Abstract
MY first letter (NATURE, October 15, p. 572) on this subject maintained that Prof. Poulton had no right to hold physicists as a body responsible for views presented by two or three of their number, however eminent. Prof. Poulton (NATURE, December 3, p. 100) seeks to justify his action on the ground that “in a matter of such great importance … it is probably fair to conclude that, with the great majority of physicists, ‘silence gave consent.’” This doctrine of silence is surely untenable. If an authority on acoustics pronounces views even on the fundamentals of sound, is an electrician to be held consenting when he forms no opinion or reserves it to himself? In the present case it should be added that whilst questions in geo-physics or astro-physics are often most interesting to the public, they hardly as yet touch the fundamentals of physics, but constitute merely theoretical applications. If we put at 5 per cent, the proportion of physicists who have studied for themselves any given problem in geo-physics, and who have the necessary qualifications to justify the expression of an opinion, we should probably indulge in an over-estimate. It is in fact only a very small minority of whom anything but silence could possibly have been expected.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CHREE, C. Responsibility in Science. Nature 55, 152–153 (1896). https://doi.org/10.1038/055152b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/055152b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.