Transcribe
Translate
Fantods, whole no. 9, Winter 1945
Page 3
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
EFTY-NINE page 3 TRIPLE STANDARD Chandler Davis The problem: Given any book, or work of art, or scientific paper, to estimate its positive value. My discussion: There have been attempts to set up standards by which all productions of the human intellect could be evaluated on the same scale. One such criterion was that of the Roman Catholics; another that of the utilitarianists. These are uniform yardsticks applicable with some definiteness; that is, although two men using the same yardstick to compare the relative merit or evil of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Shaw's Pygmalion might not agree as to which was more Godly, or more productive of happiness, they would know pretty precisely on what basis they were deciding. But both these standards of judgment are inadequate. Their attitude tends to be, not "Is Einstein right?" but "Is Einstein on our side?" The utilitarian might be convinced, to take a new example, that men were descended from nonhuman apes yet rate the Theory of Evolution as a poor contribution to science because he thought it made people unhappy to think of themselves as mere brutes. The Catholic might rate the Bible the best book of all time because reading it brings one nearer to God', yet privately consider St. Luke's literary style inferior to that of Tiffany Thayer. Much preferable would be a criterion, fairly well-defined, which would correspond to the question "Is this right?" which we automatically ask (if we're in a sufficiently critical mood). I think that this question actually has different meanings depending on the nature of the thing criticized, and I'd like to try to point out the differences. In the case of the natural sciences, of course, the thing is pretty straightforward. Just use Jack London's criterion: "Will it work? Will I stake my life on it?" Will this theory explain known facts; or (to put the same question in longer but better words), will it adequately correlate observed data? There are exceptions, where slightly different criteria are used; for example, Sommerfeld's fine-line spectrum analysis on the basis of relativity mass corrections did not correspond well with observed spectra, yet it was given some weight because (1) no other theories fitted observations better, and (2) discounting Sommerfeld's work would have meant throwing out relativity. Still, though, the theory would eventually have been discarded if an addition to the theory (the concept of polarized electrons) had not brought it better into accord with the facts. In general, original scientific papers are judged by whether they will predict what the "objective" observer's senses will record under specified conditions. This applies also to much of applied math., and even extends into the subject ordinarily called pure math. For example, take classical statistics. In developing the theory the mathematician refuses
Saving...
prev
next
EFTY-NINE page 3 TRIPLE STANDARD Chandler Davis The problem: Given any book, or work of art, or scientific paper, to estimate its positive value. My discussion: There have been attempts to set up standards by which all productions of the human intellect could be evaluated on the same scale. One such criterion was that of the Roman Catholics; another that of the utilitarianists. These are uniform yardsticks applicable with some definiteness; that is, although two men using the same yardstick to compare the relative merit or evil of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Shaw's Pygmalion might not agree as to which was more Godly, or more productive of happiness, they would know pretty precisely on what basis they were deciding. But both these standards of judgment are inadequate. Their attitude tends to be, not "Is Einstein right?" but "Is Einstein on our side?" The utilitarian might be convinced, to take a new example, that men were descended from nonhuman apes yet rate the Theory of Evolution as a poor contribution to science because he thought it made people unhappy to think of themselves as mere brutes. The Catholic might rate the Bible the best book of all time because reading it brings one nearer to God', yet privately consider St. Luke's literary style inferior to that of Tiffany Thayer. Much preferable would be a criterion, fairly well-defined, which would correspond to the question "Is this right?" which we automatically ask (if we're in a sufficiently critical mood). I think that this question actually has different meanings depending on the nature of the thing criticized, and I'd like to try to point out the differences. In the case of the natural sciences, of course, the thing is pretty straightforward. Just use Jack London's criterion: "Will it work? Will I stake my life on it?" Will this theory explain known facts; or (to put the same question in longer but better words), will it adequately correlate observed data? There are exceptions, where slightly different criteria are used; for example, Sommerfeld's fine-line spectrum analysis on the basis of relativity mass corrections did not correspond well with observed spectra, yet it was given some weight because (1) no other theories fitted observations better, and (2) discounting Sommerfeld's work would have meant throwing out relativity. Still, though, the theory would eventually have been discarded if an addition to the theory (the concept of polarized electrons) had not brought it better into accord with the facts. In general, original scientific papers are judged by whether they will predict what the "objective" observer's senses will record under specified conditions. This applies also to much of applied math., and even extends into the subject ordinarily called pure math. For example, take classical statistics. In developing the theory the mathematician refuses
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
