Scientist Baiting

I must strenuously object to a passage which appeared in the review of Mr. John V. Trevor's congress address. The words that I object to are, "the Scientists admired him as a technician fully in command of his voice, a most subtle instrument, while the Art students more susceptible to an emotional appreciation of the reading, ec., etc.

This childish scientist-baiting has been goin on in "Salient" for as long as I can remember. It it were only a game it could be tolerated, but unfortunately it seems to be taken quite seriously by a lot of arts students.

This is understandable. Anyone who claims to be a scholar in our time, yet must remain almost completely ignorant of all the things which make our civilisation unique, is bound to feel inadequate and frustraed. But by trying to deprive the scientist of any claim to simple humanity and any understanding of art, these twisted Arts men do themselves no good. Not only do they become insufferable prigs but effectively cut themselves off from any help in understanding modern science.

It should not be necessary to point out that it is relatively easy for even the most specialist scientist to know what is going on in literature, music or fine arts. And there is no reason to believe that highly specialist knowledge is essential for an understanding of modern arts, one must be familiar with the form but this can be done without the aid of professors. But how many arts men make a hobby of theoretical physics? The concepts of science are not easily mastered.

I have a great respect for scolars in the Arts fields and I would not decry their work. My argument is simply that a scientist is in no way less human than an authority on textual variants and any suggestion that he is, is foolishness.