This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Notes
Max Planck, Where is Science Going? W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1932, p. 214.
J. R. Oppenheimer, The Open Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1955, p. 100.
See, for instance, a discussion in G. Taubes, Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, Random House, New York, 1986.
J. Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Pantheon Books, New York, 1992; F. Dyson, Physics Today, November 1992, p. 89.
R. Dubois, Reason Awake, Columbia University Press, New York, 1970, p. 36.
R. C. Hovis and H. Kragh, Scientific American, May 1993, p. 104.
This was said of some great scientists, but the classic example is the behavior of Humphry Davy, Faraday’s mentor, who so envied his protegee Faraday that he opposed his election to fellowship in the Royal Society. (E. Segrè, From Falling Bodies to Radiowaves, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1984, p. 141).
On August 19, 1997 sad and disturbing news hit the national newspapers in America: “A scientist who won a Nobel Prize studying decease…. admitted yesterday in court that he sexually abused a boy he brought to Maryland from Micronesia,” wrote The Washington Post (The Washington Post, February 19, 1997).
In the opinion of Ziman (J. Ziman, The Force of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976, p. 122), “a highly developed system of prizes, rewards, and public honors for scientific work is dangerous and dishonest. To make’ stars’ of a few, and thus, by implication, to degrade those who work hard with less good fortune is not healthy.”
For example, Segrè (E. Segrè, From X-Rays to Quarks, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1980, p. 97) writes about Einstein: “He was not averse to playing the role of the great scientist; clearly he enjoyed it. Perhaps this explains some of his affectations, his strange manner of dress, and some habits that may have been for show. After all, he was an admirer and friend of Charlie Chaplin.”
It was said of Michael Faraday that he had been “the most enlightened preacher amongst the humble folk whose faith he followed.” (R. J. Seeger, Physics Today, August 1968, p. 30).
A. H. Guenther, Private Communication, 1997.
Such as the statement by Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be,” (C. Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, 1980, p. 4), or his statements in his preface to Stephen Hawking’s book (S. W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, Toronto, 1988, Preface, p. x) that “there is no absolute beginning of reality and therefore no need for a Creator.” Clearly, individual opinions and scientifically unproven assertions presented as, or implied to be, scientific facts.
See for example, B. Russell, in Science, Technology, and Society, R. Chalk (Ed.), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C., 1988, p. 4.
S. Quinn, Marie Curie: A Life, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995; see also, Physics Today, August 1995, p. 55.
A. Pais, Inward Bound, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 234–237.
E. Teller, Science 121, 25 February 1955, p. 267.
V. Weisskopf, The Joy of Insight, Basic Books, New York, 1991, p. 128.
V. Ya. Fainberg, Physics Today, August 1990, p. 41.
As we mentioned in Chapter 2, A. Einstein urged the United States to construct the atomic bomb. Russian scientists in 1942 also urged their politicians to develop the atomic bomb just like their American counterparts (A. Pais, Physics Today, August 1990, p. 13). The question ofwhether German scientists during WWII were willing to make atomic bombs for or they conspired to deny Hitler the atomic bomb is still debated (D. C. Cassidy, Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1992; M. Dresden, Physics Today, June 1992, p. 79). According to Walker (M. Walker, Physics Today, January 1990, p. 52; May 1991, p. 13), “W. Heisenberg flatly stated, he would have considered it a crime to make atomic bombs for Hitler. But Heisenberg also considered it unfortunate that these weapons were given (by the scientists of other countries) to other rulers and were used by them.”
V. Weisskopf, The Joy of Insight, Basic Books, New York, 1991, Chapter 8.
L. Graham, The Sciences, October 1980, p. 14.
E. Rabinowitch, Impact, Vol. XVII, 1967, p. 107.
M. Perutz, Is Science Necessary?, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991, p. 97.
J. R. Oppenheimer, The Open Mind, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1955, p. 88.
V. Weisskopf, The Joy of Insight, Basic Books, New York, 1991, p. 164.
M. Perutz, Is Science Necessary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991, p. 183; J. D. Watson, The Double Helix, Penguin Books, New York, 1968.
J. D. Watson, The Double Helix, Penguin Books, New York, 1968, pp. 101–104.
H. H. Seliger, Physics Today, November 1995, p. 25.
M. Perutz, Is Science Necessary?, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 149–163.
Pointedly, H. Alfvén described the feud between S. Chapman and K. Birkeland on the theory of magnetic storms this way (H. Alfvén, as quoted by K. Rypdal and T. Brundtland, Journal de Physique IV, France 7, 1997, p. C4–115): “Since Chapman considered his theory of magnetic storms and aurora to be one of his most important achievements, he was anxious to suppress any knowledge of Birkeland’s theory. Being a respected member of the proud English tradition in science and attending-if not organizing-all important conferences in this field, it was easy for Chapman to do so. The conferences soon became ritualized. They were opened by Chapman presenting his theory of magnetic storms, followed by long lectures by his close associates who confirmed what he had said. If finally there happened to be some time left for discussion, objections were either not answered or dismissed by a reference to an article by Chapman. To mention Birkeland was like swearing in the church.”
An example of this is the prolonged and ugly confrontation between Samuel Goudsmit and Werner Heisenberg regarding the controversy over the German atomic bomb (M. Walker, Physics Today, January 1990, p. 52; Physics Today, May 1991, p. 13).
C. P. Snow, in Science, Technology, and Society, R. Chalk (Ed.), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C., 1988, p. 6.
Characteristically, Wilson (M. Wilson, The Atlantic, September 1970, p. 101) writes: “Years ago, as a graduate student, I was present at a three-way argument between Rabi, Szilard, and Fermi. Szilard took a position and mathematically stated it on the blackboard. Rabi disagreed and rearranged the equations to the form he would accept. All the while Fermi was shaking his head.’ You’re both wrong,’ he said. They demanded proof. Smiling a little, he shrugged his shoulders as if proof weren’t needed.’ My intuition tells me so,’ he said. I had never heard a scientist refer to his intuition and I expected Rabi and Szilard to laugh. They didn’t. The man of science, I soon found, works with the procedures of logic so much more than anyone else that he, more than anyone else, is aware of logic’s limitations. Beyond logic there is intuition ….” Many other examples can be cited. For instance, Boltzmann’s physical intuition was legendary, and P. Dirac, a worshiper of mathematical logic, was a master of intuition.6
J. T. Edsall, Science 188, 16 May 1975, p. 687.
W. Broad and N. Wade, Betrayers of the Truth, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982.
S. G. Brush, Science 183, 22 March, 1974, p.l164.
R. J. Seeger, Physics Today, August 1968, p. 30.
C. P. Haskins, American Scientist, 58, January/February 1970, p. 23.
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1970.
M. Polanyi, in Physical Science and Human Values, Princeton University Press, 1947, p. 124.
M. Polani, Minerva V,Summer 1967, p. 533.
L. Kerwin, Science 213, 4 September 1981, p. 1069.
A. Szanton, The Recollections of Eugene P. Wigner as Told to Andrew Szanton, Plenum Press, New York, 1992, p. 313.
B. Commoner, Science and Survival, The Viking Press,, Inc., New York, 1967, p. 106.
See for example, A. Weinberg, Minerva 16, 1978, p. 1, and J. T. Edsall, Science 212, 3 April 1981, p. 11.
D. Blum, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August, 1988, p. 7.
F. von Hippel and J. Primack, Science 177, September 29, 1972, p. 1166.
F. Close, Too Hot to Handle, the Race for Cold Fusion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991.
J. R. Huizenga, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, New York, 1992.
I. Langmuir (Transcribed and edited by R. N. Hall), Physics Today, October 1989, p. 36.
R. Dubois, Reason Awake, Columbia University Press, New York, 1970.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2002). The Scientist and the Science Worker. In: Place of Science in a World of Values and Facts. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47623-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47623-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-46580-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47623-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive