p Knowledge and the conceptions based upon it we may call the matter, the content of science; the form given to the movement of science is its method—that totality of approaches, criteria, and techniques which direct the search and determine the verification of the truth. The latter may be described as the scientific mode which in turn may be concisely stated as that approach to a subject matter which provides specific knowledge of it. It is common knowledge that without the corresponding methods and criteria it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of observations, the correctness of conclusions, or arrive at a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Without these criteria it is further impossible to distinguish science from information collected at random or from pseudo-sciences such as alchemy. The criteria and methods pertaining to the phrase "scientific mode" are intrinsic to science itself. For example, mathematics encompasses methods for achieving results—the methods of mathematical proof and conclusions.
p Scientific criteria and methods exist, of course, only to the extent that people accept these criteria and rely upon the corresponding methods. At the core of science lies the striving to know the truth and to understand the activities of man. Therefore the word combination “pseudo-science” is as absurd as is "black whiteness”. The scientific spirit epitomizes the quest for the truth; it is the scientific approach with its criteria and methods, converted into a search, a discovery and an affirmation of the truth by the striving towards knowledge, a striving directed in principle at the entire world (both nature and the internal world of the individual).
p Unfortunately, there are those who write of science and, in particular, as it pertains to morality, who overlook precisely the essence of science, expressed in the search for the truth. In these instances science is considered in its external aspects; in terms of its applications, quantitative growth, etc. Science in their hands is turned into a force to all appearances external to humankind. It appears in this light to those who do not understand the substance of science, but see only its technical 41 applications. The particular role played by science in the contemporary world has also resulted in the frequent attracting to its ranks of those who are more interested in a career than in truth. But to make judgements concerning the whole of science on the basis of these facts would be the equivalent of confusing prostitution for love.
p The distortions mentioned above block our view of the authentic spirit of science, characterized by a passionate, uncompromising and tightly controlled search for truth. The essential connection between science and morality also disappears from the field of vision. Given these distortions we also overlook the fact that science includes human self-awareness. The fact that self-awareness—both of the individual and of society—is a condition determining the development of morality has been understood since ancient times.
p Many feel that the feature distinguishing the moral from the scientific consciousness may be located in the axiomatic imperatives yielded by the former. This is however incorrect, since we may find axiomatic imperatives at the heart of scientific consciousness as well: the striving for and respect of the truth, the adoption of scientific norms, the unconditional acceptance of that which is demonstrated by facts and logic. The individual well grounded in science, accepts its arguments and conclusions, but others may ignore these arguments and conclusions and in fact show little interest in clarifications of the truth. They may for example turn to authority rather than to an examination of the facts. On a general level, outside the realm of specialized scientific problems, the question may be posed as follows: is the striving for and respect of the truth an unconditional imperative for the individual?; do its deductions serve as an imperative for him? A positive answer indicates the scientific approach to morality. But since the achievement of objective knowledge is difficult and since, secondly, taking this objective knowledge into account is not always a pleasant task, the call for an approach in the scientific spirit often provokes protest. In this vein a moral position is advanced which excludes from the realm of morality the striving to know the truth and to come to grips with it. The fact that people will accept falsehoods only underscores the importance of a scientific approach to morality with its inherent rejection of credulity and its demand for proof.
p The first and foremost demand of the scientific approach is objectivity. To examine an object, putting to the side, to the degree possible, all that is personal; to try to investigate and to understand "as it is in reality" and not as it appears at first 42 glance or as one would prefer it to be; to take account of the facts and of logic rather than of one’s preconceptions or of the opinions of the authorities—this may serve as our definition of objectivity. No matter how much a physicist might wish that an experiment confirm his hypothesis he may not alter the data yielded by the experiment even by an iota. Scientific objectivity presupposes unwavering honesty, unconditional acceptance of the truth and that degree of personal modesty which would restrain one from placing his wishes and opinions above the arguments presented by the facts and by logic and from subordinating these arguments to the opinions of the authorities. Therefore the scientific spirit excludes from its domain all forms of accommodation.
p Scientific activity presupposes receptivity to criticism and self-criticism. The scientist is always prepared to accept well-founded objections and recognize demonstrated error, no matter how unpleasant the fact of recognition. He verifies his own work by attempting to incorporate possible objections. Scientific creativity always combines hunches, hypotheses and fantasies with the strictest critical edge. Science conducts a search for conformities and for the essential; it never rests content with the surficial. Therefore the scientific spirit excludes superficiality and demands the most penetrating examination of the object in question. It demands persistence and thoughtfulness in the quest.
p It may be observed that all of the features enumerated above have been borrowed from the domain of morality, and do not belong to science proper. Such a remark is spurious. The scientific approach does not argue that to garble or to juggle with the facts is bad, it states merely that such activity precludes the possibility of establishing the truth. In certain instances concealment of the truth may be regarded as a moral act (for example concealing from a sick person the terminal nature of his disease) but by such a choice the action forfeits its claim to being scientific. It follows that the demands for truthfulness, self-criticism, etc. are integral to science—they are internal conditions necessary for its development.
p A scientist engaged in the search for truth finds himself in the position of waiting for results and decisions which are made quite independently of his will. The position of the applied scientist is somewhat different: by manipulating nature he strives to achieve the desired result. The confusion of the practical, engineering and technical position with science may be listed as yet another reason for the loss of the moral element in the scientific spirit.
43p Scientific truth expresses that which exists (independently of our will); it does not depend upon moral choice; to deny the truth would be absurd, although one may in fact try to conceal it. For this reason it holds precedence over morality and must be the concluding factor to be taken into account by the latter. But the activities of the individual depend upon his choice, for this reason morality of necessity precedes the engineering position. The differences between these two positions are brought into sharp focus when we move to the analysis of social phenomena. Science endeavours to apprehend the objective tendencies and possibilities for social development. The "social engineer" sets to work to transform society. The activity of the latter may be effective and moral only given reliance upon science; it is immoral if the engineer aspires to change life, relying,only upon his preconceived opinions and neglecting objective tendencies and opportunities (the latter is typical of the politics of voluntarism, for all “left” deviations, for putschism, etc.).
p Reliable and established knowledge serves as the firmest foundation for one’s convictions. The physicist, for example, does not doubt the existence of molecular structure. But the scientist’s respect for the truth must not be transformed into idolatry. It must be combined with a readiness to reconsider one’s conceptions on the accuracy of any given scientific proposition, to render more accurate and develop this proposition if so demanded by the facts and by the laws of logic. Thus the tenacity of a scientific conviction is nevertheless incompatible with dogmatism and fanaticism. Similarly, the critical attitude of science, always prepared to subject to doubt any given proposition, has nothing in common with scepticism, because the former leads to more sophisticated and more precise knowledge. A readiness to reconsider existing propositions and theories and a receptivity to the most unexpected things that one may stumble upon in nature make the authentic scientific approach revolutionary. But even given a large quotient of boldness, such a revolutionary approach inexorably submits to the criteria of science.
In sum, the scientific spirit brings together perseverance in the search with the modesty of the searcher. It unites the wish to attain the truth with the strictest control, certainty with a critical stance, conviction—with doubt, unconditional respect for existing knowledge—with a readiness to reconsider and review and constantly to press forward in an indefatigable and unremitting search for tne truth.
Notes