Science and Government

Abstract

IN NATURE of March 8, Dr. E. C. Childs writes: “If we are deprived of experiment we must fall back on experience, that is, appeal to authority, which is admittedly less satisfying than scientific demonstration; and we cannot, as men of science lacking our chief weapon, expect to prevail in conflict with authority”. Is not this a rather forced differentiation between “experiment” and “experience”? Experience is the outcome of the observation of facts. It surely does not matter whether those facts are obtained from a series of casual incidents or from pre-arranged reactions. There is no branch of science which does not owe a great deal to observation of casual—and frequently serendipitous—events. Admittedly it is convenient and convincing to be able to repeat as and when required an experiment to reinforce a specific argument, but that does not imply that experience is “less satisfying than scientific demonstration”. As for “authority”, “experiment” relies upon it quite as much as “experience”, for the bulk of men have to accept the findings of the few specialists. In other words, they have to rely upon the authority which they accord to the expert.