Customer Reviews

Fabulous Science: Fact and Fiction in the History of Scientific Discovery

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The science establishment admits that science is an `industry' exposed to market pressures: relentless demand for usable output, the need to promote its products and to parry bad publicity, the need to reconcile conflicts of interest between marketable research outcomes and validity of those outcomes (especially acute in the pharmaceutical industry). Today bogus science so widespread that the catchphrase `junk science' has become a label to nullify the prestige of the `science' label adeptly used to recruit the credibility of the naïve or the uninformed. Another effect is the nearly universal institution of codes of conduct to for scientists.

Waller bypasses this contemporary territory to come at his theme in a series of case studies of historically high profile achievements that have proved to be somewhat inflated, or outright `fabulous'. Among his cases are Louis Pasteur's disproof of spontaneous generation, Arthur Eddington's experimental proof of Einstein's general relativity theory, Joseph Lister's introduction of surgical antisepsis; Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, Robert Millikan's discovery of the electron, and Darwin's `proof' of evolution. In each case the author identifies the legend to be corrected and then takes us inside the story of what actually happened. We are shown something of the personalities of the scientists involved and their motivation. The lesson concludes with guesses about why they behaved as they did and how they got away with it. I'll mention just one of Waller's cases.

It is the famous debate between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley at a session of the 1860 British Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Oxford. According to legend, the encounter occurred before a packed auditorium filled by anticipation of a confrontation between the eloquent Wilberforce, defending the permanence of species, and Huxley, defending evolution. Legend says that Wilberforce displayed his ignorance of Darwin's theory and was trounced and humiliated by the acerbic Huxley. The legendary debate condenses to an aphorism: Wilberforce taunted Huxley with the question whether he was descended from the ape on his father's side or his mother's side, to which Huxley retorted that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an august authority who abused his trust to obfuscate the truth. The devastating reply shifted the audience from partiality to the orthodox view to up-and-coming evolutionism. This had the larger significance that, for the first time, science openly challenged religion and proclaimed the two modes of thought must go separate ways. As Hallam puts it: `The [debate] ...was a landmark in the victory of scientific reason over faith and obfuscation. At least that is how Huxley & Co saw it. Were they right? Well, not exactly.'

First slippage: three journalists reported the session, but none mentioned the Wilberforce ape ancestry challenge and the Huxley rejoinder. Indeed, Huxley had said in previous conference sessions that he was not ashamed to admit his pithacoid ancestry. Second slippage: the `inextinguishable laughter' from the audience that Huxley, in correspondence, boasted that his retort produced is not reported by the journalists or others who commented on the event. These sources include Darwin's supporters Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker. Third slippage: the session was not billed as a debate between Huxley and Wilberforce, but as a paper on the historical conflict between science and religion by one Dr John Draper, to be followed by open discussion. The audience expected Wilberforce to speak, but not Huxley, who attended the meeting only on a last minute decision. Fourth slippage: According to a statement in correspondence shortly after the event, Huxley's argument was not particularly effective or audible to the large audience. Wilberforce was indeed put down, but by botanist Joseph Hooker. The source? Joseph Hooker in a letter to Darwin! Fifth slippage: there is no record of what Wilberforce said, but we do have his review of the Origin that appeared shortly after the Oxford meeting. There he shows himself well acquainted with Darwin's book. Invoking his ecclesiastical office, he expressly defended Darwin's right to be heard. He accepted the principle of natural selection, but says that it is a well-known principle of species conservation (by eliminating the maladapted). He argued that Darwin simply recycled the opinions of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Sixth slippage: Wilberforce's comments on the session express satisfaction that he had met the challenge handsomely. Waller's conclusion: Huxley's boastful letter, on which the legend is based, was a `face-saving device' of a man so immobilized by anger that he couldn't effectively speak. So Huxley was fibbing. In particular, his contention that Wilberforce engaged in deliberate obfuscation is unfounded. Waller concludes that the audience was fairly evenly divided between the two sides, each confident in its opinion. My own investigation of this debate reached the same conclusion, but with one difference: that it occurred at all, under British Association auspices, was a landmark in the transition to public acceptance of evolution. In that sense, the legend communicates a historical truth, but dressed in the mystique of the Darwin cult.

Fabulous Science a readable expedition into the exotic world of how science happens. Definitely merits a place on your wish list.