Unsettled Science

 

Y

ou have quite a book collection,” said a man to his friend, as they examined the friend’s book shelves. “I didn’t know you were such a librarian.”

“Thank  you,” said the friend. “I love ideas.”

“But why,” demanded the man, as he spied a particular book, “do you keep this anti-science junk by Arronius in your library? His conclusions have been completely refuted by everyone worth noticing, you know.”

“I am aware of that,” said the librarian. “But it seems to me that he speaks truth in sixteen places, making the volume worth preserving.”

“But selling lies by including a little truth is surely the most common way of deceiving people.”

“That is also true. But that is why we learn critical thinking. To separate the true from the false, to ferret out deception, distortion, and deviousness. In fact,” the librarian added, as an afterthought, “you might even call Arronius an educator.”

“No, I wouldn’t,” said the man. “I’d call him a prevaricator. Perhaps a duper, certainly a fraud.”

“In general,” replied the defender of Arronius, you are right, as I have said. But as I have also just said, for the sake of the small truth, however crammed away or disguised, I have kept the book. In my view, any book with even a few kernels of truth is worth keeping in order to have access to that truth.”

“Well then, why don’t you just cut out the few pages with the truth in them and toss away the rest?”

“If we were to follow that advice for all of our books,” mused the librarian, “our libraries would consist of little other than a handful of pamphlets listing obvious facts. ”

“That is the most cynical, sweeping condemnation of the scientific enterprise I have ever heard,” said the scientist, his anger obviously rising.

“Then, too,” continued the book lover, “isn’t it possible that something we now consider error may by further learning or a more careful analysis come to be understood as truth? Or that some idea that today causes us to ridicule Arronius might someday prove to be a reason to praise him for pointing the way to the truth, for discovering the right pathway, even though he was wrong on his own journey down that path?”

“So you’re admitting that the lies in those books might eventually seduce you into error.”

“Not at all. I’m saying that one century’s truth often becomes another century’s error—even in science—and that sometimes what was scoffed at in one era is exalted in another.”

“What are you,” scowled the scientist, “some kind of twisted relativist?”

“No,” said the librarian, “I believe in absolute truth but I’m not so sure that what our society or culture identifies as truth is the absolute truth. Remember John Donne’s comment: ‘On a huge hill, cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will reach her, about must and about must go.’ We praise ourselves too hastily, I think, when we celebrate a new discovery of ‘truth’ which later turns out to be false.”

By now, the scientist was red with anger. “So you would throw ‘settled science’ into the trash can and go on drinking dirty water contaminated with cholera and bleeding people to make them well. Fortunately for sane and reasonable people, we have moved beyond that and into a healthier era.”

“And I’m glad to live in a modern, healthier era—.”

“—made so by science,” the scientist interrupted. “Give me one solid book of scientific truth and you can have a thousand of those other books filled with falsehoods and errors.”

“Yes, no doubt,” the librarian continued, “but as for truths in general, I see in my own imperfections the possible imperfections of others. Too often, upon closer examination, ‘facts’ turn out to be not observable or provable phenomena, but networks of arguments whose conclusions have been settled by political agreement and compromise more than by empirical evidence.”

“I’m going to report you.”

“Whatever for?”

“For denying the scientific method.”

“What is the scientific method, anyway?”

“You don’t know? Your employment in the academy is in jeopardy.”

 

'

X The practice of science often results not in the discovery of a new truth, but the discrediting of an old truth.

 

vvv

 

Questions for Thought and Discussion

1. What seems to be the scientist’s attitude toward science? Toward truth?

2. What is the librarian’s philosophy about truth?

3. What arguments does the scientist use to support his point about science?

4. What examples does the librarian use that he says make him cautious about statements of truth?

5. The two men discussing truth have different personalities and attitudes. What can you point to in the story that reveals each man’s personality?

6. At the beginning of the story, the author describes the two men in one way, but as the story progresses, their description changes. Comment on what the changes are and what effect this has.

 

 

Vocabulary

Locate in the story where each of the following words occurs. Then look up a definition of each word. Finally, write a sentence or two explaining the effectiveness of the word.

Refuted

Deceiving

Critical thinking

Deviousness

Prevaricator

Duper

Mused

Seduce

Scoffed

Scowled

Relativist

Cholera

Imperfections

Phenomena

Networks

Empirical

Jeopardy