The Cloven Hoof

As the chorus from Jim Baxter's song quoted above indicates, what came to be the central theme of the discussions was the attitude attacked by Dr. H. N. Parton (Chem. C.U.C.), in his talk, "Is Science a Sacred Cow?" He took to task the Pharasaism of some of his fellow scientists and their followers, attacking their adherence to what he called "Scientism," the idea that scientists as such have a monopoly of objectivity, independence of mind and tolerance, and hence are especially qualified to right the world's wrongs. For, as he showed by an analysis of the history of Dalton's Law of Constant Composition it cannot be said that Science has ever arrived at a final truth. The most that can ever be justly claimed is that a certain hypothesis has been proved wrong, and it is thus, by the elimination of error and not by approach to any ultimate truth, that science progresses. Why then do scientists, but more especially laymen, set up science as an idol, a sacred cow," whose pronouncements on any subject whatsoever are to be taken for Gospel truth? Because, in the first place, there is an objectivity about science (guaranteed in its own field by publication, experiment and free criticism) which, however, appertains to results and not to scientists themselves. They are often characterised, not by such a virtue, but, like Dalton, by an obstinate faith in a hypothesis for which they have little empirical verification. Furthermore, from the very extent of science, a great deal must be taken on faith, so that its claim to be completely unauthoritarian is unfounded. But the main reason for the Sacred Cow attitude is mental laziness, a reluctance, to take moral judgments for ourselves, which prepared us to hand over responsibility to certain people because they can obviously help us in the material things of life. Science, concluded Dr. Parton, is not a body of knowledge but a way of going about things; "one of man's major spiritual ventures." It must be applied by all of us to our own thinking, no matter what the field.

Next Week (Duty Issues (2 and 3) Done) Back to Normal. Salient a Newspaper: Club News, Short Articles, More Variety

Dr. A. Crowther (Psych. C.U.C.) attacked psychology from a similar standpoint. Speaking on "Psychology and Industry," he noted that, in the first place, psychologists know a lot more about rats than about humans, and about coercible human beings (soldiers and schoolchildren) than about the Man in the Street. This means that applied psychology has very little relation as yet to pure theory. Research on industrial accidents, for instance, had no theoretical basis, though proceeding on an empirical line of approach it had been able to trace a great deal to emotional disturbance and point the way to the solution of some problems. But a further and much greater difficulty arises from the fact that many psychological problems involve crucial value judgments, and hence there is a tendency to concentrate on non-controversial fields such as accidents rather than upon the more important matters, like industrial relations. Where these fields are investigated, there is always a tendency to make a tacit moral choice for the status quo and attempt to patch it up rather than tackling the deeper problem of how much the system is at fault, in any case it must be recognised that in a value problem like those in industry the psychologist is not specially qualified to make the basic decisions and that he can only, and in some small degree, predict the consequences of a course of action. Responsibility, Dr. Crowther emphasised by implication, rests with us.