Word: standen
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Mystical Virtues. Individually, says Standen, scientists are pleasant and even modest fellows. But their "collective ego" is something else again. They are so infatuated with their own scientific minds, that "they seem to think they are entitled to pour scorn on other subjects from a very great height." Standen does not deny that their practical results are admirable ("Better things for better living . . .," etc.), but unfortunately "it is not the results of science that they advertise most; it is always the 'scientific method' or the 'scientific attitude,' or a variety of other hidden, mystical virtues...
Meanwhile, laymen also have come to believe that science is a "cureall for mankind," infallible and above criticism. This, says Standen, "is a delusion . . . What with scientists who are so deep in science that they cannot see it, and nonscientists who are too over-awed to express an opinion, hardly anyone is able to recognize science for what it is, the great Sacred Cow of our time...
Probable Opinion. The sciences, Standen continues, range from "fairly good through mediocre to downright bad." Physics is "science at its best," and much of chemistry ("an art [often] related to cooking, instead of a true science") passes muster. But even these have serious contradictions. They make claims to the discovery of immutable truths, and yet scoff at all philosophical absolutes. Actually, their truth is not truth at all, but "a body of well-supported probable opinion only, and its ideas may be exploded at any time...
More important, says Standen, the physicists are really blind to the questions that should most concern men. "Is the universe to be thought of in terms of electrons and protons? Or ... in terms of Good and Evil? Merely to ask the question is to realize at least one very important limitation of physics...
...Standen, all the other sciences are guilty of the same limitation - and laymen should never forget it. The biologists, trying desperately to be "scientific," spend a good deal of time trying to define their terms. The results, says Standen, are "ludicrous." They dare not even try to define "life." They define " 'stimulus' and 'response' ... in terms of one another. No biologist can define a species. And as for a genus - all attempts come down to this: 'A genus is a grouping of species that some recognized taxonomic specialist has called a genus...