 a8 \D8 LD\D888 800OuD\8 O VD81 18 DOW 1I8
L18D T8Du8 1D W+1= 1054, O08tV8OOD O 1D811 D8uI1OD S\8t 18S-
du8 d88 D80k OD 8 8W 88188Dd 0OD8t1tu1< OD0 O \8 m8]O1
U8D08 81O188 DC tD8 1960s. D08 1h8 discovery Othese D8uI1OD
81uI O1 88 \D8 a8 mOt8 0O!Ogu3 188d,_uM0D {Ot 'u-
6811Dg 18dO 8O} 88Y788 8D 8dm18D8 r!m8 81ud O th8
V88 O 8c8D08 1D 1D8 8t8 1v8D1\81D --:.y,c1' cbb itO 8
1\m8 m80DID8 8Hd gO D80k t 1DO88 8X0\Ug da' tO t811808 1b8
8WQ8 8a0Dg \O \D18 mOm8D1Ou8 d8^1V81.
b8 81O1y D8g1D8 \D 1965 W1\b \D8 d808OD Dy dO08]D UeB, 8
OuDg VOm8D 1Om TOY1D8T 1Y88Dd, tO 8K 8 dO0\018\8 8!
1amD1dg8 DD8181 D 1b8 1D8D-D8W 8d O 18d\O11ODOty.
8 8 (DOW dO08T 18 1U8] :-1 8D8 8d Lc0m8 88-
0IDa\8d W11D 8S1TODOm 88 8 yOuDg gt Vb8D b81 810D180t 8-
D81 W88 hi 1O d88gD 1D8 ODS8Y781OI 1D LD8 8m8 1I8D OW
0 1m8gb. DO\AuD8\81 8V8D 1DD 88 8aV 1D8t 8 D
0OD01OD O1 8uu Qu18uI1 O 1D8 8811ODOm81'8 DOU\uO
l lo baV8 8 D1gD1 OW'8 00DO1u1OD %1 DDg 8D8 to in
leY0DaDg8 1D8 DO1m8 D0u1S IO1 888Q1Dg 8Dd WO1k\Dg. 1Qt8
P81888OD Cor the 818T81D 1D8 19508 D81 0OD81ut\OD8 D80d u1
8 gOOd DgD1'8 888Q B U8 DOTm8 DOut8 OOk8d r 8\8 OD-
t!808 1O m_ Dudd g 88\1ODOm108 a8QU81\OD9. u1 a8 u0k
W0110 ba7O 1 1D Va8 1D8 1m8VD8DW8tt\D ]8 O LamD1\dg8
Va8 d8V8OQ\Dg OD8 O \b8 1 t8880OQ88 d87Otd 1O 888t0DIDg
tD8 8$88 1D 1D8 1aCO 18\DP1108D V18D8 1gD1 QaTt O 1h8 880t1O-
FAITH, HOPE, M iSPERITY
J
m8gD0O0 8QOum. \D08 \D8 81 1m8 O1 "800mg B1 ID8S8 T8-
qa8D-88 u du1\Dg tD8 d8ygD1 DOu18 L8mUMdg8 W88 ID8 Qa08
O1 D81 8Dd O8b8 W8D1 8tm8d WI\D 8D uDC81g13Cu818 d8_T88
D QD08 10 VO1k O1 u81 1D.. 1D 8 g1Ou by DMOD]
8W\8D.
!D8 O th. m081 8a018d 1u88 O M8d8m1c D811Iu\IODS every
where i U! the gdu8:-8tud8D\S Q81OYU 1D8 8

V8 8DOT LD8
L8mDt\dg8 1D8t1u18 O Th6Tetical 8I1ODOm b8tD 5\auD0D
uQbOd81 O t 8u8'uD8 QtQ8. LOD88gu80U} Bell 8QeDt
D81 h18! \WO 8818 a8 8 g18du8t8 studeut wielditlg 8 7-QOuDd
88dg8D8mm81 helping IO 0OD11u01

\D8 18IO\8rMO] .+ ID81 she

17Oud 8\81u88 IO g81h81 1D8 m8181Ia\ O1 hrdO1O18 dI588118-
IOD. )OOWIDg 0OmQ81IOD u te W%oQe tD :: 188m 8881
8V8D 88SgD8d 8 1D8 tD888 tOQ0 O m888utUg -8

gu81
d\8m8181 O 18d\O g88X88(oo) 1Om !D8 \raj Iner Igoals
'!Wn8d' when setn IOm 811D du8 tO 1D8 8001 W\Dd O m818-
1\8l en';Hed 11Om the ut:. 181 ]0D was !O n|818!8 h telescope
8\Dg8DaDd8d 8Dd 8D8_z8 !D8 ca:; uD! 8bv 8t`1:mua18d
vnougbU8t8 O1 8 t88]801ab8 !hc=.Unce ID8 880o8 !pev.
:
ed
OuI 96 88I O \D180-!r80k g8Q8 88cD du and co\vd !D8 8DI18
8\`y D Ou1 d8y8 8'8 d8t8 8Da88 8clYi h81d

j e88
energy-intenshe th8D bu\dDg the 18880Q8 IIf \0V3 a8
it did mcbamng 1D8 !8880OQ8 180O10 8D 8C81:1I\_ \n8 =he8!
r \UIWJk\Dg 5gL8I8 1Om \u8 0J uI 1to :cevt:on,
mDt8tV 18d81 1c181 811m8t818 8Dd Ol1 u1!b-D8S8d
5Out0 O ::-r-~--. h U880OQc V88 1u1n0 D dU
1967 8Dd. nO1 SurprsngI], bj !0\O01 8h8 W8 n18:tdj 1,000
08\ o 0b811 Q8Q81 D8D\Dd It was 8t ID8 QOD1 D81 the UD.
D1D g8a010 LDd c81\DV Dcg8D.
In 0D8 oI 1D8 40 88 1 O 0811 188d1Dg8 Q10du+!d v71b 880D
508D O 1D8 sl- y, Bell noticed 1D81 lbere V88 8La! tnIIan D0D o1
81 8D8 termed 801< \D31 Y888\80 0n881l108!c1:. D8 8aV
1b81 the S01uW88 D81D81 lmbg 0I m8D-00d8 1D\r*818D08
8D0 tD8D 18088d D8V\Dg 888D 8Im81 Q8t181Dt18 n 8DO1D81
180O1d 1Om lD8 same p81t O tD88ky. u11D61ou1?. 8D8 Dr108d
l81 tI8 m8t81Ou8 sgDa8 888m8d tO b8 8QQ8a1I:g Q81IOdc81]
OD sidereal time O twenty-three DOu18 h1ly-8\X m\nuteS,\8., 1D8
Om8 D88d8d O1 8 g1D O08t\OD OD 81\D 1O 1vtu1D

tO ID8 88

8
Q08tOD 188t\V8 1O lb8 X8d 8I818 [\b8 8d8188 d8 1

Ou1 :n-
u8 8DO1181 1D8D ID8 181188O8! d8 du8 \O tD8 Enth 8 O1D1\8
mOtvD 8bOu\ 1D8 uDj.
\
TP K P1l m b L L >
guD01U10 18 dIS0u888d tb8 8gn88 WI\b 8W8b 8Dd
d1do t 0K 8t tb8m 8g8ID OD 8 8S181 Fc0Otd81
tb8t
WO

d nOW tb8m t0 Q0K Out mOt8 d8!B. 1o1t|81 W88 ~-

0uQ8d 81 U8 mOm8Dt, 8O tb8] b8d LO W81 uD1I mId-OV8mD1
\O m8K8 \b8 D8W 188dDg = AS O18D b8QQS D I8 u8t Wb8D
)Ou W8Dt
_
8 (01 8 cOQj\h8188 DOt DU8 1O D OuD08D)Wb8t8

&O^DOU108! 8DOm888 B 8ImI81, 8Dd 18!! b8d tO W8t 88V818

W88KS

DOF0 8b8 0Ou!d t880guT0 1b8 Odd 8gD8

_
1m8g1D8 b81
8utQ88 Vb8D 8b8 D8 OuDd It 8g8D 8ud d8uOV818d tb8t I1
W8S g$tg 81 !D8 m8t1ODOmI0 T8t8 O 8LT081 ctly I s8e
ODd8.
.
b8 mm0d8t0! QbOD8d 8W8b, WbO QFOmQt 08m
tb8 81@ & m8D-m8d8 D gb1 O 8T 8Xt10m8 18gu811.
oW8V81aJ811b-D880 8OR108 WOu!d K00Ql611tFIaOm8DO1
8Id8, 0a8tIDg 8 V8T d8tK 8h80OW OV81 8W8D8 O8Dd 0OD-
eI

Ju1tb 8St681 V8tI8!8 8181 tb8D KOWD b8d 8 Q8tIOd O

OD8 O 8 Jg, 8 t W88 d u1t tO 0OD08V8 O Wb81 KDd
o 8\a1 WOud 1O1Bt8 u \\8 mOt8 \b8D 8 8800Dd.
\8 181 8U8mQ\ 0 1eWD0i:8 these 0O00\1g 180\S W88 m
0OD]01u18 tb81 tb8 O81V8OOD8 W818 18d81 8Igu8!8 b0uD0IDg of
\b8MOOD O18 8818I10 D8D Odd O1DIt

u! 8u0b 8D 8XQ8D8tOD
tld't W88b8Dd 8m OD_V 85\tODOm8D 8Dd 106 5!8D K00Q6td8-
18 1m8, 8W8D tbOugbt \b81 g81LQ8 8Om8 Otb81 Ob8!u)g

d 8 FO18m uDd81 W8 1b81 Wo1d account IO1 the u0D8u8

8IgD8L\. I$ gu811M \O O1b81 180IO8811O0Om8t8 \uM8d DQ 00
8\l

0b QF0g18m
,
D61 O8XQ8D8tIOD W tb8 LM_Otb-
el, gO8tu8ODg 181 tb8 8Igu88 W810 D!8g0D1 0OmmuD108-
tO0S

fm "tt8 D me" 2 8 \68t O tb8 0ODg801u18,

8Wb c80u8160 tb81OQQle1 5bI1 O \b8 ]u 888uDDg 1b81
te LM WOud OD 8 Q8D8t, 8Dd 1b81 Uc Q8D=18 O1It8
m0V8m8D1 81OuDd :u 8!81 WOud0188t8 8 0u8l81IDg O tb8]u
1b8 Q

8D81 mOVed tOW81d J81Ih 8Dd 8 8Q80Dg-0ut O 1b8 sg.

w 88 1t mOV8d 8\\8. 3 cXQBD8OOD al 08m8 8 01OQg81
7b8u tb8 OD 1OQQ81 8b1 0O!N Y Lb8! du8 1O !b8 8ttb'8
mOtOD a1OuDd Ou1 Bun. 1 U QODt, \b8Ot gB8 W8j 8D-
O1b8t OU81V8tIOD VbI0b d8h!I78 58t1!8d Ib8 m8tt8P-
Ju81 DO18 !88YDg O1 b81 !b1I8O88 b0d8 D 1808mD1
1b, 8! W88 WO1KDg 8t8 OD8 0Igb1 D82ug 8 WOtd POm 8
dI18D1 Q811 O 1b8 8K. b0 DO\108d 8Om8 mu18 801u U81

8d 18m81K8b! 8IDI!81 tO 181 O 1b8 1M 8Ig8!. Z8 8o18D-

d)QIt] WOu! b8V8 It, \b8
-
t8!880O]8 W88 dD0 J 808D tb8t Q81t O
tb 8L 8g8:Itb8t V8Q Igb1,8Dd 8b8 u0KgO1 8 8t1ODg 188d-
P I M , MLTt , P ^ P b l L K I 1 Y

ILg 8bOWIug 8D 8Xt18m8! 18gu81 t18D OI Qu!8 cOm1Dg D 81

1b8 18t8 O 80u1 1 V 880ODd8 01 Qu88. 1D08 80O101 1u8 O
g18du8!8 81ud8D1 !8 S tb81 Ou dOD'1 18!8QDOD8 jout Q1O888O1
8t 3,,[81 8881 Ou dOD Ou V8!u8 I8bIug }OUI d8gI88
QPOgt8m], 8 gu8t d1OQt 1b8 100O1dDg OD 8WD8 des:
with O188SDg b tO K08Q U180O1d81 OIDg cV81 tb8xu8-
OOD Q01Ot 8Dd 8t Ot b81 bOd8. 8W5D bUn88 \b8D D8d8
M 180O1dDg ID md.anuary 0ODb'mIDg tb8 880ODd 8OU1C8
\b818Q oUI0+1Dg tb8 1 b_Otb68 1om Iu1\b81 0Ou8d8I8-
OOD OD U gT0uDd8 tb81 11 W 8Xt18m0 uDK8 1b81 tD818
0Oud b 1WO g1OuQ8 O LM t1Dg tO 8gDB! 1\S OO 0I8Dt
18Qu8D0 8\ tb8 8am8 Qm8. O Wb8D 18 181uY60 tOm D81
lU DD 8b8 bad tWO ImgO1!8D\ Q1OD!8m: \u d88! =Q:
(1) 1b8t8W88 mO10 1b8D OD8 Qu!88F. 8Dd (2) I1 W8 1Im8 LO 81Bt1
W*ODg uQ 8 \b888 d080TID1Dg D81 OtgID8 WO1K OD Ib8 8Dgu81
08m8t8t O Qu8S818 [8!\bOugb t u!11m8t8! 0OD!8ID0U 3D 8QQ8D-
d d880tIb1ug 1b8 Qu!881 O88178\OH, 1OO}.
0100d u\O 8008Q1Dg tb8t \bf 8Out088 O these pulses VP18
8Om8 8O1t O 818!81 Qb8DOm808, 8W8b Bell, 8Ud \bt08 Otb815
tOmthe L8mDtIdg8 108m 0O8utbOt8d \b8 18\ Q8jt OD lb8 8UD-
801- Wb0b W88 QuD!18b8d D 8Fu8T 190, 8ud Vmc aCu-
818d DtW88D Id8D11Dg tb8 8OuT088 8S D8u\1On i1Wt8 8Dd 8S
whte dW8a, the knd of objcat out ow auDwll .:(utraet 1OM B
8W DIIOD j8818 1Om DOW. 1X mOD1b8 8!61 Ur 88\1Opb_8I08
0OmmuD\ 8008Q!80 JbOm88 O!d'8 1D!01pt8181 OD \b81 tD8j
W818 D8uOOD 818W B 8Dg tb8 OD Q8u81b8 cXjuD8\OD T
1IDg 1b8 O8t8\OD8. Q1OQO88! OOW8d uQ 1b8O18V0u!
8ugg881IOD !b81 11I!Z ZWcK 8ud 8!18t 88dL m8d8 ID 1934.
Jb8 g8D8t8! QI01u10 O bOW 8 D8u1tOD 8\1 W0u 10 p1OduC8 1D8
O581v8tOu8 888D 8!! 8Dd 8WI8b I S bO1rD i: Igu18 11
b8 tb8808DO0 8X018m8D1 8Dd8d 81v !08St0!_7 W8$ 81!! 81
1Om Ov81.
1D 1J9 th8 ^Ob! LOmmI!!88 8W8td8d it Q1:Z8 gt:j8ICS O1
the b1 Om8 1O 8811ODOm8W, c!Dg M8t11u R:le lnd DtDOD]
18W:8tt O1 1b8I1 'd88I8V8 WO1k :o the d:m0ve; (f Qu!S818.`
^Ot 8 WO1d WR 88d 8DOu 1b8 80tu8 d:80OV81t of Qu88t5
J0Dju 18! bO11! 8\61 1b8 8v81d 0n1cmOD7 1n 1808mU:,
8DV\b81 m8mmt O \b8 L1b1Idge 88\1ODum08I g1OuQ, I8U
O]!8, 88d I8 8Q880b D MODt188! tb81 Bell's fLding'o h8d D8D
k8Q1 seczet toz 8w mooU Wb18 D81 8DQ8Pv11Ot8 'W818 OD51!]
QD0bIDg \b8 dI80OV8t tOm 1b8 gIT, 01" bat as VD8t It
PARADIGMS LOST
Rotation axi
Per of u!t
Beam m
rc,atioo
|
t

-
#
l1Uk 1.! puuari. ati
amountd to." Hewish adt d that he was "angry" over
H'yle's allegation, cit "antue," and notng that "Jolyn
= a jolly goo grl but she was just doing her job . . . . | she
badn't noticed it it would have ben negligent." He went on to
state that she lId made the discover using his telescope, under
| InstruCtiOns, makng M 8j sMey that he had initiated.
Cter 'Stronomers were less oHu. The historical fact I
mained that Bell was the frst person who had reCognized the
puL signals, end in fact she and Hewish, presumed to have
shared equally U the work by the exacting standards of the
J'r Instt-.lU'S awards committe, were jomUy awarded
the istitute's prtigious Michelson Medal in 1973 for U0 m-
covery.
Personally, l'e always felt that Hollywood missed a good bt
FAITH. HOPE, AND ASPERITY
by not puttng U story on flm, shoing Ups1ty sligDtly
bK Jane Fon<a or Meryl SireiP look-alikl pu!icly de
nouncing a SIlAve, but faintly sinister, James jon-isb profes
"or on the steps of the tockom City Hall for easting her and
her contribution asi<e in Qursuit <f personal fare and glory.
Unfortunatly for Hollywood, real lile B usual ha< quit W dif
ferent ending in mind. In response to the l"aruus claims and
counter, Jocelyn Bell bad the last word when she stated
that. Hoyle "bas overstated the case so 8 to be incorreet." But
stll, given the proclivity of the flm industry ror warpizg and
distorting reality in pursuit o( art and entertainment, not to
menton hard cash, ma)he theres hope yet for realization of my
vision. In an:, ease, the enlu" pulsar episode SEV8 8 sterling
example of the bright side of the folkways, mores, and byways
of contemporary scientifc life. For a look at the dark side, let's
return to our time 'nachine and go back few tune years to
e2amine another temptst i the astrophyDial !cng0!.
1 te writins of Plalo and Herodotus we fnd the asserti(D
that the Sun now rises where it once set. How could they make
suc a bi'e cLu And why do so man7 c:JItu:es have legends
of global foods, manna from beaven, darkness e Earth, aud
other such strange phenomena' In 1950 te icn,ilD Pblh
ing Lmpany put out the vome W6rM JT fI/` ~ -mt by a Rus
S:-1 psychoanalyst, IJanuel VelikoVky, who purported
to explain these and many ot.:r phenonleu: as we reult of a
se;;es oi celestial cataclysms takng place during bStrml
tmes. This book so enraged the scientifc co1uty U1 ac-
millan, under p:essul'e of a boycott oi its text'Jook divisio!,
banded the best-seUL'lg project o'er to DoublcdlY and fred the
editor responsible for dealing with the mnuus:!ipt. It's instruc
the to eJruine Velikovfky's claims and DeUds m ao exQlr
oi the sort of iiing that sends te scieutifc e:lfblbeut into
apoplectic fls.
The gist of Veliko\'sky's argument is that a In.rge comet
expelled fNI Jupiter sometmf around the year \00 8.C. b
1oet passed very cl0e t liS, with its tail touching the Earth
and causing a rain of petoleum, as wcH as darl[c.ing the sky
for several days th it dust and <ehris. In addition, the
Earth's rotation rate was slowed down by the COlllP-t, rJsulting i
earthquak8l, hurricanes, tidal waves, anu 8 "ariety of other 0ra
FA+A
_
l L m b L !b 1
..,...shnn. Eectrical di.s btwen
and the COlt eause a re'eral of the 1 U's m@-
. rld, the polar regions rLb, and the Earth's of ro-
1aton Ma8 ait", reultng in a change in the (rder <f the
BO. Furthermore, the WaS pusbed into a l orbit
Je eniog W year t d.

Velikovky eorrelate tis mpas of the comet wit the El

ou of the Israelite from gpt, c tt the plague of
blod vemand hall note in U Bib were the Null of the
Ert'. conuet wit te comet's Ia. He also explains the part-
mgof Ue waters of the b bing due t the stpping of
the E's I1aton and that the from beaveD sustain
ing te 18mbM in the de;::t wa compoed of ebbydrt
frQm Uecomet. WMllum then asserts a 8eOnd pmage
of the comet .ty-two ye later, Q time interfering with the
t'e rotation jut at the time when Joshua commauded the
Sun sUnd still. And what does Velikovsky say al)\11 the iden
tit of U8 ^<1rz1al moleter' Be claims that the c0mt now
whl we call tue planet Venusl But the story dD't end there.
I:: Velikovsky's scenario there was anoter close cometary cn
eou:ter around the year WB.C. Q time with the panet M.
J near collliion K M out of it orbit, bringing it
cloe T %0 J4 u .t let U o0lOns. UC near m
Lbit the Ea'" orbit :'en !urter away Jom the SUD
brinb'ng abut the current-year of 3 days. At this pointl aa
Q phDeta 8e:tled into teir C ent pcitonsl thus folding up
U n tnt on Velilo . .ky elestial circus.
One might well inquire a to what q of nrgument. and

tod VemoVS} empl.yed eau the catastrophic 0

p-n. Fund

mentally, Wk n CHum m upon an

elent manuscnpts, legnm a traditons. In a Jaler VollU8,
Jrtk tu pcm( be mweVdenOsuch as the c:tnce of coal
b in Antrctca, rock fonnatoDS with revered magnetic p
lrt, fosil contg b from bth d8Ft aDd for
e!, as well as other gological and paleontological fMts. The
cmet orign If Venus gaTe t to Velikovsky's SpeCUlA
Ucm tt Venus was bot and tat the material for the comet
had originally ben 8.pelled from Jupiter, leaving bhind what
we now kow as tlJe giAnt Rd Spot.
It probably goes witout seying that 1ame aatrooomera
geologist, 8tropbysiciats, and paleontologists speak with on
l A I J I!F , A A t K + `
9
loud voice in their condemnation of bth VelikovKky'f methods
and his conclusions. While his work represeuu a imposing
piece of susta:ned scholarship, there Are just tOo m inoDu-
lencies in far t much of his histrical, arcboatlogieal, atrO
nomical, and physical data to take the argument. seril]. For
insta, while it did tu out that VenuM was scorcJungly hot
just a Veliko\sky had predicted, this is Ilmot omm y due
an atospheric "grt.nhouse efct" and not O .. ny kind of come
tary origin. Furthermore, tLe a1mo
_
Dcu1 Veus L aw"st to
tally de'oid of the hydrocarbons tbal Velik,vsky 1ed VODld
D round as its main constituents. Moreover, the surface of
Venus appel" toD oer 1 bdlion years old, mtd of just a
few thousand yenrs as predicted by Velikovsky. For these rea
SonS and many morC
I
Veliko\sky's vision of the sclar Kytm D
D0V 'Jeen relegated U that eorner of the seientifc attic bere sit
ancient astronauts, the Piltdown man, phre\)logists, astrolo
ge:, and all the other pll\ymatP8 of the pseudutcientist.
Despite the truly de'fastaling holes iu nu tboory, Velo\s
dipd in November l9T9 coUced that he had ot thl \1ctr M
m war against the Brahmins of science. And, in Cact, his ideas
live on to this day i some circles. In our quest here UDCOTer
the essence of wbat constitutes "scicntifc" kowlefge. it's worth
taking a moment to pxamine the pulr nnd H0 TW Lm>A
theori0 as antipodes of th( 'vectrum (.f what 1 C!Cy
teIed scientc research.
at frst glance, there appenr to b a nu
'
nbr of smmIt
between the work of BeU and Bewish 0Q pubars nnd that of
Velikocl-y: une:plaiued astronomical phcnomel!a, conjectures
:nd refutations of v .. rious theoretical eplamuoos, M physically
unobs<rt'ablc e
@
anation interpreted to lt the obsenations
t\en a public contro\'crsy (Vfr some s\Ciologicai HSpt of the
way the world of science goes about distributint its accOa0cS~
With these poMU of conbct, why iR it that the f;C;ntitc commu
nity cbse to reward Hewish with i. hlghest honol', the
.
N

bel
Pri2e while u t the SMe time yilifying Velikovsky Ind d1lSS
ing iM Vhat could charitably be termed a mguided crank'
Just what was it czm|lg aDoWt the pulsar worK Ut.mlde it the
height of repetabilit
_
and wns so obviously lucking the ef
forts of Velikovsky'
The long and proper auswer to the question w oceupy uS for
mu0b O 108 18m81Dd81 o U 00agI81, tb8 8bot18D8W81 8
0 cOUUOD 0OD8D8u8 1D !.08 8C8DMc 00mmuD1, mMD
d81d8 b8V8 D D mtO1 Wb8 0Ou8O1ut88 8008g1a08 8Vd8Dc8
m81bOd8 W t08 gu881 WO1K 8db8t1Dg 1O t08m V018
KOV8K]'8 d1d DOt. D8 ODOa gO1D1 O1 u8 u t08 Oum8
d8g1% M W000 t0O86 C00 OD 80c8g10d 81aD08108 ga e
t81081 U VU8 KOW80g8 O 108 uD118t88 aue[
8DO1b8t W8 dO t08 m810Od8 8Dd 818Dd81d8 O seo ^rolt
0t8Do O| KOW8dg6 8I 8 8OmMOW mOt8 C8I Ot uf b:gher
D1t10 Q8dg188 10aD 8 WPOd88Dd8taDd8td8 O O1b81
8W 1 Itu10 IK8 8KOV5K]T J8 ft 810g IOW81d 8 W8ou-
tOD O 108 O78t8t0b1Dg goDOD 8 tO 8d0t8 8 d118Dt
gu8811OD: Ju81 W081 dO88 0Ou8O1u10 tb8 gt801108 O '80I8D08 88
lb81 11 C0mOD] u880 1D lOd88 WO1dT
OJ1 Y1 $AY S!JJI!11
180K D 1b8 d88 !v08D 1 81l 8t18Dd8d 0O0kt8 g81t188,tu8 mO8t
8WkWatd situ&tia[ 8W888tO88 81 1bO88 Odd mOm8Dt8 Vb8D tb8
Uu8 81Ogg8d aDd 8018 0ODV8DQOD d101818d 1ba1 I m8K8 8Om8
88D8 mM t 'm.' 8D8t8 81 1b888 11m88, 18 cMpi O
j808 m8 D8Xt tO 8Om8 81gbt18D8110ugW81d mO01 ug8
1g8 8u11Dg tOm & OV81dO88 O 8dOl8808D1 8D10u8188m O1
dT J%g 1Om 108 0tu W818t8 O 8, DO1 1O m8D1OD
C"I m1 8 DC1. 1D810 8u00 8D0OuD1818 Ug8D W1b tb8 gu-
\OD ``08t dO Ou dOT RmIb8I8mgtaOOD tO 10gy,'2b
y88,t08 816t guOOD O1g1V8 8Om8O1b818gu8y 8OgbOmO110
188gOD88D t08 earlj gO1DgI u88d t OB 0OD1 !081 I'm
m8Ib8m8Om. J8 780DOD8 1O tb180t O -8d788d 08DdO1
8 1DtO OD8 O 1WO 0818g0C88: 8 g81U8D1 gOu1 OOV8d bj t08
0u11ou8.c0utg1m8Dt t081 "1 W88 8W8y8 lerble 1D m8tu, O1
W081 W& 878D WO188, 8 D11gb1 8m18 8D0 1b8 t8m81K "Ob, Ou'd
|I8 m uD08. 18`8 8D Iccuntant: 18Iug 8 8OV 881Dr1 1
D88d8d 8Om8 Qm8 1O Duu 1u81 8u0b 18K 0OD8881OuS O g10-
18881oD8 Q8178181OD W818 DO1 1b8 1O8dtO 8u00885 CD 1b8 ctil-
8DdO1Dcb1g 0:I0U11. O I 00g8D 8g81Im8Dt1ug VI1b Otb81,!888
88Ol810 t8gII88: '1'm 8D 880OI08 8Dg1D881 8 6b8mt81, 8D
1(g1ODOm81 _'b81'8 tbott), 8 808D1I8t. b8 188UU 0Oud
u81dy b878 boD WO168 U Jd 08Im8d 1O b8V8 U8D 8 g80q8-
11181, 8D uDd8118K81, O1 b88V8D O101d $Om8 080K-88gg1Dg
gO110O 1]g8. u8H I uI1 UgOD lb8 Wg 8Ou11OD O u8t
JJ . M'F t , P1 P+J` J1
88jJDg Ul I W88 8D uD8mgO]8d t8DD8 0O80b 81 W0t0b

gO
DY O018 JD1018011OD 1Dd8X 8bO1 ug K8 8 Dulr|D8D

e
11 tb8 88d cOD0u8OD U U 188c08d 1Om U:is V[ 1t!j
` cant 88mg8 8 1b81 1b8t8 8 W1d8 1a18\y O g1O88 12

d` 81OuDd 00DOg11OD8 aDd DOD1171 m.tuDd815taD mg W

8V8D amODg 1b8 8du08t8d gu010, 1O tb8 D8tu18 of oSIen
18t8 8Dd 1D8 w8y8 1D VbI00 tb8y 8gJDd 10811 d88 (aDd F\gb18!).
tO dUtb8 88D08 Out O t08 8u1Lm0D1IttD8d 8D0OuD-
1818
y
8D1u8 08m8 to 1b8 8u1g18tDg 188!z8tOD 1b81 t08
1818Cm 888m! 1O Wmedtt:181c08D

h_r 1

g8D818 00D

81
S811OD 1D 81 8881 tb188 Qu1t8 d18tD01 8Dd 1DmuI780U\ V8y8.
8 881 O Ju 8Dd 8 881 of /brm U81 8X

8U 1b8
80t8
0\8Dc8 ^ 8 g8110u91 Ipprth, tu8 80I8Dt10 u:c!l:od
VD818V81'8 being dOD8 D] trIt|0|um c811yIu_ on
"scientific' actidty
As 8 g8D813 1u8, !b8 oonsc.o\ic guD10 u8u8!\

y otS O1 b8
Ud 1D18zQ:8U1Ot' O0088OD8 tb8 h18\ 0D\ V1t

0\Ij D8\81
108 880ODd-]u8\ Ue oggO8118 c1d81Ig 1Om !b! g8D by :he
:
1 0OmmuD11 118. 1t'8 DO WODd81 C. P. I1OV cODd 8- 8m r
-
V8Og 8 8Dg1DV 8888 OD LI '1vU cultu.
.
L8 `1Id8D18 m18uDd8*8t8DdDg 1 1b8 guL1: gatt O
Wb81 0OD511tu185 8 '?C18DIr` A01711y g1V88 1

8 !O 8D 8118 O
8ubda1 mI8Q1Ogt1t1D8 80Ou1b8gO8+O%CO<nod1u8 =a?
8018D1J818 gO 8bu11u81 Du8ID888 rf 1j#g 1O 80bI8V tb8D. 1<1
m8 181 }U51 8 8W O! t08 mO18 mgO1D1 pOu81 01Im8:
Tc pn=Qg Iojrceme tr l`uottmt ,'ottoneju. DO11u-
D8UV, 8 m818 08t8oguD of da!a u Q0\ uOMgh, e o
1ou11c 8Om8 O8*8 Otg8D2)g 1nc:jlcs uud 8 te8to

001V88D tb888g1Iu01g88 8ud 118 i818

:
ct.ai:-.r-80I8D1|6
tb8 mO18181808 8 a01 18, lD8 mO18 !1\`Ja 8Dd i1mDIQ0118D1It
D80Om88.O1 tD8t8D08, 1b8 8tOmt0 W81gb1 0 08\bOD ca 0O
d8DU] W g1V8D 88 I2.0l' rtOm18 un:tS. 8t b!' 80

t 1 baI
08 U8t 8 0u11O81ty unt:I it'! 0Ot18818d VI1b SUI81 u

t5
8OOut tb8 O1b8t 0btm10B! 80m8Dt8, usin; \DP u8 aud !h8OI\8
O cbemisD:y 8Dd gbj8108.
Sws e.:i-.:-.t.t,-.ee.-l di:e/o Ihe {lllllu --
experene. 181 uUm8D BDd8118KIDg mu81 somehow g1CK 8Dd
0h0D88 M I Vu81 88g8018 O\ 188l1 1O .-.:-7181

IO08
O1b81 88g80tS O 1u8 VO1Id 1D !b18 18g81d 8c1D0e DO d11 1-
.
" FK 71 L m b I Lb
tnt from region

art, literature, mystcism, or ny of ita
other p.omptton the realit-generaton bwriness.
&cnIq ku u It See i not m the bllsiness of
providing ultimate elton. 1m scienticc law or the
uQ subjet to mcat there are no universal, abolute
llochangeabJe "UU" in scienc.

mwlywtkeelmptmIaM .01 p~b

k. I T t Umof a smgIe sttement abut scieoce that mud
urther 1 U0 aW. lor most scientist, science i
game p
.
layed Cor underst, nol for obtg prltcaJ
onaton abut how build & btter rado, mix more uutri.
U0m dog foo or Uon out the we of middle-aged do\:-.
er. In fact, U "scienO " technology" misperceptioD u -
peIasive that it merits a few additional \ord3 aU its own.
Somo time back. 1 bad the enervating experience of working
Cor q mao, 'ho su. rcd from the delusiol that doing science
meant dlOg answers to praetieaJ problems p05ed by induftrinl
l!b, govent pbcJr:, and other dreamers, schemers,
and sB mer oC a. O!e
.
Cnversation that I ruefuUy
IU vImy temeranous claIm that Uyou focus attention
-s.+-,-|.a--ay then you're nct doi\g resfarcL,
t leASt not 5C1eute research. Rearch inloh'u ideB,no nn-
In my 'iew, what counted wa: deTcloping a deep under-
of the questiou it; whatever "aIWe1" there might
would then fcllow as corollarie of t. inight it the real
:tu:e
?
f the ques
.
tion. A sotion itelf i not the ultimat goal;
bat s Mpo&nt U understanding why an answer i pibIea1
i.and wby 1t ta' the fln that it doe. The point I was mak
w that teebnologiea1 advancement aDd the acquisition tJf
Clenbfe knowlwge han only the feeolet pointl of contact with
each ?ther. Tehnology i pr engineering, and new tecb
cHg co+:c

from fghting =U physical reality wan

!:om

elent.e tbeones. Besides. it's not clear tbat D6 technolo

w gv a ttr. untnf"ding of nature anyway, e.g. , mO
ern Inedlcme 7--Y Chinese acupuncture.
The moal of the foregoing little tale u that even many people
who
.
rra

ehce under the rubrc of what In the 'eraeular u cnlled

a SCIentIst bold U W 'iew of science Ind scientiJc work that at
best falls into the third Ctegory noted earlier which we might.
~rpacUy decrib as "the Gennta Eectric Sdrome." That is
V GE is doing it, it must b science, Well if G" i doing it, it
P A M, ML F, A^ A b F K I ^
1
probably u't science, ll least not the kind of science th1 mosl
member of the global scientc commutaity w{uld Ignize, It
may b high-grade tology or world-elasa tngineeriog or even
pathbr developmental re, but denitly OI ienV.
I hastn m point out here lbat th obsenatioD is m DO way
intended m mm the truly outstnding and genuine scien
tc work that w earried out at plac like OE.IBM, Bell Lab,
Exxon, and SOD But it's nol the real science going on in these
corporate reearch lab th-t membr ofthe public have in m
when they t 0(, y, 1IV

t comes md u coDQut
er, typewriter, and all the otber ofe pnrapheralia that car
ries the IBM logo and that people use in their dny-to-day a.
The deve10pmellt of these gadget i the main business of such
an institution, and that devl"lopment < denitely not !cienc6; !' .
tc<hnology. Now let's get back on eOUMe and examille j:.st what
it is !ba! des coWt!U!0 science as il's een by UlC scientists
themselVes.
Paradoxically. scientists usually think of sce::c one area
0 liie U which ideologies play no role. Nc,"crlhcllbt, thre i a
tlollectior of bliefs and idea. lbut the pnctjce of !den<e that
the scientc coD"unity clings to with 5ucb ulll,'el1al tenacity
that it's diult to dlrib it W nythin ute1 1D.1 aD iOeO
ogythe ideology of scienee. The seientifc id(OIC'I;Y is a mixture
of 10giea1. historical and ociologieai ldts\s ab)::t Low scien1
. bould operate in a PanglOMian world, and rests upon the fol
lowng pillars:
Te Igol 8OvW a] pIllar r"pl'esent what
many of > lear in our eul: schooling abnut lbe proeed'lre
followe 1 le!Ce. Flere we fnd the sequenet.
Obervohons/FacUi
1
Hypothes

7perient

Laws
1
Theory
'o mUny,this diagram represents Lhe %rlce of wlJnt we think
of M toscirtifc meIhoJ Obsenst\ons gi\'e risf IO conjectures
and hypotheses, which in Lurn checked out. by performing
\ 4
P A R A D I G M S L O S T
experiment. 1 the experiment dOD't confirm the hypothesis .
then new hypotht Mfonned, just in the pulsar work de
scribd earlier. Thoe hypothe that 8ume B eneapsul:ed
\ rupiricl relationship, or Jaws, which m t are embd
ded in InTger explanatory thoories. It U sequence of step
that's ben the foeus of most of thl philoophical ana1yses of the
prOCf science, B we shall dmUdetail late-. However, to
the f'ratticmg scientst thelis mucb more to the scientc enter
priEs than mere Jlbiloopby.
Vrbilitl 0/ cwim. SeieDp a pul,;ie underg with
many BIter that cl must p& through bfore it's ac
cepf.d B p& of Uo cuutconventonal widom. Two of the
most irportnt & the refereeing prfS for scientifc arti
cles and the repeatabilit of experimentl resulb. Betote a
reputable scientc jou V publisb a reearch announce
ment, it
:
! sent out for renew to other worker uthe feld, not
only as 1mmaDotD81 te results are correct, but also sub
stlntiate their signifnce within the framework of current
kowledge i the area. 1 a similar manner. published work is
supposed to report a Q details of the inrestigator's experi
mentl setup so that any intellited party ean, i princIple,
repeat the eriment and tyto rplieate the reported results_
''hus, in the utopian WOWD^I^ IDB scientc ideology reIgns,
refereeing and repeatabilit keep the seientc proc (and
tile scientist) honest.
JWT WmV1 Tp moder scientst i i l'uch the S situa
ton as the an of the Rns ce, at least when it Comes
to neng a patron to fance pursuit of thP muse. The only
dtfrence that nowadays e"eryone Dthe same patron-the
federal gOTemment. a ult, most funds an: alloated
fedeml agencie, makng libl use of the SCHlled peer re
new p:OC\S. 1 mvolre committee of erts from the
Tarious felds getting together and NCOmmending to the fund
magencies thoe projeets and those scholars whose work thev
feel merits support. According to te ideology, Upss ('
sur that money is ehaled to those ideas, institutons and
individuils sbowing the clearet evidence of being able ado
somethi
n
g productiye with it.
Given the highly egalitarian, logical, meritoeratic natUIe of
the scientc ideolog. it comes as no surprise that many scien
Ob acwpt it B at least a Q close approximation to the WAy
T 5
A I T H . H O P E . A N D A S P E R I T Y
science really . IlIdefer detailed consideration o(
;i

n later section. At the mOlnent let me ]ust remark U'

8 n
e
u

skeptic would almost certa:y raise an eyeblow UI

!"

o
v
er e
rather obvious (act that the ooD"enti0l1 ideolog
y
!o
um_e_
tirely upon theys of science, leaving aside all co
V
lder_
0
of the moti"e and needs of the scientists tbeDlvps. 'r
h
o .
e

to which tis omis ion ct a cloud over Uc I

pairte< awve will oceul

li OU atnton throu(boll
t
the
tr i
For IlOW, Id's stick to Ule scheme abve and turn
on the cognitve structure of science, in an aItept
to
of
to the quetons of just what kind of kowledge th0
p
roe
e
science able to ofr us abut the nature of U0
wt
I
8_

and whether that kind of kowledge in somc \g

q s
up
rtor
aj othet ki nd.
T I1 E ? ATBA1 PHLUSUIHL' SU
I D 1b u
__ is eon-
. e Issue ore e ouse for the next COU!UC of ^**\'
sideration o( the dUB] !luestiol:
U scientc thtories in any fnse Ull u AD1)J

wa
y the
world M
U m 1
g
and/or
science ve any ng e I ftl or
evaluatng theories'
Since all theorie mu1 nely b exprs so0
I
-
I8Dgu8g0 (natural, symblic, mntbemntiea1), the f
t
qu
es
t
1
01
takes 1 into the province of the philosophy ofmgue

^`
th
for representing reality. The se.ond questiou tuls

.
(
.
s
scIence per se, orcmg us to confront the natural gu ~z)
li
so special abut 8c:0Dcc!'1nother words, why slfu
J
d

b
e
v
e
that scientifc,knowledge is any more correct or r1b16
tha
a ao
y
other sor' SO OUI short-term objecti,-es Mto e:ric.r
e
the q
ue
tion marks in the foUowing diagram:
Scientifc theory J Objecbve rraIit
J
Scientc methods
To addres thee two foundatJoual question mlrb,
It
iIl b.
n_

C 0 for \ts to dip briefy into the work of !ev{'tnl

(.,,
OIlU
e
-
P K P U I L m ' L L b
etnlury philoopbers of and science. Bul bfore delv
ing into the ideas of these thinkers, let's ft g0Da couple of
.. i11euuia and our Attenton on me of the pivotal ideas of
the 8n.ient Greeks that ultimately Jed to th "Oned slate we
b ounelves in today.
In m lat = and tetament, Aristotle ofr te following
logieal seuence of step P 3 algorithm-for dispositCln of
U. Untl choen Sl'n-in-law, Nienor, C of ,the
estate was to nan";d by U exeutc:s. U Nieaoor died
prior to te time when Aristo:Jc!s daugbter, P, would b
old eoougb to marr him, th6D Tbeopbratu W to step in and
fill Nieanor's -'csignat role. Bul U |m811:0d s0me0n0
e0 who, in the opinion of the executor, didn't disgrace Aris
totle's name, ten she was given permission to use the family
ancestral bome .l SUgira, which was then to b furnished to her
satisfaction by the exeeutors. Even after dPath, Aristotle h:aves
OO stone unlu1ed and no po>ibility UaOunted fJjust the
knd of detued, step-by-step precripton that we might bave
:pected from the mAn who invented the idea of formnl I(lgical
tduclion.
For Aritotle, tie procedu ior Wcovering tLe truth of
thingu was t postulate pnmises, then use tbe now-familiar
rules of logical deduetiuh U derive the conseuences impliClt
lhe premises. The ciel ex& ple of U p:oeedure, whicb
we're fa with /romPhiloophy 101, u:
I: Amen & mo1l
1m1: Socrate a m.
!
Conclusion: Socrates umorlaL
Note that nothing m SAid bere abut the aetual truth OI Cnlsity
of t premises. Mayb s0m0 men M not mortl or mayb So
rate" m really a =omaD ca hermaphrodite or whateer. Physi
cal reality and truth pA no role m the deductve method; the
are q,umed V b tue, with the conclusion 'foUowing
from assumpton.
.
"tior to Aristot1e the traditonal meaDs for strllcturing expo
ren

was the m1th, term deriving from te Greek tylAoI,

l.eamng "word," in the Bense \mt :t u the defti ..e statement
OD to 8ubjlet. A myth presents itelf as an authoritative ac
count of the facts that u nt t b questoned, bowever strange
^ I 1 I , M L F L , A L P > F K ! Y T
it may seem. According to the Camous mythDlogt JOMoh Camp
bell, myths serve several fUllctlons:
Mtfaphyill: .yths awaken and maiu\in an "pxplrieoce of
a'e, bumilit and t1Spet" in git1on o( the ultimate mys
terie of lile the universe.
C'moll: Myths provide an image of uni\'rrse and ex
lJ:anatons for bow it works.
Sal: Mytis validate and help mainn nn esl<bli:hed social
order.
Psyholog:Z: Myths support the "centering and harmoniza-
tion of the individuaL"
:Myths need cz neiU1 true nor (al"( Just useful feti. ns; hO\
ever, they not the knd of fction l.hal entlruUlUnent
value alone, and makeS no pretensioU U truth. Heligion, as we
shall see later, goes one steV further than the uae(u! fction O a
myth by makng asserti(IS about wbat uLndced the :a!e. It is at
this pout that the age-old cOlllict between ciellce acd religiou
starts U\ of.
To illustate the of myths, imagine bAud of prehistoric
huntrs who na"e SpDt se"'ral days stblking a ncrd oi mam
moths. Just at the moment of truth when they've lajd their am
bu"!' and are about to attack. " thunderbelt rrolT' the sky comes
fashiug down, scattrbg the herd and udo1og a|\ thl bi:TS
carefully laid plans. SClmehow it's eoriorhng at .-u(h ties for
the hunters to have a blie syst.m that provides sc'mr cx,.lana
D

u for what would otherwise seem a capriciol wh of the

tmos. ^ myth prorides "uch a s
.
"\ltem or oJidt b om:ig a
scheme by which U order and explai- , Ut thllnderOOIt. Perhap;
the gods were bcause they had n(l been iToperly hou
ored, or mayb the !piris of dead mamtJlo frlll the past
wared tbeir living brethren, OT it might bave bon thal the
bunters hadn't approached from the rigbt dirt'!llll. Whatever,
the importnt point u that the myth serves a schemata
whereby the events of daily life can be gi" el1 nn tuterprulallOO in
terms "f mysterious forces and beings 'vbose pOWfrs transcend
lowly human concer. Aristotle began the process of replacing
myth with what bas now come to be tenned leiente.
The opposite side of Ue reality eoin fro mtho, is logo', the
Greek tenn for an account whose trulh ean be dlmonst;'sted and
tlebated. It is th knd of truUI that Aristotle M trying to
TB ^ K P1l L m b L L 5 1
grasp when mdeveloped Iog8 into "logic by use of the process
of deucton. One of the main use of myth3 as outlined abve u
to provide an explanation of how real-world evelta work. lo ev
eryday sb, an "explanation" is usuaDy taken to be ilie aD
swer to a questiou that bgins "Wby'" Such answers inevitably
bgin with "Because," and the question aDd answer toget.er
consttute what we generally c a statement of M and c
) "'hy i ilie &ky blue'" Vanswered with "Because the air
molecules aborb all frequene;es of Vible light except those in
the blue part of the spetrum." And " Why does water bil at
J00'C (at sea level)Y u Bwercd by "Beeause at that tempera
ture U thermal motion of the water molecules is able to over
come U erleral aUupbme pressU1:" --eause and efct.
stmulus-response. The metho of logical deduction is Ari'totle',
thereteal, or some might say mRthfmateal, eounterp3rt to the
expl$tion of physieal happenings by eause and e1ct.
In b1gsvs 28101!0attempted to combine the purely logi
cal metod of deduction with mideas about the nature phy8"
ical rty i order to draw conclusions about the way thr world
really ''' orks. In Aristotle's view physiCl maTer YR composed
o[ U things: Quati% form, and spirit. He felt that there
was only one knd of matter, which could tae many forms, the
fundamental forms beig a, e, cre, and water. Beelu
Lbfour fundamor forms were not elements in ao sense in
which we mi6bt und&t.and that term, they could be trans
formeci into each other. To illustrate, ths scheme gave rise to
what tnay < mght term A. totle's VersiCD of the hydrologic
eyclc; Tne Sun's heat changes water inlo air; heal rises. S( the
heat D ths air pulls the rest o.! it up to the skes; the b'!at then
leaves te apor, which iNcomes progressively more water.v
again, and ths pr0 results i cloud fortation. Tbere ensues
a positive feedbar. 6fci in \vhich the more watery the cloud,
the more the water drives away it opposite, the heat: Thus, the
cloud get colder and contract. Te contracton tben restore:
!ue wateriness to the waler, which falls as rain or, if the cloud's
beat mnow fallen blow the freezing poinl, hii! or snow. So we
see here the relentless chain of cause and efct being employed
U "explain" the oberved beha"or of water , beat, rain, and
snow, What's a abut the whole setup u how all the
wrong reasons somehow combine to produm something remark
ably cloe to the way things really io workl
I ^ I M , M!F, A M 1 P b F t K I ` 1 9
For abnosl t" o thousand years Arist.ot. lian logic and phY$ic
sen-ed as the science of the time, expiniulng various aspects
of uatu=, y, (nd mind by !oglcll conseQuenVs (f asU1up
lions of the foregoing type about the nnllue of '.natter. Ordly
enough, despite Aristotle's main D upat|on alJ obsrvational
biologisl, the biggest faw in bis enru0 world pictul'': was that be
adocMted no experiments or even use of 0hSra!:0:u Userve as
a check on the validily of his underlying pl"cmi,s. Basically, D
was aG epistemology in whicb one herrJ spec\c iances
(conclusioO) from g1eral observations (p:emisllJ. It was not
unW the work of Fancis Bacon in the serellteenth cntu.ry that
SOrleone had the courage to challpnge the a\horit} of Arist1tle
and suggest turng the situation around, Le., trying to infer
general lostances from specifc obsen' atioDS.
Uacon's argent WI that Hvue wants U com lU yrips witll
the way the world really U :t's n6ary to bgin tht investiga-
tion with the facts of U8 . ather than prl jud"ices about whal
lhose facts might be. Thus foHowed thp prMmQle of :w =ttm,
wbreby conclusions obout future events 3re dra\VOO tue basis
of repeatd past observations. Such 3n appr!ac! \S jus/. wbat we
migbt Clm to cxpel from 3 man who was QQT .lnly a pboSo-
pher, but also a lawyer who rose to the post (f lMrd challcellor of
England Dfore being dismissed [or taking n b)b (m indica-
tion, perhaps, lhnt the current dubiou.s elhll slrt of the !egal,
fnancinl, and poUlical profesaious are uot latc-twentielh-century
abrrations, after aU). In .acon's view o[ lhmgs, Uwe observe
the Sun ruing in te east fr ffty eonsecutive dars, tben we cWn
predict that it will rise u the east on day J. Ana tIu :orger \e
bseJe sucb regular beba

ric:, the mor. eonfdeutly we can

speak about its continuation. 10 a nutshell, this t he method of
induction-lots of individual obse.n'ations eoeutually resulting
in the inductive leap to a general conclUSion.
On the one hant, it's satsfying to ha\'e a meUlCld that takes
irto account whrt Nature is actua y doing; on the other hnnd,
why shoulJ such apr0dure pro\;de reliable information about
the way things work1 On wha! grounds cn 1 Ctrtain that
e\pry t16 l put water \n!o my iceube trays and eave them 1
the freezer for a Cew hours l' soon have ice for my scotc oD
the rocks' Just bm it's always bappened this way bfore.
does that give me any 8urance that today's drink will have the
custoDary satisfying 'cm` Tbe sbort answer u that there's
2U
P K A L l. b L!>
Ibolutly no justcaton at all for my ClJneluding that I'l soon
b enjoying a scotch on the ros and not a scotch and water.
1 the Problem of Induetn: Wby should iuductioD work'
Why is it a reliable guide to te future'
To iUWltrat the Problem of Induction, consider the foU!wing
~O:
WCMAN: Professor, professor. You must belp me. My hu:oond
use an inductiv argument to jusCiy the use of induc;e "
gume:ts.
FKQlI55CK MUM: That's terrible. How long has he alted this
way'
WCMA long 0 1 can *m b.
HUMf: T.en why didn't you see me sooner'
WCMA: I would have, but we neded (the conclusions of) the
inductve arguments
HUMt: I'm afraid need te \.
PhiloRophen beginnhlg with Hume have grappled \ith t
problem, and I'l <onsider some of their concilisions in the next
secton. Fo!' now we leave it as a gping bole in the attempt to
repair the di1cultiB i AricUe inttduc:ngnctual obsen'n
tOt into the creation of a world view.
Galileo and Newton are the Jast twn 1Hlpporting ato W our
curor sketch of de\elopments leading up to lbe moder era of
scientc "U" Galileo w a contemporary of Francl
Bacon, and although Uere ap8 t b no 1m of direct coo
tact h:tween te two, there is a clear conneetioD btween the idea
of Nahlre as the arbiter of what's what as Idvocated by Bacon,
md Galileo's refnement of the idea by instituting the notion of
a aM/roled a.penment. In efct, GaWeo said that if you ha\e a
theory about how some phenomenon works, you must construct
A expriment U 'bich aU the variables except the ooe you're
intereted in are conlroUablo. Then, by fing the conlroUed vari
able, you can menure the variable of intrest, thereby cheekng
your theoretical hypothe 'inst the lupreme court of Ilber
vation. Thus foUowa the ott-recounted legena (for which there's
not a shred of documentary eTdence) of h experiment of drop
piug two diferent weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, nnd
meMuring theil' respective rates of fall as a "laborAtory test" of
the hypothesis that object fall at a uniform rate in the amence
of au resistance, irrespeetive of Uu mass.
I P l J M , M!F , P M L P > F L K l Y
2T
Newton added the idea of the descriptioll of O in mathe
yfatiul lerms-the keystone in the arch of scientifc I -nowledge
whose foundatons were laid by Aristotle. More than hi rmak
able experimental results in optics, mOhWni, awi chemistry,
Newton's legacy as writ large in his J=tptc u the idea of what
we would tday call the mathuti4ai mol. Newton showed not
only bow to "encode" Bacon and Galileo's world of oiserration
into mathematica1 form, but also imented th melbod (caleulus)
fOT using the mathematical machinery tu grind 'ut theorems
that could b "decoded" inlo new implied statttneuts abut Na
ture. The esence of this proeduN u depicted m tg 1.2
where the pbysical system to b moeled (e,g" the wlar svstem,
an eletical circuit, or whate\er) is on the h'ft wb.le tht formal
mathematical system that reprBnts it appears D lhe right.
Also on the left our earlier notion of causality, reprc&entcd a
property of the physical system in 'hich (.rt8ln parts olf ue
"vstem exert infuences ' causing" U:og to UUl'pf elsewhere 11
'
the system. bc tcru Imp/ia/iDn is used on the nght I repres

nt
either the process o Aristotelil deduction orthl1 (.f Bacoman
induction as e mea of proving mathematical stakmeuts to be
lC'gieally correct. Tbee slht:nltDt are usualJ) callcu thum
and follow from axiolD8 and the abve logical rul "f Inference.
TIle mtof i .pl.icaliuub is U lugical euuullrpart ur I:c phyoicl
cauSlity no on the Rt !id of the diaFrfl!l. Tllesf l!lplifc
st.tments are then :nierprd(d-Le., dm~cdcto aertions
about tie way the malerial system .. .ally U.
With te ideas of deduction, \nductoL, omeraon, and ex
periment welded together by the symbohe fonnah .. of mathe
matics, the stage is 1OY set for a brif aCCOUl o thr alph.abt
bv which "loder science trits tn incrib the sl. (nts of nature.
The main letters u th lpitabt are facts/o\ernltions, lews,
theorie, and models. Let's take 8 look at what eadl ,f these con
cepts means inthe context of moder science.
In Dickens's tale Dtrd Tm, the schoolmaster ThuIIIB! Grad
grind opeus the story with the statement " No, w\at i want u,
Facts. Teach these boYR and girb nothing buI FAcl. Fncts alone
are wanted in life. Plant nothing el! e, and root out enrything
else. You can only form the nd.nds of reasoning animnls upon
Facts; nothing else wll ever be ot any service to thlm . . . . Stck
m Fat, u|" ile Gradgrind is hardly a role model of the
J4

l
0O:ng

lml
5Y\O

P A R A D I G M S l O S
fg
T
F l CUKL 1 . 2 8wP8 8cm m0fmfu m:ng
kindly, scholarly solt.r, b 'liew forms the srUgpawl
of what many U of as consttutng "rlt": Ue world we
, uch, ImeU, and hear; the world of Facts, But UCOln
moqense V8= V only the startng point for 8 sci(utifc investi
gation of Nature's scheme of Ug. not earlier, isolated
fact are useless euriosities mU they are put together Wtb
otbet !acu int some kind of pa1T. reqUiras the develop_
mellt of laws.
ll:p '"e do thc follcwiig riment: Take a !eng cylinder
with a mOVable pistn and fl it with @ (e,g,,one of tbe c}ltndeM
il !bemolor of your eor). Iguc1Y that we mO\'e !e pistn to
varous positions, and lor fa: positc: nea;Ule Ue prun.
thnt the encl0 g eXet upon U o the cylinder. Fur
tb(r, suppose that after perfotming many sueh measurementy
V Dote that wheMvrthe volmeo!the c)jd
:ud"Crd b.\
n cerin frBtiony the presure D^ by the laDle fraction;
sirly, U we increue the l"olwe by a fracton .d by (e:tmg
the pistn rise, we md U8* the prsure derease bv the W
amount . By an Uductie wg\after many re,titons of
Q experiment we would eventually conjeture (bYOthesize)
tht there i a diret relationship btween the pressure and the
volume of tbegm in the cyjder. Speciealy. we would proba.
bly assert that the pressure P is in'\"ersely proporuonal m the
volame Y. And U we were mathem<tcally incMod, we would
compf.:ty V this relationship 1" N where k u con
tLant determined by the nature of the particular gas and the
unit of measurem1:~ used, J relatonsbip i an enm.
pie of what is called an myt= mw. Te law ebles us to sum.
marize a large numbr of indhidnai facts (the results or the
individual expeDMnts]in one general statement.
F A I T H , H O P E , A N D A S P E R I T Y
The characteristic properties of laws (f the ioregoing t:pe are
that they:
.
:.are about km of een (eJpenmenl Ut\oiving the pr-
sucs and olume oi gases in cylindE), D?t abUl an! su-
gular e'ent (a particular expriment U a particul
cylinder using a particul3T gm),
.
2. show )wtml relatonship btween two or ml)le kd of
een
.
3. 8supported by a large PtOuul of te-wldl eontalD
ing litte or no disconfrming evidence;
4. a applicble to dq c-eI twou (ather ly of gar.es and/or
cymdB).
It's important to observe here th!l there are many di1:ent
types of laws, Dot aU of which are sClentic. e 1eadcr llgt
Lke to try to distinguish among tbe followlUg lD regl`d to theU'
scientic charactr: parking :`egulations, the 'ef Comnand-
ments, the Lw of ConservatioD of Energy, the Lw of the Ex-
cluded Middle.
. .
Useful B it is, the aboc pre6ure-. :lume
.
nd!t.1onsbi
'
(Boyle's Law) still d un't teU U wly an cr.ase U presure 1
li =U M er in volulDe. Fot tm we ne M Icmg
gases. An explanation for Boyle'S Law can b. Obla

lPd onl U
we invoke te atomie Dlturt of tie gas. and think o. :ts bmg
co .,posed of a urge nuber o( !itUe "billiard b" ranoy
monng abut, 0onally :oiliig Wlth

ach oth

r and
the walls of the cylinder. Newtoman mbaDlC deS(nb the mo
lion of each sucb ball. aod by combulng theu ldl\lduaJ
.
mo
lions we m principle ealeulate the pOue oo m cooUe1
walls by determining how many mmare collidmg 1the walls
at eaeh instant, and the sln!ngth of each sueb coUition. Wiib
U picture in mind, it's easy to see why

ben the nlu.me

,
of lbe
cylinder is halve, the pre"sure doubles. SlDce the cylt:lder ! sur
f3ee aa has ben cut in half
,
the Ikehh that : r:ndomly
moving baB w comde with the wall dUbles
,
:ewtol1's laws of
mechanical motion m lhe context of thiS gaa "ltuatlOl fc,rm the
basis tor what is trmed the Deuc 1heory ct Uaes, a frame
work tbatenables us to 6zp1in Boyle's Law.
The eharacteristic feature o( a tbco\) tbaI it ufrs a meaDS
of relating te laws describing a class of evets t
,
o S framework
and a set o1 principles described in rms ul.nng from those
P A R A D I G M S
used for U laW. ''bus, the Knetic Theory oC Gases dn'
make use of the idea of TU or volume at all, but only
notion of a partcle, together with its asoiated mass
ity. We obtain an explanation of Boyle's Lw by deri'g
law from the principle (Newton's laws of moton).
The Idea of Q g moleule as little billiard b
abut insidl we cylinder 8illustrates the noton of a ml
a pbysical situaton or, more preeisely, a p1Yal model & CD
UU with a /DI11 or "uJIftil model. No one taks seri
ously the idea that the g molecule 1'eally are hard litUe
inelaste sphere, but this t out to b a ver weful picture
upon wbi,.. t let common sense feed in order to generat 1ot:\-
UoDs abut how the physiel systm V m undet -anous
clrCUl tnces. The same tchnique is employed i other typ
of physical modls. B Ior Dw, in the use of val' models of
CI and airerafi in wd tunnels to test for vaJi.ous sorts of
aerodynamic properties. In thee situations, many p.speets or the
Nal car or plane are neglected 80 tht attention can b paid
slely to the aerodynamic propertas. Similarly, in thc gas exam
ple maoy real propertes of the gas, like ita reactivity, color,

mv
eTatu.re, and BO forth, I neglected to stud] it presun
,olume relatonhip. Fact, lws. models, and theories"uch
the U bthat tbescieuWt n~toprospet for te gold of reality
u the mountainolU doings of Nalure. Figure T.3 delct the
inteInntions btween thee landar' on the rrain of
srience.
Depending upon your inclinaton, there are several di1renl
philosophical positions that can b taken to whether the nug
geb of realit that tum up mthe scientist's prospecting pan are
lool's gold or the mother lode. In th philoopber's @8 each ol
these pooiticns is associated cith a particular philosophical
powl of view, or "-ism," the most iprt for our pu
bg:
Realism: Ralists believe that there is an objecthe reality 'ut
there" independent o! ourselve. Th reality exist solely by
virtue of how the world u, and it is in principle disco . erable
by Ipplication of the methods of science. I t it's to
say thnt this i the position U which most workng scientists
subcrib. They blieve m the possibility of determining
whether or not theory is indeed rally true or lalse. Indica-
" I T H , H O P E , A N O A S E R I ; V
L
l_
amvII|ny)
bween "Iions
"liO
on ges
[P, V, eC.1
f 1 LUK f 1 ) LMz=Um m w , lkm, dm mdM
2S
live of th position is the outeome of 8 straw poll tak

n re-
Illy il a small unhersity dop=:tment oI physll's Moslstmg
:elenn faculty mtmbers. ten ol whom dae, that what
they were describing wi th Ucusymbols and equ:o was o-
jeeth'e teality. 2 one of them remarked, Oiliel , ba\ s
the use'" .
IlUt""taluII: u school cmy U the bli,! bat

eozes
nre neither true nor fals{, but have be ut(,1)' of u11u-
ments or calculatng devices for predicting the :uL of nlea
suremelts. Basieally, this amounts to the belief tat the
,
only
JL that are genuinely rl are the results of r,b.ervati

:ms,
Le., Gradgrindian Facls. . typieaJ statemnt allltlg thes

hnes
come from the enginocr Rudotr Kalma[ ho ;mk 11 the
context of mathematical model building: "Q~:Jc] means
nssumptions unrelated to data, indeJendent of dtlta;

ump
tons which cannot b (or imply are net)checked ng:t the
data." II light or tt engneer's hunger for any olutio

1Dat
"otk,"perhaps sucb an utreme position is aptable 11 en
gineering, hut it's h_ard to see how il

an b dc1eodcd on aoy
other than pragmatlc grounds. As we B .ec later .n the b ,
e salle problem arises at a much deer-eT IevI _than mer
practical engineering when one passes to _loundaboraJ ques
tions of epistemology m qualtwn mecbamrs= "z too, tD8
principal defense of instrumentalism U that ,troorks."
.
&latiwm: In this increasingly popular posltiOr.. truth Y no
longer a relationship btMn a theory and an indtpclJdent re-
F P K P l L ~ b L L b

,DU1Ta1Dc1 0cQcD0B a1 BaB1 1D QaT1 oD Bomctb ug 1K6

0a QcT8Q11Vc O 1DcjT8uDDo0Dg c 1Dco1. Uu 1ot a
mlaV1 a oDc Qa88c8 tom ag6 1o ag6, o1 11om 8oc1c1] 1u
8uc1c1, oT 1om 1DBuI_ 1o 1DcoI_ Wh\'s O06 cDaDg%. 1D ths
V1cW 11'B Do1 wht i tak6D!o D !1Uc !Da! cDaDgc8 ou cntroin,
what cDaDgcB U lit.:ally 11u\D itl.
o reality ou1 1D8Tc, m, ot WDa1 your mcmuTDg m-
sUcDb (mm]H yo: 11 UtaK6 ouT Q1cXl 1 8 a1tUQ1
!u te11 u UoW 1u Wc?_D1 .Dc o00B, QmQum o 81cDcc DaVc
6QD0c0 1Do101Da B aHoUD1B o cDcTg, 1DoUgD1, and DcaU
VctD1ttgc 1D QuWu1 o 1Dc c1u81Vc %BcDCB o 1Dc Q1 o 8c1-
PDc6B 8 9cUcc oT UO g1Dc1HQm1cI8 oD the "-" 181.
6 caD 8UHmaT1c tDP1T 1cIcucaD tk 8
m l LNLPbNPL [QL bl LM Lf l
I' M l L Lb Ll MY Ll b LI t NLL
O sc18Dtts prcceed tbe dc bme tbere o08tc rm
snsIot doig 1(1, or do Vc ca1 tboS8 Q10ccdu1e8Ww00N mereI
mause B certam group saboD U1
To 0g 0ccQBt 1Do !bc Wa]8 8ccDc6 might D aDc 1o V1D01c8!c
1Dc cW 0 o tbc Ica18 aD0 g g11HQ8c o !Dc1t D11vaDa ^
GUgwt1Vc Tca11, 1DcTc8 Do cD1cB DU1 1o 81BQ D1u !bc W`D11c1D
CcD1:@ and look 4 t\c L 0vT a1 tDc og1ca 8\Tuc1uTB OI 8c1-
Q aB BccD by Oc QD1u8oQLcW. NU1c mm1 QTacUc1Dg 8c1cD-
118, Do1 t mcD\1oD 1a1cD fnd 1Dc dcu ion tf 8ucD ma1te18
1TK8omc !Dc a1c 1D%CaQaDe aD0 caDDo1 D 1gDoTB0 ma Wo1X
SucD a8 t. 1%10B8, as a710 1aWKD8 W8c DoU0, "Those
WDo Hu81 1@oT6 least ecape." o W11D ts C1wO aBout Da11c
c1], 1c1'B DT1c ^UDS108I VDa1 1D6 gbo8oQDcI8 Dac 1o 8ag
ubu1 1Dc r1TcaMoD D1WeBD 1Dc yrczu aD0 1D6 tAlons o Bc1-
6Dcc aD0 1Dc1t CoDDw11oD W11D 8D X1D0 o oU]cc1Vc 1ca111g.
R.TIONALITY FOR REALISTS
1 Plato's fca0cm 1D 2tbm 88rvcd aB !Dc gcogTaQ10 oca
Qo1D1 ot I66K Q1o8oQD aD0 118 VcW o !Dc wo10, then 118
!MD11c1U-ccDtuT ciuD1BTgaTtC oD Dc 8ma18cD1Da1 room
1D 1Dc %atDcmaOc8 1cQaT1DcD1 o !Dc 1D1VcT81t o cDDa,
l P M, M L l t , P N P > F K l ` 1
WDcTc a g1ouQ o QD81c1B1B, ma1Dcma\1caDI, aDU rhilosophers
met cvery Du180a] cVcD1Ig ot 86Vc1a c:aT$ i n Uc 1Z8 aD0
1S \o 0ebtc Ihe relationship Dc1WccD Ibr tco1I of Sience
8D0 oD)Pc1IVc 1ca\1t h8 gtuQ, christened tht uI:
,
a CIrcle D
1ZJ e'-enlually camc tu what amODntS U the instrcmentalil
Qo811oD 1Da1 1c oD1 mcaDIg1u 81!cmcD tbaJ caD D Da0c
atc 1Do8c ot WD1cD we caDgIVca 0cD11c t68t1gl1otI (mc\DD0,
8@uTtDm) ot tDc11cT1Dca11oD. 1u8 usc of W wc1 8_ 61~
low" Wou0 Du1valen\ sQccuy1DgaQ1O0P0uIc for 'ctI1O@
\Da1 aD] QaT11cuaT oD]wI Qo88c$8c0 1Dc Qto[ct1 o1 bi" e
\oW. 1D ths Way 1Dc men_ o1 reality o ']co9' U8Ca1c
cQuVacD1 10 c 81aUmcDt of 1Uc Qt0c0uTc u

1!B ctca11

D
}, u6ST^ o1H8 1Dc Da88 ot \Uc DoUT1Ou8 V
1t1Dc1Qe, WD1cD a a\ \Dc heart o 1Dc :cDoo o logeal po

utt
ur 1c !c1m aWt gyeD m \Dc philosophy expou:dcd by tne
Vinna \rc8. 1u\ \o uD0cT8\aD0 \b18 blend o t!i1T1015m aD0
Ioge,i1

s De(essary 1o go UCk cW ct

and ooK atuwo1k

u1 aDotDc1 VienDcBe phoBophcr (f !Dc !Uc LL0

Ittg8D
\ciD.
V LN5JI N, LLLl L, PNL L P NL \ ^ \\
ror o:duxj D6D, 6 udd\e o btUe6eld wII bulltl _L

@
and D0mW bur\iD_ ar d 4t1c8 of u:&n a1D ocJ agony. J"
bardly the hnd o place 1D D1cD 1o cDgagc 1D cOM\8m^BO76
pD1Osophi\ 8Qccua11oD. 1u\ I0V1g !11c w

?r
01DIV maD aD0 0uT1Dg \Dc cout8c o m 1a 8eT7cB W\U
the \na A1my 0u11Fg ot0 Nat 1, Dc C1c1oQc0 10caB
3but 1Dc tcaoD.D1Q o 1DougD18 cXgr0 1O aD_uagc \O \Uc
actual sta!e o afin m uc Wutd, 10ca8 thnt \^c1M a1c cD
D11D60 1D !Dc Qagc8 o mc!sc work Tm: 1,yhileee-
phum. c Da8c \BDc\ of ths 8rUa1 \lume, Dt

c
only 10ea8 o 1\1gcns!e1D's QuD18Dc0 0utUg lifetime,
tDa1 tDc1c tD 8omc1U1Dg 1D comDoD mtWucD L!
,
c 8!tuC!u76
of M 8eDUL06 aD0 tDc 811uc!utc o U6 uc1 tLat tie 6cDlBDce DS~
serts. 1o \m Y6V, tcQTBBcDta\oD o 1Dc Wotd in tDoug! i
made p1ssiUe by og1c, Du\ tbc proQIs1\ of IClfPc do D1 D
aD0O Ucm8cVc8 1cQTc8cD1 aD ac\ua 8tatB o !De VoT0. bu,
logic was necessary UD\ Do1 8uDc1cD11o dtscrib any kind OJ

D~
0!1Vc reaut.o8981 IOt \\g8D81c1D !og 0id revcll whi
.
ch
5\a1c8 V8I8 tcorcticay Qo881Dc, +`cBc11Dg D1underlying belief
reality was at least consistent-e.g., U the statment
..
,
, ... bils at 1OC at sea level" V tue, then the statement
"Water d,' not bil at 10C at:a level" cann('t b true.
Wittgentein :suautese ideas by what he c ed "pic
ture theor" of language, in which he oqlogieal propl i
tion to picture . 2 Qicture repreent some physical st4
using Hu typ.s of symbls; language tan do mw but
wit a dt Mt of symbls. JQicbar some relAtion
sb1Q to te physical t
.
tmty that it represent. So, for Qle, U
we see a human UMa photograph, the nose may appear in the
centel' of the fae bth in physie reality and m te picture.
Howevdr, U the Qic U by aVadoz 1C we might fd the
DOH6 appg in some quite ( nl loeaton, or not at aH. Ot
course we might try t cy the relationship bTeen the pic
ture and the object-lor example, by intducing e0lor or per
!ptire-but such nn attempt at clarification only gives rise U
anotLcr pctue, =bcD iUelf wll requue additionnl anahis. / t
SOUle stage the CN6nCt of the picture has to be undeI:ood di
rectly. or we faU OU 3n intni regress.
In Ua picture theory of language, propositions maJng up the
lMguuge B thought of M analogous to a series vf pietu..
Furthermore, 8oWitlgenstein assumes thut the logical struc
tue of language mir rs the logieul 81C1W of uality tuw1 Mu
gag8 "pictures repreent PQi}k state of the l'"orJd. It
dlo

;bat linguistc statement Bmul when they un,
lD pnnclQle, b ~H!auwith Uworld. Aetual omrvation of
Ueworld nthen teil Uthey M tue or false. To u ustrate, we
can mearngfully say that "the 1mU Natom in New
York:' but it umeamIemstau that "United the New in
ozk N&tiom
,
" om, diJrent logical rule (grammars)
could b
.
developed in wru(h the latler stuut i meaningful,
but u the context of conlentonal English gra:mar )t ba
no 1081cal structure ai all. So the m mm of the picture the
-namely, th'\t there rmt b something in common btween
U IOgJcal structure of the language and the structure of the
ftt1lat it hsserls-annot reallj be "said" in terms or the laD
beiDg used to make the statement it caD only be l'sbo,Il
3uconclus\on gave rise to Wittgensteu's famous metaphor :n
the pnultimat section of the Ttu:
My propositioll serve e\vcbcm M the fcBo=in =ay: an]-
ole who undertAnds me eventu yrecog them 10De'i.
r P l M , M L L , 7 M L P b L K Y
W, when he used them--u 6%QU CU0 up by:nd thm.
(He must, w1spak, Uxoaay Ue ladd kr lUr be bam>
up it.) He mlLt tmnd Uproposiu`om, and U<D he W S
lbe world angbt.
So Winteins punch line t.at Ibe semf flf Uc relatonship
btwen reality and 1U descriQtion in laugusg cannol b eX-
pressed in language.
Thus ended Wit4cQtein's early period" $Ludies on the in
terplay of logc, language, and rea!;y. "be es."6DCe of 0 \de
can b summarized in the following steP*
1. There i a world that W0 want to descrJLe.
Z. We try to describe it in some languag, scientific, mathemati
cal, or othcrwUJe.
3. There u R problem nhoul wuetber what ` ny aoout the
,orld corresponds to \b way the world realI IS
. We want to ko= the true nature of tho corn:poodence D -
t"eD what we say aud the way tbllJgs BIB, b:t W< can only
usB language itself to describ thatcorrfponrtf!lce.
. OlO of a language ean De"er expre:s tilt dJrt,d Iorrespon
den. c, and we must take reoourre mcre!} to bowg it,
:.e. using the picture theory, sinre oUbrwse \V woId fall
into the iDfrule r"grC8l of de8Cription of dcscFlplons of
pQons = . .
.t Step 5 we come to on' of the moat fBJrolLS tattr.lenls in of
philosophy, with which Wittgenstein concluded the Trodat".:
" What \e cannot speak abut we must p over O !ilenee."
It's easy to see how Wittg"nstelD's eQotat\on 1 the inter
play of language, loglc. aud obervaliOll of lh " Wf'rld would ap
peal to the membrs or the Vilnna Cirtle, with their eonce:ros
abut constructing a coherent philosophy of scincc (rom an
nmalgamation of logic and empiri.cal epistemology. And indeed
the YIIw dserve al a point of departure (or :uanyof their
dcubcrai.o, wth seHrnl members of the cirel! 1 regular COO
tact '.tb Witfgensteln in V:onay although Wittgenstein him
self seems oe'er to ha" e participated in the Tbursda.v night
discussions. As an ironic twist, while the Viennn L\rcle wa busy
putting t'gether the Leneta ol lugeal p0:tIVm U!ing Wittgen
ste:o's work as a basis, Wittgenstein him:elf W8 in the process
of underg the entire efort by the developmentof his ideM
on the rule: of languuge.

F P K P I L ~ ' L !b 1
memDT \Du8e u01@ 1B\8 Wbe1e 8ume8eQueDce of DDM18
giveD aD0 uu`1e 8uu880 Urick 1De 11gb1 cuDIDua\1uD o
1De 8wueDce a8 B 0eDuD8t1aOuu u ]uu1 8mB118T b18 KD0 u
1uDe

b a1 1be Dea1l u 9bB1 st 1u W1be1 111gw8\e1D

aWu1 b8 1c1uTe euT uJBDguage UODB1e Wu'`Dg 1D
Tel01BOuD o1Ue eDOTe 10m uD810e1 1De uuW1Mg 8D eX-
amje. ume 1De mU 8ueD% 18 [1, 2, 4, 8} aD0 ]uuIe
Mkoo, Wba1'8 1De ' DB\u1a OI T1gb1` cuD11Dua11uD. ^ `Dow
aU8uT0 D1gb @ Clege Bo IB1B 1 <.DetB
Wuu0 1uUaD g1Ye D cI8011 uD U uu BD8We1e0 WlD 1De
8$ueDce [ 16, 32, 64, 128].1T%umaD U 1B 1be cuTTec1 aD-
BWe1 Du8e uu'1e Buu8eU U = 1ba1 eBcb 1etm 1D tDe
uI1@1Da BeQueDce 18 1W1ce a8 lge a5 1U Te0ec%u1. uW
1DeTe'B Du 0uuD1 1ba1 U is uDe ug1cB 0eeD81D1 1ea8uD u1
gueBB1Dg tba1 1be T1_b1.`uD11DuB\1uD18 uDe B1 eX18Dd8 b18 B1-
\eI. 1ul \be1e cBD D8 u\De1 cuD\1DuB\IuD8 \bB\, Ue8D01Dg uuD
\Te 0uD1eXt, WuuU beguB]ug1c88DU correct. For ir.stuee, 1
1De cuD1eX1 We1e \De DgD-8cDuu uu\DB stdium raUlsr thaD
\De cy.runinntion tuuD, tDeD 1De mu81 iOg1ca cuD1lDuB\1uD might
b p, 2, B 8] ^ I "Wbo Uu Ve B1eca1e1']. Or ee 1D 1De
eXBmFB\1uD 1uum juu D1gb1 U o cuD11Du1Dg W1b [9, J
J5],a jB1W 1a1 dU 1be Dm8 1D \be u11g1Da 88gueDce.
Te uH1 1Z \a1 1D M0 BD8eDce of cuD1fX\ 1.e.B00t1uDB 1D1r1-
Du11uD, \De1e'B \181. Du eucb 1D1Dg a 'Da\u1' cuD11Dua11uD
u1 1be 8egue . ce. De 1eBde1 Tg U 811ua1uD u81
aDu0I *mMuD u 1De 11uD!em 0 1D0ucOuD 81a1e0 ea11e1
aD0 11'8 u81 1b1B K1DU u 0111] tba1 DgaD 1u 1TuuDe 111
geD8\e1D aIe1 1De JmIw.
uoWDg 1be 1W1 u1U aT 11IgeD51e1D 8gD\ t1me a8 a
b1gbUuu c mvillage buu15 U u811a VbeTe Jt 1u-
Du1ev be \augb\ 8ume u1 D15 u5 BDuu1 1De 11a1 atB0OX
{"D1B 8eu1eDce i Dw'). 1] BccuuDU be W Ve1] [uua1
W1 1be 81U0eDU Du1 Wa8 eTDM T Ou1 u 1e 91age D]
eD BTeD mu81 1Ke uD accDDD1 u b18 bumu88XDa1\] aD0
1aD1111 \O 1eB18 lu \be C0Dce7 u \De ea8D1 am1Ie8 1D \De
1PguDB Wbe1e be WO1KeU. 1any ca8e, UuI1Dg U Ube !+gBD
oUecume d188B118ed th m p1ctu 1Deu1 of BDguage, 81Dce
:tguVeDu ceB1fu1BWWe11uQue8QuD5 1Ke "Wy buu0 We 8ee
!De 11Oc1jc8 u ug1c 1u De t1ue,eVen 1bougb 118 Du1 u881De \u
eX/esa 1bo 1euDB 1D Wu108T (1ecBu5e We cBD uD "8buW
I P I I , I!F L , P A > l L K I 1 Y
31
\be11 11u!b, Du1 `8a 1\.} Or 18\be1e 8uUe K1DU 7 uD0e1]1Lg
logical sUc1uT e11De1 1u \be Wu1U ut 1u uu1 tbOugb\ systems
that 8umebuW C De bPU 1e8OD81De fo1 !be ct8D1 8e~e-
0eDce of \be1uu81u

uog1"`1Dothcr Wu108 18\be18aSe1

u tue5 ut utg8D1Z1Dg 8eD8eeXe11eDc 1bB11 bfJ V1\b1D uu1
D1B1D8, Du1 1ba1 e caDDu1 B111cuB\e eVeU 1DuugU We 8 uuW
1Be 1U1% BuIumB11cB] WbeD WP % 1D 1Ue e WB BD0
WbeD We \ueBcb u1De1T
D D18 B181 Wu1K 11@eD5Ie1D coD810e1e0 this K1U0 of QUW-
\1uD cum1Dg 1u \be uDbB coDcuB1uD \DB1 1beTP Bu0 b Du
uD0e11Dg u@1ca structu Iu 1De Wo10 \u Wb1cb uu1 m1D05
mu81 BUbeTe,u1 71ce 7e18a. III \be fnal analysis, be c81^^ 0 1DB\
!be1uu81OuD8 u ug3c 1eec1 1be 1ue8 u I .. Dguage, aD0these
Bte \own tu u8 D uu1 use u1 aDguBge 1D e981y0a 1e BD0 D
linguistic experiEnc: Consl quently. Wittgeust.iu's olution B
Why the r1ght cuD\1Lua11uD u1 \be 8egutDce [ I, 2, 4, 8| i [ J6,
3 64 )28| aud Du1 j" Who (II) we 6|rec1aU' | 1 tI;tVqknow
huW to guuD ` u \be8aDe WB] DecBuBe WeshBre orm u 1Te.
hu5 1he c11t:Dua\11 U Ic1B!8U by sooiologlcal cormideratiQos,
aDU b: 1 cuD1ac w.\b BD K1D0 of uDec\17e rlality fQr nWD
ber sCueDV.1e !DeDcuDcDUeU 1hB1 \beTe a1e ]$ private rules;
tul a1e t1e 1ue11 t1 B 01a g1uu. 1eDce, 1UgeD5!e1D
gBe B '8uc1uug1ca solution to ':e 1toDetn O l'duction D
cuDce1DDg b1m3eU Du1 \V.1.b DuW Wo cuu0 b car:.tin t rl
abut 1be eontinuatlOn, but tB1he1wit buW Wecome 1o O C*
ta1D BDuu1 it ir _Twf. be tm1ca\1uD u a \bu u1 81eDce 18
1Da1 8c1eDce ~u uuD a uuDUB\1uD o 10KeU-utgI
`
BU1w teB
11}, B^1uc1Ba5ec1 u Uc T8atI118cbuu o( s1otIc \buUgb\
e`1 cume DBcK tu Uu relB\IVt1c Dn\1D uf c:: ul1Lc 1eB11j
aUr bu u1 DuV e1`8 return hriefy 1o 1Ue VIer:na Circle and
tuattempts 1u u88 Ihe eatj `^I\\ge$\e1D \u catI1y the meaung
of BDguBge, 1be1cDj 11}Dg 1u uDcoVe1 thl "tll!<.'' o( Sc1eD
IC ]tuu81\1uL8 BDuut 1be Wu1U.
1L L LLI L AL Lb I I VI > > A NL V t K I I L 1 I LN
D bu Bcount of \he e uu\1un u KDuWedge. ,ugu51e foD
1den1ed 1D1ee stages of deVeumeD\: ( 1) tht :zoloal D
Wh1cb reality is comprehcnd" d In terms of thecu1!l:c1t aD0 ctea
11uD8 u gO08 BDU 61I1; (2)\be 17etophpi41, III Wb1cb there 15
!De u5e u BD811Bc11DD5 a1U geDeralit1e8. (3) the pOiliviltic,
P A R A D I G M S L O S T
which relies 1_CD tht quanttative description of seD:ory phe
Domena_ T( Vienna Cle ws interested in formalizing the
last stge by marrying CrU's quantificdion of empirical olr
servatoDS and ._at with the logical structure of !.guage and
its relationship to the physical world as outlined by Wittgen
stin. The result was the philoooply of logiea1 positivism, hose
OT element was the Vercativn Principle diseUS earlier_
Fo-, the logical positivist, there were only two sorts of state
ments .r propsitons: analytic statement and those that could
m empuieaUy vered. 'nly th" latter had meaning, with ana
lytc etaterents bing eiter tautologies or lterally meaningless_
The basic difculty with the positivist approach is the Prol
lem of Induction: General empirical statement just cannot b
vered_ For example, UI make the empirical claim that the Sun
= rise in the east tomorrow on the grounds that it alway! D
risen there up to now, te Probleof Induction prevent me
from vfring an emniri!'.l procedure for erifying !h1s claim.
Lnsequently, according to the positvist's creed my statement is
meaningless, and C6rtain1y not scientifc_ Also, the Vlrifcation
Principle had d ulties in eTJying Lulile the 'Wave func
tion in quantum mechanics tmd, in general, failed V make a
clear-ellt distincton between meaningfulness and meaningless
np., M coming up empty W criterion for mea; or real
ity. As the !OllrCe of this dif('ult u the ProbIen of Inducton,
what could b more natural than to tr) to get around it by the
simpl exnt of rejeting the usc of induction altogether'
Enter Karl Popper and the idea of falsication.
POPPE R, CONJ ECTURES, AND RE F UTATI ONS
Popper, the SOD of a Vienn('e lawyer, MB originally mlereSlcd
m developing methods for separating scientific statements from
pseudoscience. He also tok an actve pnrt in the discussions of
the Vienna Cle, whoe membrs at ft thought Popper
shared their interest in meaniDg, a misunderstanding that wa
soon cleared up_ \Vbile still a teen-agar, Popper recognized that
no amClUnt of suppl.rting data will ever be sufcient to confirm a
hypotheis, but a 11te t refute it is ODe piece of negatve
evdencl. So, for instncl, if I hypotbeize that all Ferraris a.
Y, no matter how many red }'erraris I see, the Problem of I
duetion will still provent me from stating with certainty that
F A I 1 H . H O P E , A N D A S P E R I T Y
33
this is the color of all Ferraris . .However, all 1 ned do iJ go to
lhe Fer1ari factory in Maranello and sec that tilae \ even one
white car being built, and I an then c0ll1dt'ntiy tsert t.hat my
original hypothesis is false. This chain of argumlnt constitutes
what Popperians call the method ol /ouicptitm, aDd forms the
heart of POtJper's view as to how science, as ClPIX'Sed U pseudo
science, is to be carried out. In his own words, "'fhe criterion of
the scienti6e status of a theory u its falSifability. or refutabil
ity, or testabity."
Poppr :s a realist aud belie'l6s that there LS 8D !b;cctive real
ity out there that cience (an acquire increasiog]v accurate in
formation about. His method is conjecture L Lu refutaton: We
nJake a hypothesis and then look for eddence t {alsuy it. For
Popper, one theory of a given situation is to be preferred to an
oter i there are more potential ob . :-"ation.' ilia: C2D refute the
theory than can rclute its compettor. 1Dol'1el w:rdS, the more
stAtemp'lU that ('olid be refuted by direc! obsru|\oh a theory
makes, the better the theory is. The clasic (xnmplc is the hy
pothesis that the Earth's orbit around !he Sun LS CIrcular, as
cmpared U the hypothesis (theory) that it i3 ao tllipse with the
circular orbit a just a spedaJ case. Since there are more poten.
till obserations tbat w tuU), or refute, the cir,;ulrr hypoth
esis, the theory that the orbit W circular 'ould h\e mC1e
empiz\caI contcD1 cz Popper. To unJcr:tand elcHr!s the dIstinc
tion bbveen Popper's vit .vs and those of the logioJI positivists.
:t'sinstructve zx:rne !L compar:son given ill 'fable I I
While Popper seems to hal', banished the ProhlNn of Induc
tion from the philosophic'l banquet table, his conjctures-and
refutatioru m"thodoiogy u nllt witout a fe ws of U ow.
The most difcull obtacle is what is kno. 0 the Problem of
Auxiliary Hypotheses. To illustrate, let's go back t\ U c red Fer
rni problem. ! i happen to see a hite Ferrari on the road,
thereby refuting my (.riginal contention, the 'red :errbri" hy
pothesis can always b resurrecled by f"ding or,e I1ew back
ground condition to the situation, such as ' i| wlisn" l realiy a
FerraI, but a LmooTghini," ur "It as a red cal that had only
ben paintd while," and so on. Followillg this lin' "f a!tack,
any theory in trouble can alweys be Sl ved by thl i:troductioD of
suitable aUiliary hypothefes, since it mar then b claimed tbat
the origal assert1on rJn'!rong the error in one of the
background assumptions_
POSITIVISTS
lZIO4TIONS

woam
MAo
OOlC1
M Z
U M
omtmr
m tial Df
P A R A D I G M S L O S T
POPPER
a tmox
vavr
ORIVATIOtS
PIIWTJVE
PROPOSI110NS
JA8 atUfpt to utablil (ratl,, f= ~dm} @I T thttr
JA8Lt \ ! ZIptltmm TTJop
['oppr's ideas place great frphasis uQn scientife method.
He is tlling scientists abut how they oght behave, neglect
m ent1ly how Uley aetually do bne in practice. rfhe bard
faet that ,ery few scientst, Hany, spend much te look
ing for dr.ta or trying develop experiment that would falsiy
their hypotheses-just the opposite, in fact. Tis commonj!ce
,.oervaton leads us into eonsideraton of the way social conven
tions and ideas deterine what we take to b scientif truth, a
position that Popper himsel! ultimately came around to ac
knowl(dging m connecton with h original problem of dt1-
guishing seience from pseudOscience. He finally concluded that
U we waut t kow whether or not a theory scienUc, we
should look and se how it ubanded by people, rather than \On-
F A I T H , H O P E , A N D A S P E R I T Y 3
sider its logical sctura p sition remarkably similar to that
arri"l'oo at by Wittgenstein In h debraloQ M mnnY of the
same issue.
LAKATOS AND S CI E N' I fl C R E S E AR CH PROclAMS
A important way slation on the road from the purely realist
positi"" u t1le positivist sod parly Popper to lh completely
relavistic stance D today's Kuhnians, B discusscl" u the DeX
section, is the work of the Hungarian educator .:ld philosopber
D 1 V. Ater serving the anti Dzi resi8taoce during
World War II, Lakatos bcame a higb-ranking ucaI in the
try of Education, later feeing to the Wrst during the
P:nuprising of 190. At this lime Lakatos w'nt to En
gland, wbere be bgan work 00 m Ph.D. thesis at Cambridbe ou
the theme of mathematical disco"ery. S novr] wmk presen1ed
:n Ole Corm 01 s dialogue cellwl;ng on the p)oc1 Ot l.eonhard
Euler's famous formula relating the number of faces, vertic,
and edges oC a polyhedron, led Lkatos U a deer interest in
the quetion of the "dynamics" of theories, Tbts be went one
step further thllD Popper and the positivists by centering atten
tion not just on the .t.r!l,t"", of .denlifc lheoti(l, but also UPOD
how they change. The vehielb for this study TW what Lkatos
termed a .cuatif rerh ]Wp0% (SRP).
For Lkatos, an SRP is 8teqmm "f theories in which certain
methodological rules Bre followed. Tbe prmary tmponents of
an SRP are:
Tc IaT torl -an imiolal cluster of hypolhe:es at the center
of te program
Tey:et htlt-a set of au.iliary hypothe6
Te mplm .' suption uoderlyib@ He hard core
that <not to b quetioned
JcrititM kcumIvaset of suggestions or bnu s\ying how
the &R u to be allered
A good e.ample of the kind of SRP that Lknm had in mDd is
the Ptolemaie new of the solar system, in whicb lhe Earth sits
at tbe center with !he various planets moving alll.'ut on orbits
that Mdescribed as complicated epicycles. ''bes'! curves J
jllAt the pat Uw out by a fied point ('n, say, Ue rim of a
coin as ou roU it along the top of a fat Ubl- Coins <f diferent
F P K P I L b I L b
. sy give 1 to Wrent epicycles _ and Ptolemaic theory used
combinations of thee cUes to describ the planetary o1b:u.
'l'he hard core of the Ptolemaic program 1 the geocenirie by
potesis, together with the nw ity of th" planetary Clrbits
bing given by epicycles. The protective blt consits of the de
of the various types of epicycles, while the posit"e heuris
tic would comist of a plan for developing incrtuingly
sophis:cated model of t 1L'vt3ry system. Note that Upos
itive heuristc is no! a gue, genera] set o)f principles. but a
quite specic set of procedures giving defite advice 00 bow to
pr, includiDg instructions on bow to handle anomalits.
u the positive side of the ledger, Lkatos's ideas we.re an im
provement over Popper's since tey aclmowledged the suI di
mensions of science. U sense they served as forerunnel' to
the ideas of 1u. l'uIthermore, te Lakatos vision of what 000
stitutes scientific truth had the virt.ue of showing that no partie
ular reearch program v unambiguously to be pNferred to any
other. In U way. the SRPs opened the door fer the lnarehical
viW "f Paul Feyerabend, which we'll look at in a moment. Also
VLcredit, Lkatos dOm two important fllct abrJUt SClen
tc procedure: (1) scion&t !. ve sulciem faith in the hard
core that anomalies are explained away, and (2) scientsts have
gtnora Cabout hew oue should try to cope with anomalies
(the positive heuristic).
to liabilities (If SRPs, there are many, not the least of
which is that the choice btween two SRs for 1w is no
eaier than the ehoice between two theories for Popper. The as
$ ent. of which of two programs to prefer eventually comes
down to a ''J: Hon analogous to having Donald Trump and
Harr HeImsley tossing pennies of the top of the Wor!d Trade
Inter, the title Grand Ral Estate Baron of Manhattan being
awarded m the one whose penny lands ft; it's a meaningless
garue without a criterion tat they can employ to $ who
reign as kng of the t.owers. But there is 10 operational way for
them to decide whose penny lands frst without invokg outside
ngents, i.e., additional information outide the two "programs.1>
Lts's SRPs hd other drawbaeks as well.
There were gred df ultes in coming to agreement as to just
what constitutes the bard core of an SRP in any specic situa
tion. For instance, Newlon's view of planetary motion used the
iverse-sqnare law of gravitationni attacton as an umoute hy
pothesis, Le., M part of the hard core of Newtoni mechanic.
I P I M , M L F L , P N \ P b F L K I Y
3
Yet in considering te motion of the planet Uranu", bi George
A and Friedrich Bessel suggested mnduyg the ue1*e-
square law to account for the observations. whe vbin Jenn
Joseph !.everrier and John Adams suggested ke]1g the law
and explaining the motion by the presenee )f hithert(unob
served WlesTal body (which lurned ont to D the let Nep
tune). Similarly, before the Theory ,)f Rdatinty was
promUlgated in 1905, some suggested modifying the inverse
square law V account for abrrations in the jctLeI:on flf lhe
planet MercuIY. In lact, the Elpad:o 1rhcc (1910 edi
tion) slated that the gravitational law should han the exponent
2.001612 instead (f to make things come out right! So
even in tat most solid of scientic bastion .. . Nel:toman mechan
ics there were heated disagreements B U hnt shouJd and
ehuJd not be in the bard cote. A fnal diult} or Lakatos u
that the idea of the yOsitive heuristic is holEsh' 'ugue. This
part of the program is suppo&ed tv lei! us wbat 'O do V modify
the program but, in (act. emerges during thf! cours0 the reo
search. A a result, it says roUling about '''hal one suppWd
to do to ear out an im'estigation succe.<sfully.
Lakatos's vision of the scientSc tlterprise u fz: richer tan
Popper's M IDBI m notion of heuristic: di.rct T.1etiLn I i
pCrtant aspeets of seient.ifc practice not stressed n\ Popper at
aU. Nevertheless, the difculties with his SRPs cast aspersions
on the knds of views of scientifc reaut]` \8!cn be expected
from any 'ueb program.
So we see the varions attempts by Wiftgensteul c Co. to pro
\;de B solid, logical fQundH1D, or mthod, for the scientife pur
suit of kvwledge all com to oue bad eDd or aDotheT. Dare we
entertain the idea thal perhaps there u no mdh'J'}' Well, Paul
Feyerabnd Dot only enterlaius the notion, he insists upon it.
l LYt KPb ML: 1 lL Kt Pl M' Nl NL IL
In studie of scientifc method. th1are VO pri(lclpai branches:
A. Rule or l&.hniques t< use m the disco\'ery of theories
U. Rules for the objecth'e e'Aluation of rival tho()ries
The Vienna Circle claimed tbat only B was the legitimate prov
ince of the philosophy of scence; Paul Feyetabd dt$lies that
there 1s any valid distinction between the twO.
In .gimt Mdhod, b famous maullt"to for Bcientifc
anarchy, Feyerabnd states his basie theIne in the following way:
P A R A D I G M S
"No set of rules can ever be found guide the eeientist in
choice of theories, and to imag;ne there is such a set is to .
progress. The only principle tt doe not impede P"'g''
fxythixg gou [italics added]." Feyerabnd is claiming
is no luch thing as a scientc method. His argument is
science is just one traditon among mny, Ad is privileged
ther in tenl of methods DOr in terms of uu. He goes on
adoate removing science from its Jedestal and tryiug to
soiet in whcb ataditions have eual acces to power
eUllution. Among the tons b8suggests giving equal
with science are astrology,witchcraft, )<DcH:L, and folk
cinel If tis all 50unds like t!e grumbUngs of a failed ,ci',"'i"
to you, it's perhaps worth DOtng that Feyerabnd did at ODe
time study physics and astronomy.
Feyerabeod was Illso active D the Berkeley Free Speech
l1oen ent, 3nd bcame interested in the so-eaIlt' alternative &0-
ciety ideas bandied about m the 1060. But he eventually re
deems himself "y eoniesing that he doesn t bave tbe seriousness
of IJ"rpoe of a true anart and would uc m b remembered
8 a "fppant Dadaist."
'he central thesis of incomensurability of theories brought
out in 111:^ sUkbshion 0 1fg=1DD lakes us from the :deas
o realism and the work of WittgenEteiu and the Vienna Cire!e
clear 'Cross towto relatvism and the ofat irens of Feyera
bud. Despit tJteir shade of lunacy, the visions of Feyerabend
contain just enoug! good sense to suggest there's something
worthwhile lurkng nt their core. This kemel of sense hiding in
the flboyant noise is the notion that there are many metho.s
and ways of coming t scientc tuth, and what is taken to be
true at any moment is more a matter of soifJ con\ention in the
scieuic eommurut than it i a product of logicel methods "nd
p:redu. Recogniton of U strtling fact CODlllitutes the
thelO song for Thoma Ku, whoe ideas about paradigms in
:ience De at the beart of what is by fa.r the t talked-abut
new of the sientifc enterprise D the sc0oDd hal! of this cen
tur.
BUDDY, CAB O1 TAHAOIUM7
Julian Bigelow, nn electrical engineer who belped John 1 Neu
mann build !t Johnniae computer at the Institute for Ar-
f A I T H , H O P t . A N D A S P E R I T Y V
vanced Study in Princeton in the early 19508, tUS : dory about
how when he drtwe down from Cabridge, M88hIlSCtts, U
iDtn;ewed by von Neuann for the ob, be met with Ihe great
man at his bore in Princeton= As tbe story gOts, there was a
large dog romping on the ln, and M" on Neumann opened the
door to let Bigelow in, the dog IB into the housl a:td started
runDing from room to room, snifng everylhinf in !igbin Une
manner commonly practiced by dogs e::;Y\t!ere. BlIsy M tel
discussion, neiter "on Neumann nor Bigeluw paid :nueh attn
ion V these canine antics (or quit awhile, but uaH von Neu
mann's curiosity overcame his courtly Cent.ral F.uropean
mannt and be asked Bigelow U he always traveled wU D1
dog. Bigelow replied, "Ti's noL my dog. I ih(lughl it was yours+
Such are the presuppositions t!& pervade v1 nspeet of
buman activit, science (sud scientlSts) bemg no e,ceplion. /nd
it'! exactly these '-inds cf presupposition." that t:o:\sti!uU the
nucleus . lhe :dca underpinniny Thorn! Kuhn's 1I0tion of a
scientifc parfdig.
iI\ I047 Kubn, a rouDg profsor at f:.tI".rd, was asked to
organize a sc! o( lectures OO the orgin

of se\ent."mth-century
mechanics. As preparation, he began tracing Lbe ti|ecthack to
ItS 10 1 M Atotle'. Phyou, bog ptruf'k tui: 8D again by
the total and complet wNnghe:dedness of .\rislCtle'l ideas. A
nOled earlier. Aristvtle held that all matl.r composed of
spit, form, and quahties, the qualitles being air, carU, re,
aDd water. Kuhn wondered hlw such a brillinlit and deer
tllinker, a man who had single-handedly ill\cnted tl18 dtduc:1ve
lOOtbod, could ha"e betn so faily "rf)ng about sv man) tmngs
i:wohg the nature of the phical world. Then, W Kuhn r
(ount. it. one h.t 5Umtntr day the answer CLme to h:m in a fash
\\blle he was voring o,'er anCient text.q in !e IIbrl_f' Llok at the
uniyerse through Aristotle's Eyeal Instead of lryLDg to squeze
Aristotle's view of things int J a modern frameo:k of atoDS,
molecules, c,uantum len!s, and so fortb, put your. (lf Ln Aris
totles po5rtlon, giye yonrself the pre"ailing w(lrld vitw of Aris
totle's time, and 10 and behold, all \\ill be light. For ins!nce, if
,vou adopt AristoUe's world view, one of the presuppositions
thaletery body seeks the location \,'here by its natur it belongs-
With this presumption, wbat could be more natural than lo
U\u o( material bodies as baving spirits. so that heayenly
bodies of airlike quality ri"e, while tLe sJ.lirit of "enrthly" bodies
causes them to fallf
^ 1 W O L J I

f CUKf 1 . 4 2 mogmM Q 'g= @'

Th stroke of inspiraton rut u Kuhn's de.eloping ile
idea. that every scientist works wU a distinctive paradig, a
kd of itlletal gestalt that colors the way 1atuze u per
ceived. Tbe situation is vagely analogous to the picture in Fig
u 1.4, bere one way of lookllg showwhat appear t b two
men fae face m profe, while another way shows a fower
v e,
Acordng 1.ubn's thesis as presented in menormollSiy in
lcenti:] 1&2 book Jc Sttre oJS:'er R<lvttom, scien
tst, just like tbe rest of huanit, eany (Ilt their daylo-day
a:f u. "Ii a f&amework of presuppositons about what COD
sttutes a problem, a soluton, and a method. Such a backgr(und
of s assumptions makes up a paradigm, and at any gilen
time a partcuar scientic community will hal'e a prevailing
paradigm that shapes and direct work 1 the feld. Since people
become so attched their paradigms, Kuhn c!a:L8 tht scie
tc reloJutios mvoIe bloodshed on the same order of magni
tude a that commonly seen in politcal t"'lutionsq the only
difrence being that the bloot u now iDIllectual rather than
liquid-but no less reall 1 both eases the argument is that the
underlyin issues are not ration3 but emotional, and rre slttled
not by Jogic, syllogisms, and appeals t reason, but by irration
ton like group afliation and majority or "mol" rule. As
Kuhn Elates it: "Tue is no standard higber than the assent of
l A I I , H O P E , A N D A S P E R I T Y
the relevant communit.y. The transfer of allegiance from one
paradigm to another is n eou"ersiol cxpcrccc tbnl (,8nnot b
forced= Witb these ideas in mind, jut what constitutes a para
digm anyway, aUeast as th@t tetm is used by Kub ,!bc nswer
! not easy, and Kuhn btt come in ft"r plenty of cnticlsm

the
vagueness of the notion. But the basic concept cal o mnqe clear
by !Le following map-making analogy.
Let's imagine scientfc knowledge of the world B ooing the
tera incogita fJf the ancient geographcrs Bud map makers. In
tbis context, a paradigm can he thought of B a crude sort vf
map u whicb territorie are outlined, but not too accurately,
with only major landmarks like large rivers, prominent moun
tains and the like aQpearing From time m tim, explurers ven
t.ure nto this ill-defed territory and cOme back with accounts
of native villages, desert reons, minor ri"ers, and so IJ
_
Owhich
are tben dutifully entered on the map. Ofn such 1 mforma
tion i s inconsi stent with wLal was reported from carl:( Hpedi
ti01, 50 it's griodically necessary to redraw tho map totally
aCCvrdalce lth the current best ttimate of bow Uungs .t.1lld U
the unkow t.=ritory Furthermore, there is not just one map
maker but many, each with B <rent sat of sourccslind dnta. on
the lie of the Ind. As a result there are a numbr of competing
maps o! tbe aame regot. and LiLe adveoturous cpor: U65 to
make W cboiC .,f wru:h map he will helievp bftrO mbarlrilg
upon an expediton to C: "Ncw World." Generally, the explore
.
r
will choose the old, relable firm of map makers, ut least until
gosip and reports from the Explore3 Society show too nlany
d\screpancies beheen the staudard mnps and what hi. actually
heen obserred
_
A these discrepancies accumulate, c"<nluaJly the
cxpIorcrs sh:11 their alleginnce to new lrn, of map makers
whose pictures of the terr\tory seem more in I.uc with the re
ports of the returng ad'enturers.
.
'bis exploration fable ghes fair pjctu 1 th hut lind
death of a scientifie paradigm= Kuhn rea.ized Uat revolulJonary
vnacges r sciencc o\ertul'!ing old !heor\es a:-' Dot ii: iact te
Donnal process of science, nor d theor\es slart :mall and ZTOW
mo:e and more general as claimed by Bacon, tlor ea l they e"er
b axiomatized 8 asserted by Newton Rather, for llI"st :cien
tists major parad]gs are like a par ^1 spe tz tI:s! they put
on in order to socpuzzl. Occasionaly a parcdig sm:tkes

P A R A D I G M S L O S T
Q1acB WU8D 1UB BQc1ac1 @8\ 5Da5U80, aD0 1U8 1D6D Qu1 oD8
D8W Q81T that 1TaD51otDS 881\U1Dg 1D1oD8W5Da]8S, su, aDd
co1o1S. LDc U8D11 1a1Q1ac8, a D8Wg8D81a1oD o 5c18D\151S
u U1ougU1 uQ W8a11Dg 1U8 DW g1a5585 aD0 acc8QODg 1b8 D8W
N51oD o `11u1U. UTou@D 1D858 D8W g|, 5c18D1151S 588 a
WDo18 D8W 581 o QUZZ1e5 ID U8 5o1V80 1D 1b8 Q1O o ca11j1Dg
OU\ WUa1 YUUD ca1180 mmlc.
UBQa1a01@5 DaV8 gT881 Q1acDca1 Va1U8o1 8 5c18D1151u51
MDaQ5U8VB Va1UBo1 1U8B1Q1o181: 1\Uou1 1D8D D0oD8Wou10
$oW )7D8I8 1o 1uoK oI UoW 1O Q1aD aD 8XQ8T1m8D1 (81Qe01DoD]
aD0 Co118cI *.. 1 oD8TVaOoD Ut1DgS oU1 the c1uc1a Qo1D1
LUa1 I18I8 i Do 5ucD \U1D@ aS aD '`8DQ111ca1 o0581Na\1oD o1
ac1 WB a1WaS 58B Ug 1D\e1e1auoD, BD0 1U8 1D\e1Q18\a11oD V8
uS8 @1VeD Ug 1U8 QI8V8111g Qa1a01gD o 1D8DoD8D1. 1D oIP^1
WoI05, \U8 oD817a110D8 al0 8XQ611D8D\5 0 5c18Dc8 a1'8 Da08 oD
8 1a1S o 1U8oI185 aD0 UQu1U coD18180 W11U1D \D8 Q1e-
Va111Dg Qa1a01gD. 5 1D51e1D Qu1 11, D8 \D8ol` [18a0 Qa1a-
d] \8115 ]ou Da1 you caD o058178. cco101Dg 1o uUD5
QaWu1gDaOc 8W o 5c18D1c ac11V11, !U8 oU o Do1Da sci
8Dc< U 1u in the gaQ5 in the DaQ g18D Uj 8 cu1181\1 Qa1a-
0IgD, aD0 11'a oD1j 5810oD, 8

D0 wh g1.a1 01cu1\, 1Dat \D8

DaQ gn1S Te0aWD WD8D the Do1Da1 Bc18DOS\S [81QO181S] \uI
DQ 8o DUcU 0a18 Do1 1Og 1D1O !U8 o10 D8Q a1\D8 | U8g1D5
1O co11aQ5e D\u a Do1855 o1DcoD5151eDc185. 1u1 WDa1 DaQQ8D3
0U11Dg \U85B OD85 o Qa1a01@ cT1S15T
1Dag1DB =B 8 a1 1U8 UU5\ago* o 5ucD a cI1515, =D818 1D8
o10 Qa1801gD caD1acc0Ul1 o1 c811a1D 8oDa1188, 811aDg8 oU581-
VaOoD5, aD0 1U8 11K8. Wo D8W \U8oI1e8 8D81g8, VD:cD o1 01-
8IeD\ 81QaDaOoW oT 1De58 a0c11a\1oDS. D858 1D8o11e5
I6Q18. 58D1 0U18D1 ag oI 58Uo5Q8c1ac185, 1.8., 01I8D\ 1801-
11e5. 1c1 a ]81o0 o coDQ8tI11oD oD8 o 1D8S \D8oT168 08g105
1o gain 1U8 acc8QtDcB o \U8 5c18D11c coDDUD11j.J 18a6oD5
my Do1 b oU_8c\1V8 a1 8 Uu1Dag 18Vo1V8 aUou\ Dat1615 11K8
81DQ11c11, 818@aDc, 1D8 5oc1a!Qo5111oD o LU8 tU6o15 a0D818D\5,
goYeT8D1 5c18Dc8 Qu11c1e5 aD0 5o o1lU. U15 5uQQo1\ !8a05 1o
8X01I8D\5 \Da1 \D8D 'co11o0010tc !D8 \D8oI, aDd t1e D018
8"18Dc8 1bB1accu Du1at85, 1D8 Do18 5uQQo1\815 \D8 \D8o1y ga1:-
et5, 8SQ8c1a11j aIoDg 1D8 jouDg u1K 5 1D 1U8 5c18D\1c coDmu-
Ity, ooD '18alI U8g1DS to 18K8 oD \U8 !ooK o \D8 D8
1U8o1j, aD0 5c1U\11 um<z8!!y bg1D 1o 588 aD0 test 1o1 c81-
toU8a1uTBB o 1DU 188!11 aD0 1gDo18 o1U815.
Ju1VDa1U 8 coDDDlt} D80 gV8D 1\S1D1!1a1 5uQQo1\ l0 \D=
f A I T H , H O P E .
l
N D A S P E R I T Y
o\D81, coDQ8\1Dg 1U8o1gT cco101Dg t YUDD, 1D tba\88Dt

8-
8u!y' Wou10 DaV !2K8D a Qu1\ 01R81B

1 1u1D, a10 !D0 sCle

tl.c
V18W o \D8 Wo10 Wou10 Da8 b8D 588D tD1ougD 1Dat QaH o1
5j6cWc!85 1a!D81 1DaD 1D8 t. 8aD5 \b81 \Dc1B uDo5Uc1

\D1Dg B8 5c18D11Dc 'Q1og1S a118a51 D01 1D lD8 s-me\Dal

oD8
Qa1a01gm UI11105 uQ0D\SQ1808c 8S5o1. 1a\D81, 1U8 uew Q81a0\@)
\u1D5 1D aD 8Dt1181 d 18D1 0118cl1oD, aDd Du' Y.:o180g8
15 1o5\ V7\U 1U8 aUaD0oD)8D1 o 1D8 o10 Qa1at1gD 1 gained
1om tD8 D8V. ^oW V8 'DoW a dQrrtot uD1V8IS8.
1 uDD5 1Ucu 1S 1118, thfD 11 a5o 0110]5 o0e O 1D8 Da1D
|11aT5 o 1D8 5c18D1IDc D81u0 51DcB 1D8 VDf18 108a oa 5c18D-
1Uc8XQ8t1D8D11\5 QoD 1D8 5uDQ11oD 1Da\ 1D* u81V81 caD
D8 eeDtially 58Qa1B\e 1oD 1D8 81Q8I1D8D1a1 aQQa1atu8 1Ua1
\85\5 \D8 \D8u1. uDD ''Dtends !Dat 1D8 oD88t6. bu tD8oI
aDd DIS 8Qu1QD8D1 arc a e558)11a1 aD 8XQ1851oD u a Qo1D\ o
V8V, aD0 1U8 185u1\5 o\D8 81Q811D8D121 \8:1 u5\ b aDmQ185-
510D (,f 1Da\ Q0 U\ oIV18V a5 V8!. D1S Qo61l10D eftctilely
81\5 thal lcience 15 not uU]8c!V8. Du\ 8\ !nc58m8 11P^ W8 RD0
1ba! 5c18Dc8 15 not 1o11j 5uU8c\1\881tU81, 51D08 ptrAdigms a18
8VD\ua! o'erthr.wo, o wtre Uac- 1o cor,id!:d.I'u. o IJ-
c8u\18! QueS\1oD: Uat 15 1D8 181a!1oD5D1Q o the 5018UIY\ 1o lD8
uD18t58 D8 oU581=1
The Do51 18Vo1u!1oDa1g a5Q8c1 o YUDD5 0a1m5 V 1Da\ 1D8
8D\I181] oD1\ Ug 1K8 KDoV180g8, 11H1D, aDC 8XU1t:a! 18a111.
In 1a0l, UUD 51z\Q \Da1 n 5c18Dc8 \1.!1D 15 8D tDtL61 OQ\1DDu1
a0 gta\u11ou5 coDc8Q1. ^ D8 Qul5 1\, '0t5 1\ 180j D81Q 1o
U agIn8 \Da1 \D818 1S 5oD8 ou u, ttU8

1Y

, \1L
.
DccouD1

Da\ut8 aD0 Da\ tD8 Q1oQ81 mta5ute o 5c\D\Uc acU!6V8m8D\ J

\D88XbD\ 1o VD1cD 1\ U17gS OS co581 to b8! utUD818 goa!1 I
UDo5t ,r. cticing 5c18D\15t5 Vou10 5a \Datyet. uc. a 001\8
relp! a hell oa 0t' u\aQQ816Dlj uhD dcen'tn .so,51CC8
D8 8075 \Da\ 1D818`5Do ay o1 5c16Dc8 \o g81D00 o tD8 ' t:u\D
cV8

, 5o ou caD'\ mlasure 5c18D\1bc Q10gI85 5 g8111Dg

c1er \o the wav Ung a18 1D \D8DS81\85. V^turD|y 1o 1D8
mapcmakiog -o,iuho's c!aun IS ta::tamouD1 t iD8 06118
!ha! D7 onl. a18 tDz18 maDj mep mak8, 68cD empbasizing d
818D\a8Q8\So the \8rr1\oj, Du\ 1D1 it u1I:QtI0:Q18 IDQC551-
b!8 8\1 1OQ1oduc8 acoD)18\6 D0Q o1 \D8 entire I80D. o ~.
Cfn't judge a D8Q Uy DoW c1o58 11 coD85 to !!15 d-n\ 1la\onc
DaQ, 5IDc8 5uch a map i Dt6ta\I uDC1a\ab18. JD80m?aj5 \DU
11D of argument V 18D1D15c8D\ o 11\g8 I5\81\15 c'au \Da! !ei-
|
I
I

P A R A O I C . S L OS T
guage canDot describe the intrinsic logical structUre of the
world.
Just likl the revolutions they describe, Kuhn's arguments
'ere tet with ferce opposition from the philosophical commu
oity, although be was a minor saint to humanists since be
1ered to b putting the human being back into the scientific
enoorprise. One of Kuhn's oua t critics has been the pbil;S(r
pher Dudley Shapere, who complained that Kuhn was a relati"
vt denying the objectivity IDd rationality of seier.ce. Sbapere
felt that science according to Kuhn is noting more thau a series
of fads dressed up to look presentable, and ofred tb, couo
rargent t even tougb we may be wearing rosl-eolored
glass. ^:c'Sstill a lot that sb. es through unafcted. The \ui
L may b skewed, but other qualities like shape, size, and lex
tuI come through loud and clear. In short, the glasses may
distort our view of reality but they don't create i-a staunch
realist position.
Another criticmm of Kuhn's ideas is that he places too little
emphasis upon the social determinants of scientifc revolutions.
On thc one hand. Kuhn argue that a paradigm shiit bkes place
whcn there's B accumulation of anomalies; on the olber hand,
he says an anomaly ean b ignored to preserve the paradigm.
Question: 2twhal point does a of discrepancies becemeir
ritting enou,;b to bring about a pa:radigm shUt' Kuhn ofrs
,ittle help in addressing ths dilemma.
While Kuhn denies the labl o an "irldtionalist," he does as
sert that there are no methods 0: :-:tbodoiotical rules for creat
ing or evaluating scientic theories. His argument u that only
propagandizing plays a role in cbanging allegiances frol one
paradigm to anot.her. Wat nM8s reasons for theory (hange
"good" is that they are gtnerally accepted by the community,
and U you want tl) he a member 0J that community it beboo.es
you to operate within the framework of this syslEm of reasons.
^ an immediate consequence, we fd Kuhn's statement that
r..al paradigms cannot really be compared, although he does
ofr what we migbt term a Fh'efold Way for characteruing the
featurs of a good theory. Kuhn's w:. y consists of the following
point.: stating thr.t a good throry must be
ccvrete: CODSEquence of the tbeory should bc in agreement
mt experiment.
f A I T H , H O P E . A N D A S P E R I T Y
hl The theo:-y Should contain DC. internal ccntra+e.
tious and, moreover, it should be cnsistent U currently ac
cepted theories applicable to related aspect If ature.
1m4 The seop of the theory's consequences hc:ld extend
yond tbe particular ob:rvati(D, laws, UISlIbt.heories that it
created 0 exp(ain.
imh: It should bring order to phenomena al \vilhout it
would P :ndivdual1y isolated.
1Y:lhI: Th" theory sbould disclose new pheuomenn or pre',,
(I"slY ulIbsen-ed n:lat:::mships.
)ubusclaim is that these criteria ofer \bc shared basis for the
ory choice, but tbat there is no possible e of "'r,g a justif
cation for this selection of criteria.
.
'o compare Kuhn ,nth FyerabeDd. Ku.hn sayS thre c
-:Ies (the Fh'cfold Way) for theory choicp. but thit'application
may be problematic and they Cnnot b given ol1j<cth'e justifca
tivl. Feretabend sa.\s there are O0 rules hafsr

but, like
Ruhn, rests much of his casp on the existellee of 1Olllmensur&
ble theories.
We cau also compare uD mth Popper and I'atO$ by not
ing that, roughly speaking,
Paradigm " Hrd core = Positi'e heuristic
enabling us to conned Lakatos's SRPs to ile ntcm of a para
digm. & far as Poppet u concerned, m central tileres of con-
jecture, test, refutation, are also pr6ent in 1:hn'S world, but
only during the course of practicing norm;l science. Popper's
contention that there u 1 rationale for the intcooudion of net
conjectures in science, but only for the fxpos1rr of such conjeC'
tures I0 falsifying testsg is ba!ically si!ar ti Kuhtl's ) thal
Ihre \ D rati?nale for the nttoductc of a ne\" aruq_ buf
only for the attempt V "articulate" t parad_ and make .it
deal successfully 'ith anomalies. The poi"lt oi din:rgencc be
;veen )u)q and Popper arises when it eomt5 Uo to shit from
one p:radigm to aother- Popper beli\'es lhis u11 d should
(and i s) done rationally, logically, znd U litl1 fuf>; Kthn
sa.,! thiS method may be fne in the astrld, but rel science
just doesn't tork that way.
YuKuhn we !aye come t? the end cf tie \inc far A con
temporary news on the ways !cience oprates bH til form and
. ..
W
l

: P , . K A L l L m b L L 1
t vaDd8\ 1tS 1cV of tDc Vo1d. Sice tD8 QatD tom :ttgcD
8t81D t 1uDD D b8D a complicated -oD8 b8d with lol. of
8V1tcDDacK8 aDd 8l1aDgc caDd8tDg8, :D tD8[ut secUoD 1'\ t1]
t Summa1:Z8 tDc comQ81Dg QoS:t:oD8 B eJ 6 b18y t8cx:U-
D ou1 omgDa gu8t:oD: How >8 18 8c18DDc 18a:t]T
TEIIO8OTMIC!L 8TF.'IBO
bcDcmDA1XDg uQoD Ub\=ud Iou1 of twenti"t-eutnry
Qb1os1Qb_ o18c:8Dcc,ou poit of departure VB U6]\0:8 tD8
to basic 1S8uc8: h8t 1S the coDD8cUoD t?88D ScI8D!\c thco-
188 (8Duag8} and obje<tive 1ca:t] aDd do8S 8c8Dcc h< Y 8 any
:g8cial 8oJ .p1odure o1m8tDod8 o1 8:th81 g8u1tg AtW
tDco1:c8 or c\8t.::g comQ8UDg onesT ot8 again here \u8 u
portant Qo.ot tbf Wh8D we :u8 te I method :D t Settng,
Vc'18 referring to me\Do toI g8D81at1Dg tb8ot:88 and Dot t.o
tDc more common coDt o tbc '8c:8DUc mctDod 8 coD-
8t:tut:Dg tDc Qot8Dl:a] iA1:l8 S8Qu8Dc8 hypothesis - 8XQct1-
L8Dt h]go\Dc&18
:
. . D8 Qu8S!:oD8 I8d uS to d::dc Dc!8
OD tD8 Dalu1c of 18zI:t] 1DU tD18c categ1r::
&alim " Ubj8Cvo rat 8X88.
Iflnmenlalum " R8\:ty utb8 18ad1DgS nod oD D1Pa8utIDg
I8tum8DtS.
&latiwm * lly is what \D8 cOlunity 88)8 U m.
'c Ao SaV tDat b188 B lo VD8tD81 oI Dot tu818'8 m8thod
1 Dtbc madu8 o Sc:8Dc8 d8tctm1D8 oD8'8 Qo:l:oD B a t8t0Da\
1St O1 an :ttnl:oDa\:St, V:lD 1aDoDMt8 belierng 1D m8tDod, :t
1at:oD8118lS not. b8 V11oDS philosophers and phil,,oph:c31
SchooS looK dm e)g V8VS oD \DcS8 ma\!8", aDd 1o 8XQouDd
tD8m ocupied a\otmo18 t:L8 and SQac8 t l'd :Dt8Ddd Dut
D8cc88a1:\] 8o. CoD3equently, bfore going oD to coDS:d8" Vh8t
tD8 Qrac'1c:Dg Sc:8DUStS thmse\v%, 8 well as competing Id8o\o-
gI0S, hav8 to !ay aDout tDcS8 maU1S 1 havc tied to 8Dmm8tIZ8
lD8Stot] So 18t :D r.b\8 J.7. f8 \u8 \aD!8 SDo6 tDc ov8r0e\m-
Dg con\us:o the p]uSoQD8) i that,as Einstein sa:d, "It's
all zt\ut:c.' ut=c8aV earlier that" t8Doutof e!e.en 8\81yday
JD]S:c8\8 8uQQo1t8d thc :d8ao1an objectve reality 'out there"
th3t th8ir 8Qu8t:oDS =818 dcSc1:Dg. o addIcS8 this paradox,
1et'8Qu1cY1]bear 1omtDc l811atory instead o1 tD8 :1otj to8t
_ WW
l A l T M , M L F L , A N L A b F t K l Y 4,
AKLL^|I1
,,,
LMLL KLALIIX LU t1ML
Wittgenswn rlism ration.d ist
Wit/ gentHein 1 relatiri!m
'
lD1w 51\115tS it.r6menlalism
Popper r6m
Latos nlatm
I
Fterabnd (latWm
:elati,ism Kuhn
irrltio:.lit
ralioDlist
raUonalit
rationalnt
irrationamt
ratiollisl
!&rtguag8 UW
verifcation
yr:Dc:gI8
fau\bcat:oD
'D'tho! goes"
varadigm
TA8 1 . J ;
'
, 0cII c!thep1iwop1e- kia;
and :8ten to VDat the player,' athct tDaD the Moud3Y mo1D:D
Quatt8tDa0Y8 b8=8 toSa)abou\ h8 WDo\8 buS1Dc.
In 1979 U8 Institute for /dVa \:"ciJ Iud) :D P:-inceton held a
c8l8bral:on toDoDot \h8 oD8 hundr8ut: :m.iensr' of Ibe birth
o1 !inst8in, the in8titut8'8 6"t aDd mcS\ ,'f}ebTal! d idnt g8
IDs.o plan for t:li s c8\8b:a:ot., a committCY N fo1lled a t. the
institute to attang8 a progra aDd w,i,le 8holars iror; around
tD8 WotJd to participate, Just as C,88ar d\d8d .Il Uau\ :Dto
tDI88 Qa1t8, hc1Acom1tt88 d8cd8d t "rganL:\' lDcssu
08L'D1a\ Sm:\8rly, 1u8:Dg oD J:DSt8:n'8 s:ienct', the histori
gcu<S:8 o1 m :dca8, and, falj, tD8 pDilOlophiCl upact of
his Wo1k, A Dyson teUs :l, tDP cm'.lPc 8ol:C1ted
names ann put tog8th8t I\StSo8cDo\8tS Vb0::ou\t: l :v:zo in
t3eh of th8 Iat8c areas, The comm:tte8 < pvI8>oa\1V c
qua:nled U z\moSl 81`8t)o1r8 on the Jist o1 c:tDt l 3 lO tD8
h:lotaDS, tD8 commPt88 d:dut know Orem ptl' Mnal!y but at
\8zSl had D88td o1 mcSl of \b8m and k.nl o1 I1 =crk. 1ut
he\l it 0&m8 lthe phiiusophers of Sc:8n08, `ysoD:elU:rks that
tbecommittee tras not only uD8mtu8t \h \bem tJona), bUt
had D8V8I in'en heard the names o1IDo8l of t!.8m! Mo.-c than any
abstract 8tgumD| cou\d e'er hope ti1 5ho, lJ1:. li llle podc
coB\8)8 th818\81otcontact btween the actmti88 o \D0 Vo1HDg
scienti.t and \b8 81gum8Dt8 o1 the pbiltopher: It :S 8xactly
ze:o! In Dyson's Votd8, 'h8t8
:
S whole cu\u18 oC pililosopby
I therl SomeDe18 VU VD:cD V8 havc D1 coutacts :t all, ~ ,
'
there's t88U) little contact t\"een whal V8 c8!1 8:^.::c8 aDd
VD8l these philo.sophers o18c:8Dc8 a18 doing-whale,er that 1S.'
L]SoD'8 obsen-ation Sc188 to uDtav8\ th8 contrauictilu noted
\
*f
'
?`

.1

|
rL

l

.
L
" "

5 l O S T
< moment ago between U beliefs of scientiSts and those of phi
lo&pJers . J far as most pra,eneing scientist 3te (.Dcered,
there's noting more dangerous than W philosopher in the grip of
a toory. fact, there appears u b someUg of tiD u
quited 101e a ir bhl-een te scientsts and philosophers, in
which the scientsts by kDd large spend their days ignoring the
attempt by the philosopbers t press their attentions upon
them. A an indicai.or of the state of , the physicist Mur
ray 6eH-Mann at aU tmes carries with m a dotor's prescrip
tion forbidding | u argue with philosopher on the grounds
Vt it could be dangeroU U bubeaItL!
, So we cOme t te perhaps Dot so surprising conclusion that U
you want to ko ahout how scientst reay U and work,
you'll get no help from a philosopher of science. However, U
your concer go byond what scientsts do and encompass the
broader issues of the t:p[w of what 0eydo and it relation.
srup to other kowledge- generating mechanisms, then, as noted
before, a consideration o matters philosopbical is una,oid:.ble.
Most of our stnnes in this volume celter upon what SCiEDt
:re tcaJy doing, but mccone of them there is a strong under
current of philosopbical preSuppositon conditing te inter
pretation of te result.,. The reader should try to keep thee
deeper issues U mind M go IlCDg, B a goJide to eTaluatilig
the myriai competing argument.
While philosophical factor probably an bonored more the
breach than ute practce of sciece, sociologictl pressures are
another matter, Science : not yet done by impersonal, uni
Vo!cd machines, but by real, live, tn g and feeling hwuan
beings, and it's impossible f'>r this act not to have ome impact
upon the way science proete m its conclusions abOut the \@\
the Dcze functons, Lt's 3 few pae-es t: con.<ider :t-
socioJ"gy of science rathel\ th.:n !& philosophy, as . nother 3,e
nue to walk down on OUI w:y to leuing ab.ut the way science
come. to what it sees as "truth."
+L OV JO SLJC!DS
Ludvig Boltzmann and Paul KM erer were both professors at
u: e Univer!it of Vienna in the early ]8TI of Ucentury; they
were both popular with their students and held in great esteem
W
F A I T H , H O P E , A M L A r t ` l Y ^V
.
b their colleagues; othey both committed su1id. c per
haps e:heme in the outcome, these Iwo 1S`E uarples
of one aspect "f the way scientifc truth i s determined at least as
much by the social climate of the tie$ W by the e::u-of
reason and logic a10ge!
BoHzmaD, a physicisl, is perhaps bEst remrmbered for
work in thermodjamics and the Onne.:tioos he diseol"ered b
tween the theory of heal and the more genera} issues of random
ness and order, He is today credited -I !aving itrodued the
noton o.f clroyy as a meaure of the duo*dcr p..sent m a col
lection of objects sort, 6D idea that b!ci sfnd B the
basis for the theory of information, whieh tued out to be so

crucial to the de.elopment of modern commlll icatiol technol

ogy. ln fact the formula S^ k log W, expressinG th entropy
as being,proportional to the log..itbm of T te Dumbr of ]o-
S\b\c !tates that a $ysi. m C BUE i engrl.'ed 0D Boltz
man's tombstone ' in Vienna's ZeDtralfriedhc>f. a ftting
memorial m Ue importance of this fundam.olal idea. I n thj
exprasion, the constant of proportiocality 1S evD today
termed BolkrfM c0mUL in recognition of Uu masnicent
achieveme:t. But at the time he was carrying out Uup:onee1
ing work, the achievement was anythng but maeeut, 81 1e1
M one was uunt the leading scientists of U= a]-
Boltzmann's problem was that his Uco:) of hpal n1Icd an
assemblage of atums moving according tA the us'al rules of
NelOtoruan meehanies. He used this con\:ept \an atoru a par
licle of mtr t9 construct m theory of heat a statisti.al
property emerging out of the 0,era1l m0tt0: o! thcsl ato. -
:Xoti that this idea was put frth around !I. tUI. of Lc cen
tury, !t-al years bfore the work of 1ctU\:IDc1c:0. J. J.
h:m.:i, and :iels Bohr gave tLe conrepl c # 3t,'m :: mod
1 0.. 3S a r(sult of m atovIic !ptl'uiati.-us. Bol:zmaon
came j :!to hcat<d confict . ith Sinral of tje gilnt rf tc scin
!:bc cQmmunitv, most Dow.bly l:is in1$e clilleaguE Ernst
Ma('h :: the <ecma: rhysical chemist dvLn Ost-l:i. who
arguid torcefully against :hc idea of tbe alom, O$lmld, :n par
Ucul<. preferred B theory of be"t llased upon !b :lotio: Ot en
ergy :ather thac matter. Depressed by th acr.t::ouy c1 U
oppos:::on, as "ell as his failing eyesight and \voaI ue tL

_ht of
a U CdiDe of his meDl facultis, Boltzmann 1UOY h life in
Duino. Italy, on Setember 50b
:

|
\
F A K A L L N b L L > - 5D
Tragieally, Bolmann'! suicide K place almost eotenni-
nously with the work by Thomson and Rutherford in Britain
that wouJd lead to a eomplet" v.dctOD of his ideM. So here
we bae a textiok illustration of h09 the social climate of the
cientiie communit, as well as te inBuence of two great men,
acted 1delay introduction of what ended up being a lDajor con
tribution to Ollr way of tg about the way the world works.
Now let's moye the clock forward almost exacUy twent rears
and examine the ease of anolber Viennese professor M . ta-
tOll of how hese sam3 social forces CO work u rid .science f
equally eonl:oversial, but U Ue e.oneous] ideas.
Paul Kammerer was a professor of biology at the University
of Vienna in the 19205. Accounts cIcmtb'ith an almost mag
1m s at breeding amphibians and other q of acimals.
They ao note tat be was an ardent soci&iist and crusader for
the politcal causes of what today we would tr the liberal left.
Gi'en this combination of scie:tc and politiCl leanings, it's
perbaps not surprising that Kammerer supported the idt1 that
acquired tharateristic can be pass on to ofprmg, i.e., !-
marckian inheritance. For iG:ologues bnt upon improving the
hum3= y the jdea that bavioral traits like learning, sttru
ism, d the like can b acqd bolds great appeal. So 1t was
for Kammerer, too, and be set out to prove the idfa with his nuw
infamous experiment on the midwifO toads_
Gtneraly these loads breed on land_ with the male lackng the
sailed nupal p2cb of the male membrs of oter species of
tonds that breed in the water. 'These pads ue rough patcbe on
the hands of the Da that he uses to grab on to the back (f the
slippery female durig the course of matng in water. Kam
merer's experimflnt invoted foIing the midwife load to breed
in water for se.eral generations, h claimed results being that
suob toads then developed the nuptal pads characteristic of
t{u :ahual!y walEr~breeding cousmS. : supporters of Ka=n
merlr focused upon this reriment as clearcut evidence for
l.3.; oppor.enls remained higbly doubtful and requested
a closer look at the e,';dence.
These experiment witb .be mdwife toad came under heavy
attack from natura\ts in both Europe aed 3ezcq, especially
U Balelon in England and Kingsley !oble u New York.
On a Tisit to Vienna in 1923, Batson saw Kammerer's last re-
I
|
A l 1 l , M L F L , A N L A > F L K l Y b
|
maining speeimen of a midmfe tlad with nuptial pads and later
asked to reexamine it in h own lab. Kammerer replied that it
could not b sentfr0m `ienne.At tbe same tim., N..ble was halo.
ing doubts aoout some of tbe pp *ticulsI of the physical slruc
ture of Kammerer's claied nuptial pads, and visitd Vienna in
1926 to examine the last specimen personally. u results, pub
lished later that year i nIure, claimed that the :u-c:lled pads
were nothing more than black markngs mad with India ink.
At the time of Noble's report, Kammerer was preparing to
lea.e Vienna for a po.'iion at Moscow University as head of a
new laboratory in Lamarkan biology. Noble's Aclttre artic1e
appeared on August T, 1926. In a letter of September Y` !0 the
So"et Academy of Sciences, Kammerer wrote at he had exam
iDd Noble's claims and found them to ~ totally accurate. He
went on to protest m ignorance of how the inking bad been
done, but acknowledged tbatb experimental conclusions about
Lamarcksm were baseleM. After witbdra'ting f!om the post i
- Ioscow, tbe letter concluded with the poignant slttcmenl '1 am
nQ in a position to endure ti-is wreekng (f my Iifs 'ork, and
Jhope that I 5b gther togeter enough Curagl and strength
I
to put an c:d of my Wt: cked life tomorrow." .nd, iu .act, dur
ing W = AW1te Wienerw.ld f nut day, Kan&rer $hot hUll
self in the head. 'fhwas another extreme exampln o scientiSc
peer-group pressure and its sometimes tragir e: ecl apon the
Ii.es of scientists de-iati ng from the group nonns. Only this
time t = pressure acted to discredt wrongresult ratl-r than to
S,lppress correet ones.
The tales of these two "ieune$e profesors s.c D undeT
score tbe :ometimcs dramatic inuence that the sN:ill compo
nent (f science plays in eslblisbing whnt taJ;e to be the
scientifc truth of the mOI:lcnt. These social clors operate
wtl the scientic community itself as well as in thc outside
world, shaping not only the way scieJtic actinty curied
0uI but also the mannor in wbich certain ideas, !iKe Boltz
mann's, are buried while other3 thri.e. One of tr.e pioneer in
sbdying these !ocial determinant, at least iidc science it
seU, u the sociologist of science Robert K. Merlon, who in
1942 identifed a smaU set of hat D lermlJ T character
u tbe scientific enterprise. Rougbly scg :a moderD
terms we (an ghe MertOl's Dt'rms as:
|
I
I
'|
|
I
'
I \
|

L
l

W
P A R A D I G M S l O S T "
Oignality: c18DOc tmu1\S 8oH1d 81Wa5 D8 o11g1Da, 1.8.,
DuY8, \ud185 \ba\ addDot1Dg p8V Lu b \1S a!T8ad KDoVD
DoI Qatt o 5c18Dcc.
Dtllmll: c18DO5t5 uDd8Ia6 1D8*t o1K 7lD OO Dot1\8
oLD8t 1aD 18 adBc8m8Dt o KoW8dg8. e] SDuud DaV8
OO 8T5oDa 8X85 to gT1Dd 1D8oaT a5 ID8 tou1!5 o1 1u811 Voz
go, aDd 18 5uou1d ua78 Do Q5cuo1og1ca comm1!D8Dt

o W
Q8T\1cH1at Qo1D\ o V8W. Te 1mQ815oD8 51]18 c mo5t 8c18D-
Uc commuD1c811oD5 15 a d1180\ coD58gu8Dc8 o U Dotm.
U'livenali'y: UaDdaIguD8Dt5 5uuud Dg1Y8D W81gD\$c-
C0Id1Dg \t1 181T IntrImIc m8T1U a1oD8 aDd 5uou1d Dot d8Q8Dd
uQoD teligious, 8o10J, 8\Du1c ot Q815oDa1 acLo15 5uttouDd1Dg
t!te 1D0191dHaW Vuo D8X8 tu8m. JD 5uo1\, 1u818 a18 OO 1\\1-
18_8d 5outc85 o5c18DOcXo`618dg8.
Splim: o 5c18DOc 5U1m8D5 o1 ac1 5uoH1d 018X8D oD
a1tu. J c1a1m5 5uuu!d 0 c8tc1u11) 8c1ut1D128do11D\ a1d a1-
gum8D!5 aDd 8Ito18 u 1act, 8Dd aD] 5ucu D15t8Y85 5uou1d D8
mad8 uD11c UD8d1at81. o Qut 1\ 51m, 5c18D!18L 5uou1d
\tu5\ Do oI.<, a\ 18aS\ Dot Vu8D 1\ como tO c1a1m5 o1 c1D\\Dc
\1u\u.
Tb!ic o eibil:ty: A 501=DOc 0W8dg8 Suoud Dc 188
B7D8 1o aDoD8. Tl, WuU o 1858aTcu aI8 Do\ LD8 Q1-
Y8t8 QTuQ8t_ o tD8 5c1eDO8| Du\BuD!1c yood5 Q8\shouI
b Um!!d 1D8d1a\81 to 1u8 coDmuD1t o 0218Dc8.
Du1D 185 attu8u8a1\odPDatAB 85 \oWu8Lu8totDo\eDgag1Dg
1D ca55Q8d mta t8588tcu 15 8c1=11108!} 8\u1ca1.
DoD8 1DNo19c =U 1D8 Wag 8c18DDc QTac\!c8 ctua!1]
VotX V1Dm8d1t8 1ccogD1Z8 !8\ tL858t85cT1Q\16L5 aI8 V-
o1a\8d 8V81 da o1 Lu8 W8X 1D Du!u ui8Dd Do\ 86,
\I1Va1
Wa5, 58T71Dg \u8 5m8 1o18 1DBc1rDc8 tua\ g8D8ta! 1aW 5818 o1
5oc18\ 8t 18ge. u8t85 Do!D1D@ a1\1cu1a11j d18\u11Dg aDou\
ts gaQ D81W88D 1u8o1g aDd Q1acOc8 uS\ 85 8 act tua\
uumaD D1Dg8 aa1X, to0 DaDE8, aDd dT1V8 \u811 ca1T 1a8\
snotIa1] D8W5 eIther.Da\i d15\uTD1D, \u 5om8aDjWa, 15
1Va\ aQ8a15 \o D8 aD 1DcT881Dg 1Dc1d8Dc8 o5ucu Y0!811uD5 o1
\u0 51T1\ o 5c18Dc8, a\ 18\ a5 1\5 8mDo80 1D \uP88 Do1D5.
u0u aD 1Dct8a58d ac8 o1 co1D8T cut!1Dg 1D 5c18Dc8 588DS 88]8-
c1a1 81d8D\ 1D \8 1aSt u8r.8d8 ot 6o, cty a1d8d 8Dd aD8\-
l8d D 5c18Dc8`5 1ru5\1aD Da1g81D 7\\u gU8tDm8D\ uDd1Dg
agrD01e5. 88It)8185S, 1u8 81Iou18D Do1m5at85t111 1D8 8Qo5 \o
f A I T H . H O P E . A N O A S P E R I T Y l
I
V\cu Lu8 comDuD1\ o1 5c18DI15! tuDct]D85 0d 1u1m 1u8
u8a1\ o1 th8 cod8 D WD1cu \D8 D8uaVot o1 mm! 5m81\15!S 15
udg8d D Lu81t 8815. Dd 1D 8Xac\ Uis Wa] ID8 uu1m5 m8K8
1b8tcoDt1DuL1oD \0Uea5c18D\151S U, Dc8 l- \<Ua\ 1u8
u1L1L1at81 coD8 to a8cct a5 1u8 Wa] b1DgS UlX. Bnl t858 18c
L0t8 WotK g 1H51d8 1D85c18D\Uc commuD1\ arcntitIb8 0D 5o-
c1a comQoD8Dt5 1D$u8Dc1Dg \u8 Wo1K o1 5c1vDc8 t 8qua1
1DQ0t1aDc8 818 1u8 o1C85 a8mg 5c18Dc8 11om \b8

ut1d8,e5-
8c1a1j 1D toda5 I:5-m8d1a~5a\utaLtd aDd c0D-u1DgTg
Vo11d.
1D D15 J9!Jt8t8 o1 1D8 D1oD add18, 1t8SD! F1chatd 1.
1XoD d80a18d \uat \D8 |8had coD8 o1 tu8 0ounr] ti Wag8
WaT oD caDcct, V1!u L8 '5aD8 KDd o1 coDc8Dt1at8d 8o1\ \Da1
511t \D8 a\om aud \ooJ DaD to \uc D . . . . u15 Q1u:::Dc8-
m8D\ 18d UaDaVa1aDcD8 o1 DoD] ouI1Dg1D\o U8 Pul.oD5 c8D-
c81 1858a1cu 1aDotatot185. and tc5u\80 DU\ 7D1j 1I\ a VaI uD
0aDc81 Du\ a15o 1D a \a1aDoD_ 1b8 vatIou5 reteatc|: csIabIsb-
m8D!5 oT a g8D8touB uuDKC1 \u0 18d81a1 ou :\ canet
Watcu85t D8 o \u8oo\5o1d11S 1D Dot o1 t858 n

ts W85
1111aL . 811u a]ouDg5KD68c18115\ at 1u8 Q1t.5t1g1ou5
1oaD-8tt811Dg J1YUtut8 ot \aDc8t eSeazcu 111 Now ot
L `t.
L1d \u8 D1gu~1Su * Qo1\1ca1 c11mL 5u1t6uDd\ug caDc<t
1858atcu aDd \u8 81T18D u\*S\1Dg aDd graDSmaD5D1j, D atcu
13 U81!1D aD8d fcz a bY8-j8aI 8d8ta 1N1cu g1aD\
1tum \u8D8I\caD LaDcc1 oc18tj \ou15u 13 8c:a! 1D\8t85t
1D 5<D g1a1B aDd 1mmuDo1c_j. 1D a1\1cu1a1, uBW81!1D 8

t
Iua\ u8 Wa5 oD 18 \1acK o1 d8V81og.Dg Qtoc8du*85 v!:cr6b] SAO
\t8aVd Djms \8uD18 cuuQ 0 t1aaD\d Uuu: 1cc11oD
uIDX1Dg !Da\ < \\8 8o18D18 QuD11c1\) Tv 81DuttIhe ce O1
a 181a\\181] oUcut8, Dut B D1\1ou5, ]ouDg reaen:cht, Stnn

t-
11D Qt858D!cd aD ou\1\Deo1u15Wo1X In Q1og1c55 t 0 5c:8DU8 WT1\~
0I5 coD1Dt1oD

u8 1u1!5 W818 Qtcu1cta018. a tuto1uUD

uPad11D8 \u8 L8X\daj m cw Yerk \`=m e-i-a ,LB 016~
COYT8T MT AD TRzN8PL. um 8I11DVa5 uD LU `0], OT 5o 1\
588mrd.
u1IDg L8 cou1T8o1LD8 D8t]8at. WDU8 L8
,
`1) \1a118d
tu8 couDt1j 1858Dt1Dg 58m1DatS aDd |

8c\u1cS o11

b. x01k

co1-
8agu85 V818 bd1Dg 1t 1Lc8a51Dg1] d1cu![ \o couhlm b te~
suIts by 1Dd88Dd8Dt 8X811D8Dt8. 1o 1act 0Y8D \01K015 1

l
'
I
--~~
+

F A K A I L m b L L b
UUD811D'8 oWU aD1atuIg a\oaD-18\\8I1Dg W818 uDaD8 \o
I81uuc8 ID8 Ca1D8d p1o@TO88 o the sp 1 y I18a18d 'uD-
merlin sk," 6a01Dg 1u a 8oWdoWI between Summerlin aod
`oaD-18\MTJDg1U`8c\o1 1. Robed. A. ood1Da1c Jv74. o
m Wag \o U at8U D88DDg, uDD811D u8d ou\ a bacX
8I- 8D aDd u]18dy 1DK= 1D 8oD8 d81K Qa1cb88 OD tb8
7D11e D1c8 8 W8B U11Dg1D_ a8 8Y1d8Dc8 o1 h ca. A! \8
11U8 uud 01dD'\ DOOc8 the SU erlin emblents, aDd 1\
#a8 oJg #8D the U1c< #818 18\UI8d tu U8 ab 015\OD\ 1Da\
M811D'8 '8' Y d1Y818. D8 18taD\ 1DD8d1at8]
1cuI\8 18 Da\t81 \o m 88 a\ WD1c Qo1Dt uDD81!JI was
1D8taD1gBDd8. D18 8 denyed aDy W1oDgdoDg, .a8881\-
Qg 1Da\h^m1D81D 1D8W@Ia 0D t8D1c<oD] to r: e
th8m more easily 1d8D11Dab8, U 81. '8 c18d1b111] VaS 8a\-
!61ed by I8 1Dc1d6D1 aoDg W1tD tD8 c18d1b1\g o m 8uQo88d
lqu, fo18KD u
1DIeIe8ODgly 8Doug te SU fIlin episode D818 8oD8
sDaug 8

Ia11t188 Uat oKamerer aud \D8 DdV18 \oad8,

0Doug W1Dou\ the 8aD8 \18g1c 8u1c1da 8Dd1Dg. D8 o1D\ in
raising 1D68 cases here 18 Do! 8o Duc \8 188u8 o Vb8tD81 o1
Do1 18MD8181 o1 cU m1$ Y really gU11g o Iaud, bu\
1a1D81 Io !u8Oa!e the d8gI60 \o MD1c o1C88 ouL1d6 !8 o1d
< Sc18Dcc, 1D U ca88 1D8 8081a 1Wb-Ud1Dg establish
cO aDd Qu^1c a\ ag8 coD1I1bu18 1o c18a11Dg a c1Da\8
!8\ mD d1118 8c18DO818 \0 D8Duacu18 aDdo1 artif.ially 8D-
L8Dc8 what they claim a18 ,te ac.' Bd mooey 18 Do\ Q8
0D Suc pIW'8. Jo1t1ca coD81de1a8 especially those 1D-
1o1DgWa\18o\8D161D8d 'UDaDDa\u18,' caD aDd doa] a
aDMt1

1o81D eocIDgwha\88cieDUca]'1_\.` good

1l811aOoD o U kd of v\ Wa8 18 coD1tu18) o118uc1a
1aI1D18D 1D !8 D\ bo1 ile 68D\uI],a d8batc au! 7D1c
V8 shbll ba11 DucLo18 !o 8a later when we coD8iC8I V D0d
<T \Dca..c:n. l!8 Socib1oog] JT0b8D. o U coDUX\, 1!
mr y 8Dbe 8ae\o8ag16\8 18a 1$Bu8 i \D8coDc\D\W88D
the DoTD8 o 8c8Dc6 a8 8X8D18d b] cIVD'8 18t, aDd the
'Do1U8oo1l1108 'ncoded i \e 1d8oog188 oc81\a: \1-
ca mO"ements [1D 18 ca88 o 8u01ob1oogj aJX1Bm).
The o18go1Dg 8\oI18S ba10j 8c1a\cD \8 8u1ac8 oI tD8 DaD]
#a]8 u WD1cb 8O1oog1ca coD81d81a1oD8 8a8 that 8018D08
U o a8 Da1D_ true, \b DaD] a Do18 d8\a18d accouD\8
Do\6d UDd81 'o 1JQe1' u UWouU8. 1o1 ou1 QuQ08m
l A 1 M , M L l | , A^L A 5 l t K ' 1 Y >>
|
D818, !8Da1D coD81d81a\1OD 18 1D8 DaDD81 1D ^v bcb !D8S8 8Oc1a
ac\018 1DDu8Dc8 I8way 8c18Dc8 1a!1da\88 1\$ c!a\m aUd cDD88
\o a coD58D8u8 oD a gw8D issut, ')88a1t of 1b8 dHn'uly 18 t)at
K0=cdg8 18 uDd81d8181Dd, u8 LO818 a18 always manj
d118D1 theorie, 8acb o 71cD caD _1V8 a plausible account o
!D8 aa1ab8 ac\S. o uW a18 V8 \o coo88 oD8 a1ld !8l 18 D!-
8M goT b^ La51c Q1ob6D u 8Dca8ua!8d 1D 1A8 1fHa1K o \8
QDu8tb8t 1ia1d aD L1DaD Qu1D8, Vbo Do!d !Da1 'aDg
8!a\6"8D\ coD b88d \1uc, cDH8 Vba\ Dag, u we maK8 d1S\1c
8Doug ad)u\m8D18 eue=bereD the 8]8\8m.' D8D8\B1a Qac8
\o DaX8 !D888 d1a8\1c adU8tD8DtS 1S1D 1D8 cu\u1a! bacKg10UDd
\o \8 Q1ob8D, 1D818bg c18a\1Dg a c1Da\8 1D 1l:I only on-o1
a\Do8\ a 8W o\D8 coDDd1Dg !8o1188 c8D sune. Agai, W8
see aDQ8 8V1d8Dc8 o UBDd o 'cu\u1a wlpria m" 1D
Uc 1ag1Dg8oc1ob1oogg dpbat ecrered in !48Q!81 b1.
A \o a111Ya a\ a coD88D8u8 \8 K8j 1actot u Ib Merlnian
DorD 18a\1Dg \o \8 ub1c character c! 8c18DI!.0 0Vcdg8.
8 1u8 \a\ 8018D\h0 1Do1ma\1oD 18 comlIIonicai"d 8IQHc1!]
aDd uD8Mb1guou8j 1Du8Dc6B oU t8 o1D 8Dd the cD\8OI oI
KDo78dg8 \a\ ab88d `8c1vDOc. 1oI 8XaDj!. O8 LD1D
go88 a oDg7a] !o=a1d accuu\1Dg o1 Vsb} c:o
l
>n;:lelll \erf
ca\1oD 1Do91Dg D8u\1a 1D8\IUD8D\a\1ou occuQ1t8 8ut a D-
oV8d Qo81!1oD m sci8Dce, a8 w8 a8 tD8 a! " alue 8\lc8 \o
quantitath-e obseratitm aDd 8X::88S1oD o 188U!`t Dna!hemat\-
ca1o1D

.! o \888 8a\u188 cuD\11bu\8 \o \D8QWL... acce881U1-

1\] o \8 1Do1Da\1oD aDd \D8 181uduc1b11\V u to 1c8u1S at
8a8\ 1D Q11Dc1Q8 LD8 D88d oD] considr other 6eltl 18 1\81a-
\u18 o1 tL8 a1tS, '7818 8uc a Do1D 15Do\ \0 noni 1O888 BoD8
o the 7a]8 1D 71cD 8c18DI1hc KDowl8dg8 d1I io 8tgD1caD\
a): 10D !868 o!D81 Corms of realih' :Q188
'
DUUuD.
b1D08 V8' sei maDy cO*1c18!8 istances o \L88 sOC\oOg1ca1
ac\018 eD\er1Dg into \e 8tot68 t!at o!o \810
'
5 \0 need \o
D8ab01 the poiDt818 1D!8ab8\1ac\. o1 Do, :!`So8nD8Wa\
Do18 1DI8188\ \o ooK a\ $oD o !8 knowletge-gtuerating 8-
13c88 \a\ DaK8 some prete1e \o a dgr8 ocrDttiC ca1aCU1,
1D1D81goa8 uDo\!D811D8\hud8.1\ l8 abo1ciOP83 Q1-
ud8,18 18ad818oud m1D b8\!81Qo8\1o^ \1d1> t:u|tb \DOs8
g1ouQ8 do1Dg Da\ 78 =oudDoV \e1nI 8c18D08 1oU those 1ac-
Oc1Dg a\ \D8 1JD_8.
"e D8gaD U caQtc1 W\b \8 dua 8\o1188 o Jocelrn 811
aDd 1DDaDu8 81o81

j, Dot1Dg tD81z Qo5!1om 0! 0QQO81!8

58
ends of te sp6Cirum of what's currently beld to b "good
cnce." We are 6!ally in a pon to gil'e "e long answer to
question posed earlier abut why Velikovsky's work has
relegated to the dustbin oC pseudoscicnt', while BeU'$ was
"arred with the Nobl Prize for physic \itougb not to her)
.
ON THE FkINGE OB AT THE CUTTI NG EDGE'
A editor of a scientiie jourl
.
I'm regularly faeed with the
unpleasant UK of telling potential contributors that Uleir p < :
pers are nol suitable for 'ublication-, Generally the reasons are
the usual ODes: trivial or nonexstent nsuit, poor writing, work
outide the scope of the joual, and so on. Rowel-er, OCCa!iOD
aUy I get a pa!"'!" that I dOD't even bther send out (or the
custom:.ry refereeing process, rejeeticg it out of haoJ. Such pa
plr8 are the bUle of the editor of almost e,cry scientife publica
tion, nod el'cry editor soon bcomes sensitizea to their trlltal
aroma of nonstnse masquerading as science. Since my own jour-
1o\vde'oted to mathc!atics, paper: of tbis S\r iend inyohe
such well-known impossibilities as squaring the circle, trisecting
an angle, and doubling the cub, although they 0 ionally ad
dls 1aDOU outtanding probltu lke Fermat's Lst Theorem
or the Riemann Hypotheis (in which ease I'm compelled to look
J them seriously, even thougb there's not yet ben ODe that
corret)_ Luckly for me, mathematcs is an area were it's dif
fcult to try to dress up such pseUdoscience in repectable clothes
aod nol bale it sbow. Certainly my colleagues in biololY, medi
cine, and the !cial sciences must hale it much worse in this rt
tard. But just what is it about Us kcd of paper that
immediately sumps it as pseudocience to the trainui (and jall!l
di.:ed) scientifc eye' To aD.'Wer this pu&ling query, le's brie5r
recall what's !een leared so far about the 3ctu&1 prnctice of
sciencc tn today's world_
Our delibrations up to nov
.
allow us to summaWI cl)mp3ctl
the p:cct as opposed to lhephilopJ.y oC science in the follo
inp two principles:
A. Thele is an ideology o1 science consisting oC a oyu`l:v st-
lur (f:c hypothesis - experiment - iaws - theory",
together with the processes oC veot:oa and _66f f616V
F A I T H , H O P E , A N D A S P [ R I T Y 57

B. Science is a roln.ctivitYr with Ue standards Cor what CQD-

stitutes good science determined by the n\ll- oC particular
community.
With these fact or modcr seiente life in mind, let me now
ofr a short chee or "sights and Bounds" (a.nd bmcUs) for
detecting pseudoscien. If you're reading paptr aud catch the
whf of even one of the items on this list, b U&lIred that the
author is dealing in puudoscieoee, at least by the sDdards pr
yailing today's world of science. or Us follo';n list I a
indebted to the outstanding work m c ~mo by Mi
cbael nnd Daisie Radner, to which I direct the reader's attention
for a far more extposivt . oCO.lnl of the whole cullure of pseudo
science and pseudoscientist.
HAL LMARKS OF PSE UO.OSCI E NO
.4ncu:hron;:c th:7ki7l.t: Cranks and pseuroscient&! ts often re
nrl to outmoded theories that were distTded b
.
r the scientific
comunity years, or e,er ccnturies, ago M ba: inade

uate_
This V in contrast to thl usual notion of craek}t Weones as
bing no\tj, original, (fat, daring, Jnd imagiuative. Good
8a]0S O1 1W kdc cxankume nre the-~:.-,
,
ho
link their objectons to e\olution to eataatrtpblsm, clag
that geological e\;denc! supports the cat.struphl( Tather than
uniformitarian view of the knd of geological activity they as
sociale V!b e\olution. The a:gwoeot i anaeh;-(wsti . insofar
8S it pellts the uniCormitarilnism-eat.utr"phi-m dicL,)tomy
as if it were stiU a live debate.
k:y =yIt=s: Scientists do not set out u: then 'ork t-
look for anomalie. Ia:: Planck nasn't 1okIt for t.r ou ble
when he carried out hu !"sdiation emi:sio ,L_ ^iment<; ant
Michelsoo and ltorley certainly were not x\): problems
when tbey de\;sed tbeir experiment to lest for the luminife
.
r
ous ether. Furthermore, sc!entists do nol rejert + theory ln
favor of another solely beC!Luse the new th{r lainS the
anomalous Nent. On the other band, there's ao cnliTp school o:
peudosdenca dpvoted to enigmas and mY!ttrl'" be lh
.
ey tbe
Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, yetis, spoutanel'us l:omnushoD, or
other e\en more ofeat phenomena. The basic rr_lliplo under
lying such searches seems to be that "there are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamt oC in rour philO!opby," cou-
G
i
I
P A R A D I G M S L O S T
,e!h"ol<gical principle tat anythiDg that M
to be $een a ODe.
mylJu: ofUO use the following patter of
romg: Utat with a mytfrom Bneieot times and take it as
an account of actual 0U O| devise a hypothesis that ex
plains the events by postulatng conditions that obtaioet at
that time but that no longer hold; consider the myth as prorid
ing evidence for support of the hypotheis; argue that the by
pothesu i c0rby the myth M 'ell a by geologicWl,
pAleontological. OI Rbologea1 evidence. This is a patter of
cicluar :reaOnlog that is absent from the blackboards and
laboratories of science.
d QuuI IPproach to vdr: Pseudoscieotisl ofteo bave the
tltitude that sheer quantty of evidence mae 'ip for IlIy -e
fcil'uCl in the quality of the individual piece:. Further,
pseuCu<cientists loath ever to weed out their evidence, and
Hen wh(u an experiment or study has n shown It b gus-
ti0Dable, )t u never dropped from the list of cong ed
dene.
1"",.flobk h:polh'Iu: 0in ] bypotilesis, we can alvays
what it would take to produce evidence against. it. If noth
ing onCivable eould speak against the hypothes, then it has
-c t b labled scientc. Pseudosei'cee is riddledwith
bypothses of this sort. The prime example of sueb a h_the
sis 5 ereaton; it's just plain not possible M falsify the
reationist model or the world, as we'U see in Unext cbapter.
.pur limium'li u: Lm aften argue that the pricciples
that underlie their theories are alJ.ady part of Igtimate sci
enC, and ee themsel\es n? 8 :ucb 3 revolutionri% bllt
more B th. poar 00U81IW af Iciene!. Far exple, the duey et
bi.rhythms tries to piggyback UpOD legi stumes carried
out on circadian rhyhms and other chemca and eiectria1 us
cillator kown t be present m the human bod., The basic
pseuduscience claim m this :rea u that there is' a sim Jt"rih'
between the views ff the biorhythm theorists and thoe of u
biolOgcal researchers, and threCore biorhyths are consistent
with current biologcal thought,
E:plcl1olio1 by I':l zriO: It's ommonplace in science to ofr
scenarios for 6.'lanation of certain phenomena, suclt B the
origin of life or the extnction of the dinosaurs. when we don't
ho\e. enougL data to reconstruct the exact cicustces of
f A I T H , H O P E , A N O A S P E R , T Y
the process. Howe\er, in sience such SCeDtiMOS Inust b con
sistent with kown laws and principlcWy at lea.t implicitly.
Peudoocien"e en@gM explantion by scnario aL, i.e"
by mere sceno without prop!r backug fro kuown IS's
and tbe<rie, A pQue afnder iu this rogard i$ the work of
Velikovsky, who states that Venus's near coUi. oion with the
Earth caused the Earth to fp or ana rnerse its magnetic
poles Veliko.sky 1 no me.:hanism by ich this cosDi
tHnt c..uld ha,'e taken place, and thv Uasi: prinCJple of (laduc
ing consequences hom general principles 1 total;, ignored in
m "explanation" of such phenomen+
&uarch b ltuary i'terprewtion: PseudoscientsL .. CI`quently
t8l themselvEs by their handling of the scientic literature,
They regard any statement by any scieotist hewg open to
interpretation, just = iu lite1tut aud the arL . :nd such
statements can then be used against othm 8rtC!1s!8. hey
focus upon the ords, Dot on the und6;I:n& fact 1d teBons
lor the statements that appear in the scienlifc lt.r:.ture. 1
th regard, the pseudoscientist:; act like lavrt gathering
precedents and usillg these B arguments, 1"ther than attend
ing to what has actually been comunicated,
/fal 1814: Cr and eraekpols pridD ll"elvc 11
ucM having beo sho7 to b wrong+ It's for tbll reason that
the tTperieoced scientifc hand ne"er, under aDy circum
sw:es, enretS i!to dialogue with a pseudoscientist. But im
munity to criticism i DO proor of success in sdcu(.e. for there
are many ajs to fend of attacks: Write ouly *acuovs Da1
rial replete with taUtolog make sure lur :tatlnlnts arc so
\ague that criticism ca ne\a get a footbold] smy rmuse to
lekowledge whate\"er criticism yOIl do reci"t. ,'uiatlt Qf
this Ipst pl(
,
: is a f3Y(tite technique o1 |ssudocnt:stS: They
alays tep t0 ct\:csm, but cever re\;'oe tte.' position in
light o1 it. The; see scientifc debate not M mechanism 1ot
scientifc pr06=ts but B an exerc se ill rhetc:icAI combat-
2gaD U6 treatiot sen-e a Sterlin@ t!m:u to Ue poer
of this prinijle+
The nlajor defer.se of ]seudoscence u sununed Uj :n the state
D0Ot `Anything is possible," the pseudolcifnr.i:i " enoioo of
Feyerabnd's philOiophical tbe:ne song "An
,
\tblog Cio!. " Ear
lir we considVred the questiuD competition bteen models
P A R A O I G M S l O S T
aDd thf:rie aDd drew U afew ground rules b Wh1cD the com
t11t1tJD 15 g8D8Ia1 rri8d out i 8g11IDa18 $c1D\1c c11c8S.
1!`5 look a\ DoW ps8udSceD\ st, with their " AythiDg 18 pM
siblo' 5u18d, 8D\81 1D\o 8UcDcomp8t1oD.
In 1D8coD8\\1oD among theories, the seUdo5ci8otis\ Da8S
\8 following e1aini: 'LUT \D8o1185 oUgD\ \o b aoW8d into \L8
compettion bcause they may bcome available alterativ".s in
te future. Scientists have ben kovl to change their mintls o1.
the ma!er of WhMt 15 aDd uDot 1Do5S1D8, aDd 1De_ a18 1ti8]
to do so ag$ D. owho's to say what tomorrow's aVa1aI8 al!er
natives .Pay b'" 1D other words, anything 1S posiblel The b.ct
\Da1 a theor oy bcome an Ivailable at8\18 in the future
dos Dot constitute a 1885oD 1o1 8D\8TD_ 1\ i the ometition
Ioda. V81 coD8\1\o1 DoW must b B available alt8th-8
D. The pseudoscitntist suggets that W8 may a8 wen \DIoV
away the current scicntc tr.cwork sinc8 1\ will eVen\uall
.have to b 1elac8d aDDoW.
.
By referring to a 1Utut8 bU\aS-]8\-uDFo 8tat8 of scieDc8
1D8 c1aIS are 1D P.ct 181m1Dg to aIt1c1a18 in t18 compe\1
uon. Th' Woud b a1 rigD\ U they didn't a1 \D8 same time 1D-
515t ou BD18I1Dg 1D8 TaC. It's aS U oDe 8D1818d 1L8 Monaco
Gra:d Pr with a j8t-roelled and U\m oD being 01-
ecd t CuL8\8 bm, 1Br , someday the ru1e may D
c3Dg80 \o make it a je ca11a

c8
The psel'doscientisu also worm 1D811
8
y into the competition
by jU\11_ the burden or roof on the oter side. They declare
that 1t5 U \o the 5c18D\1c communit to roe t1eu t\eo
1oDg aDd that the tDeoty must b 1a8D serioUsy U \D6cum
mUD1ty C8DDo\ do 5o. The obvious ogca faw i 1D8 a55uD\1oD
tbtfag to

o a \D8o j imo55iUe is the 58WB thing as

y1u7 g It pos:; ble. "_ile \D8 rinc1le or 1DDo8DI lm p1o1D
guilty !ay be used in Angio-Sa.ot couIt8 o1 aW 8c1cD\1c d8-
baU i Dot such a coUrL D8 re3on WDj pseUdo5ieD\ists th
tbty can put the bUrd8n of prov on the 5c:8D\51S can b \tac8d
to a D151a}8D Do\1oD of wil:.t coDSO\U\88 a 8g1\1Da\0 8D\1 1D
!Dc d8Dat8. D8 think that th sc1Dtifc D8tDod ac8$ a du1)
oD \D8 5018D\Itc coD1t1UD1tj to coDder cll 1oo5eo :dra that

18 n
.
(t logieaUy self-contradictory. J\D81I V8W, to 1gore aI]
Id8a to be r8jUd1c8d.
Finally, M6 nole tDa\ \D8 58udo5c18D\15t5 01\8D ac1 a5 if te
argumnt supporting their theory were 811D81a to !e \D8-
l P I T H . H O P E , A N D A S P E R I " V
orr. c1eDce delned 1D terms If AoA 8Dd g ^ kDo=some
thing, netwIot we kow. Thus, the 58udc18u\15\5 fail to s
1Da\ what makes a theor. a serious coDteDder 1S not jUst !D8
!D8ot),

t the t1eot 1U5 !L6 aIg1U8BL Ia\ 5Uo1\ 1\.

Cranks think fat 5omehow IB8 theory 5taD08 uD 115 oWD, aDd
Da\ tD8 oD] meUre of its merit for 8Dt8rng the clDetit1oD u
\w degre
.
e of danngand nc eHy. 18Dc8, they think 1D8 5c18D\1c
commu

ty has oD1 1W

cDo1<: adD1\ their tDeoty into \D8

compe\\1

n o1 81S8 toS8 1! t b!I0Dg.1o=8V1 WD8D 1\ CoD8s

d8Dd1Dg W \D8o1 otDm81 msVi8DtifCdebato, llbout 11gD
qUah

]
.
sUPJ:tng 8Vd8Dce a0d a sobd coD0c1Ua 5cD8D8
\8t

5]u

\ no 1D8 toom, ot padence f.)r the Au]thiDg u pos

8\ble oU of s8UdoseieD8.
5 a possc1it OQ \D8 eudoeeD11\5 1!5 c interest to 8SX
WD] \D8 1d8

of DaDj 5t d05D\18\5 1X8 Velikunk-y are 5o

popular. Wile it 1S 11U8 1Da\ `8\1XoSS]`5 cD!8t5
8
re a \t\8
sunler_tn those u58d by modrD 6STTUD0D P1 an,1 paleoJ\oio
vU, m 18a1 advar,lagp L thai ltey art 1 muc 88181 to S151-
aI1z8 D8I\aH_ aDd coD8 to 75 lD. In 5hUt!. tD6j ap<al to
=q! John Q. Public \oud cali elnmOD sDe. 1:uct!uD0\8\],
n8ther the worJd Dar sc18Dc 1S8$smy\e8Soa cr,mton sense
oU1d DaV8 U5 blieoe. For ex$ple, bet kind nf g88saD! UD-

ng =oUd suggest th3t O8rgy V815 1 atoms \:an tome D 1D

dc 8\8 acag887 Common 8Ice would sa, Da1 | ,ou can
p Ug stairs oDe #( a! a \1D=, theD Sou e:ia8o :t;ol1 Uj a
1au \o g8\ the same place. But Dod81u Qj1$ 5a]5 no:
Change of 8D8tg] le.-els an occ\:1 0!ij 1D du!l\8 SU5. D8
mott de,eloped a stientifc $pec:lty Ucm85, the lss l'eliable
commo: 88D58 18 a$ a gU\d8. In 1::. Uc) a1B rupecuof science
that a1e u5\ a1D coDtIa1_ 10 0,oJ. $DS0, |8 \D8 sta1rc6
et8.nplt ]U5tnoted. D8 p::! \ eg D1Dd is \ba\ Do5\ b8-
J:!S tiD rom{Uu a$ 8.Ia..5 to :0:cnce a18 u1U81B81j
cacU1a< o t sDoo\hly t' =Iq\ eon 5PU sUggts 1
the way tDg $hol U8. B c`! a$ID8 0\` o s!JI8 a\ our
problems_. 1\D1D h838 c6CorU werl. c--, \8 haV8 no
toD!r1S of our own,ery:hjnf Ca\ D88tu tt USdoes so b
caU58 o1 08d a58cU of Jupitcr, U orx o the !v!,or \De will
of 5U811ot b811Ig5 from 2:.dTm<ca. At Too1, tD888 18|5 a16 a
meaure of \he d8gt88 o disappoi.:ment ,;tb =Dcb ID8 @8D8ta
ol bhc g::eets \D8 t818a1oDz 61 |n:usc:cnrc.

D8 uverage mun
^aD\5 0cm!8t8 8aS]-*ouDd85t8:3. c887-cU! 3DWBJ WD8D a ,
62 PARADIGMS l OS
that science hs to oil' arcane, difeuJllo-!olluw U, and<,
buts, or maybs.
Belief systems outside science come in my lonos, some of
them covered hy the general umbrella of pseud1^ience. By far
the most interesting and important"alterative a scientifi
dering of ueworld is thai provided by te principles and

Dets
of organized religion. From the beginnings of Wester SCIence
U the ddle Ages, there b1 ben a sort of (not always u

de
c1d) guerilla war waged btween the Church and the SClen
tc .mmunily on te matter of which is the keeper of trul
lowledge about the nature of te cosmos. In the next seoliClo we
Wm exiDe this eoni ct as our tDa1.stalemenl about the alter
oath e realites that we use to sbape and iDterprel our dai1;
l,p...
THE PULPIT AND THE LAB
t few years ago Daysi Ferandez, a mother ox three lhng CD
velitl.t D New York City, kught a !ottery ticket that came up
a winner, returning aOt 8 million, a tidy profit O! a 8 i
vebelll. Liltle did .Ferandez realize that in her good for
t c 8B ou1d bcome embroiled U a classic case pitting the
claims of sience against those of religion. As the story goc
^. Ft. -nandez had asked a young f:ond, .ohn Pando, to pur
chase lotter" te't for het. Pando, a stauncb belicer u the
power of prayer,thought thal the chances of 8UCCe:.1 for o

e
.
of
the tickets would b greatly enb$Dced U he asked for the dl'ne
interventioD of Sawt Eleggul. Apparently Mrs. Fernandez 'a
s_mpatheVc m blie, for he claimed thal she had promised
to give h halt the proceeds Uany of tbe tickeLs struck gold. 1
juuVc aUeady guessed the punCh line of tm story, you're jut a
bit ahead of me.
One of Mrs. Fernandez's tickets was drawn the tune of
82,871,203.30,bu.t she refused to fork o.er the prOlised half of
the pi to Pando. In the Uc and te e:can fashion fo.
dealing with such slights, Pando's immediate response wa U fle
lawsuit against her, in an attempt also to gain enby to the
Millicnaires' Club. Ms. FeTMndez gued tht the agreement
was illegal and/or unenforceable on a numbr of grounds, M-
cladg :hefaot that John Pando was a mOT nnder the age of
f AI T H , HO P E , AN a ASPE RITY b3
eighteen. Ater bearing the competing ergumnl" Judge m
ward Greenfeld of the ew York County Swpremt Court ruled
M tile matter.
The judge found in fa"or of Pando on mos ' U poirls, i-
eluding the malter of age, but ce up with a DCF erdct in
fa\'or of Mrs. Ferzndu on the ground$ that it 0 Ussible
io couttu1 u= prove tbat "f:iLb and jt d yer: brought about
B miracle and caused the defendant to win." 1o QUer word,
Paodl hadn't proed that Saint tleggun han r:yed Uc lotter
to point the fger of fate at . Ferandez. HS tnz it goes,
this seems a defensible statement. But what u ope! to serious
debate i the reasons gi.en by the judge for J('ni:! Pando
share of the fortune.
.udge Greenfield in efct assumed a priori that rligious b
liefs at not amenable to scientiDc testng. As y:1 of his deel-
SiOD, the judge also stle1i that 1oinmaking "Y clou! seeding
would qualify for payment+ but that the productioL rain \
dance:, chants, aud tbe other tricks of the medi(!lne z:an`S trade
would not. 1us, the Fernandt2 case opens up for further in
!ption the Ig'-old 'uestion ot ",here be!icf !ste: slopS .nd
science bgins.
In tbe Reality Game, religion balw!ys been science's tough
e!l opponent, perhaps because there arl M HD} !urface
similarities between the actual praLtice of lcieoo AIO the prac
tice of most major religivns. Lt's take mathematiL a an exam
ple. HeJe we b Q a felJ that emphasizCl dl,:h:ueDt from
orldl.' ( 'ijects, a secret language compreheruiu!e -:l y TD the
initiated. a lengthy period of preparation for the "p:iesilood,"
hoI\" miifn {fous UIlol\ed problems) to hieh =mlts of
the faith de,ote their entire lhes. a rigij anll orhat arbi
tnlr qe to which all practitioners \'car alegi&=f'e, atd &
oo. Tbeu fealurES are present in most cf the sccDcs B well,
aod bear 8 striking simil'ily to the surface charHderistics
of m:m." religions. Both scientifc and . eligious :-L O the
orld di'ect atlentioQ to particular patlul L +^ and r.
structurl bow one tees the "orld. But at a detcr '<\ therO
:tre subtantiaI direoces betwee the reliots ^e= and that
of science.
Let', c.-:ider 80me of the major arou in o:c !!ence and
religion dUr:
I
I
I

P K P L I L M L ! >
J:.yoy. The language of science is primarily dirteled to.
w:rd prediction, explan:tion, and control; religion, OD the
other hand, u an expression of commitent ethlcal dedicl
tiOD, and exstental life orientaton. So e.en uough there are
superfcial similarites at the syntactic lel, te semantic con
tent of scientl c and religious languageS M poles apart'.
.ality: In religion, beliefs concerg the nature of re:lity
are preupposed. 1is just the opposit of the rt viel of
tcifnce, which is directed toward discn.ering re:ility. Thus re
ligion must give 9g any claim t trut, ht least with respect
any
.
facts exteral UODe's oVconilzl ent. JUregard,
the rulity eonu:nt of most religious beliefs is mucb the same
as m the myt. considered earlier. F"odamentally, wbat we
have 1 science is a basic belief that the universe is under
standable using ratonal argUmets, experimeDtal obseITa
tiODS, even diviDe inspirations, but no acts of bUnG faitb. This
is a viewpoint that is not necessariy shared by mar.y religions.
Mo&le: While both scientc and religious models are aualogi
cal, and used as organizing :mage: for interp:eting lile experi
ences, religious models also serve to express aod evoke
. distincf.e attflde!, as well as t enccuxage allegiancc 1U a
way of life lnd adherence to policit of action. Tbe imagery of
religious u:odeLelicit: sel!-comtent and a measure of ethi
cal dedicaton. 'rbese are features copletely anatheratic tC
the role of models uscienC. 1 religion the motto '] bj
these rules, U oqr way. and you'll SPe that it works." The
contrast "ith the traditonal ideology of swence is clear.
Parig : 1 the discussioD of paradig, saw that scen-
tifc paradigms were subject t a .ariet of constraints like
3implieity, falsifcation, the iu6nce
.
of theory on obervatioo.
and !o ferth. 11 of these feat' e8 ae absent in the "plpcHclI
of : religious paradigm.
Wclhod: 1D science there is a set of procedures uget at the
scheme of things: obsenaton, hypothesis, periruent il reli
gion tbere is a method, too-divine enligbteomDt. aO" I;'er,
the
.
rlUgious mdbod :S Dol repeatable, nor \ it necessuil,
a"aiJable to e.ery interested in.estigator.
.
Table J.3dplS a eomparathe chart of the difrent a\s cf

dence !nd r"li,ion. How are we to dVcwhat U Uble ..tr]~

D to conny abou the respeep.e abilities of science and reli
gion to teU us anything useful about ourselves and the univers
A ' l , l L L , P N L

b F L K I Y b
I55LL KLLILlLN LILfLL
subjt matter God and humanknd phenolMol of Nature
1DO1D8tOD Qurce re\eal"d 'ord, holy ohuvatol,
0 K experimeoL

uDOc of study pue anJ plan mechanisIl

langllag" e'eryday Spech maa1C
melh.: literary n;easureDl and
in:rpretatons analsW
fSU!5 moral impcrati\es uplanations
validation personal experience
x
rtplicatio:, testing
I
limitations mechanisms M gila! or .dues
MnYplained
'
community cburch acientiric lALlishmlDt
\ .:.:t.: 1 DJ that there are at least thn! ;:::i:e au
STu1c to this .: assie conundrum;
\ Jo T60. ScieDce and religion bavl. difrc;lt >phr o f ju
risdiction.
- Grcoro. Religious and scientifc xplll 2tjon. 5 of Nature
c On b b1ought togetr on the Slllne planf.
J. 1r:| ::v: Science and religion elcb i!lulni-3t the sae
reality (whale.er that might b], but fOm dEecot perspec
i:--.
To D_ mind, only the last possibility makes :t sensc -r hatso
eer. The DIleads J the aI to! depressin tlrlitotial rlisputef
of th kind that so much lood has beeT shed O\-el' through the
yearS. \hile tbe sccon is seUdefeatin. since sc:eNifc ,ews are
3Jways changing. As a re.ult, 8 theology that sttaches itse:to
ODe scientific family today vU suly be au orphan tomorrow.
th the abo.e considerations on religioll umhlr Qur belt, we
see ILar bot pseudoscience and religion pro,ide altcrlH\te real
y-S!zutu:Lg procedurp. radically dilreret )q |ozst) from
those emplo:ed in science. It's of interest tn (loder why there is
uch a diyer:e mi.-dure of nO!scientiBe knowlellge, especially in
"ie," of !he cIas of nrtually e.ery secL that its own brand o:
mediciue u umDy most powerfuL
^new on 1bi matter iquite simply thal nellher science nor
I
F A K A L L M b L L b 1
eIeIveaa prouct that i satisfactory to
wares are just not attaetive enough_ In some
art not useful in te way that people want to
tem_ For example, many people have a deep-seated psy
ch,'o,, need for securit tu toeon\entonal religion for
myths of all-poerful :d benefcent Beings who wi attend to
t need for protecton.Seiece, wt its mysterious and polen
tiaDy threatening pronouncements abut black holea, the "beat
d(ath" ot the uoh-ene, *+tno from lower bing, nuclear
holoust, aDd so on, ofrs r. ything b11t comfort to such primal
new and a fesull, loses custmers to the competiton. Basi
cally, blieu trive bcause thcy are weCuland the pl&in fact is
th;t there ) more tan one knd o1 usefulnes.
To the practcing scicntist, the foregoing obervations come B
8 Sobmp U not thrJf.ning co.nclusion, liLee they seem to put
in jeopMrdy le conventional wisdom that the road to truth lies
in the oDjrctve" t l of sc1cDcc D0tU8 subjectve, romantic
notiol of blievers and crusaders. But U we accejt Feyera
bend's arguments of alteratve and equay Talid blief systems,
th: we are int."otably led fu circle ba- to the position thal
Ue1c are many altruative realitie. not just wilbin scienCilelf
but Muide B well, and the partcular brand of rety we select
is dictated & much byour psyehoiogieal ooof the mtmelll @
by any sort of ratonal choice_ In the fal analysis, there are no
complet a.wers but only more quetions, with science prOnd
ing procedures for addressing Oimportant and intertg
cl of such quetions.
I NTO iRE COURTROOM OF BELIEFS
Tbe Britb philosopher John L ppeB to bavo beer ile
ft muse the word "science" uang lie itmoder mean
ing when be uated "scientifcal" with certainty and demon
str1bun of kowletge about the phys1cl world. In tbe.ehnpters
that flllow, we rill be out to question the degree which science
deliver on these lofty !is_ Our dual philosophical themes co
tar about the eternal puules: What u real. and what uor rela
tiooshlp as human hings to Uw reality? In ths course of
attemptg U sb!d light on these tobbey of philosophi
cal peelllati"n, I Lvechostn the vehicle of a courtroom mfta
^ l 1 M . M L F , A N A b F L K I 1 X
b7
within which the competing seientifc (and sonutim0 pseu
losci'DtJifc andlor religious) parties C plead thc.ir use. my
reans for this "!ting Ire best summed up in the lmark uy
--: Bauer that "where eminent men disngrEe violently. and
sides presenLtleir CB B proven. wcau rather sure
that certint i not in Cact vilh!e,and tAI the matter unot
technil but rather traos~scinte. It i a di. puLe \'e1' proba
bilities, alues, desirability
.
0f oer fal .
.
.
'he only fwLUat
"chacte1 :zesscience M a whol( that. :the long run, \'1truts
. are weeded out and what remains bcomes % reliabl<. Thus,
just B DeconomiC where Adam Smith's !nvisible Hand guides
the fo of ennls into pronessi\e 0hannels. in lcielce we hav

the Innsible B'''t. whi.h acts to kick out those ideRs, t.Cories
and beliefs that don't prove useful to enougll peCple over a suf
feifntiy long pemod o.! time.
I leaNe it to the reder U the fnal judge of "b'hr or not
"seientism" (I promise that tns will be my Inst im)et.ablisbes
a cae 1or its underlying tesis that "science . truth." But suc~
! \ <d J fail J hope that $ "\e go lhrough the var_ilu case stud
ie in scientifc confct that (ollow, the reader Wll not only get
lome ic gap of ile ideas themselves, but even mo;o gpor
tant will diseo'e: that these ide0 are genuinely VT an at
mpt V understand them. Only by auiring a delpEr (eeling
Cor the processes "eIl W the reults of seenea will i b s

i
ble to C> iL' merit efeth-ely a realitY-lenel1ttoD a"llT
it = So now thlt the anthems ba-.e ben :uog. thE ;/ledg of
Ililegi:nce gIYen, and the witneses called, the ourI u rtay to
hear the I cae In the continuing litightion bet\eOn ScIc:1va
and `ature. Lt tnc penin arguments proCeld'