What do Marie Curie, a Geiger counter and
mass hysteria have in common? Well, to answer this question we need to go
Sir Arthur Eddington, who was a British astrophysicist and philosopher of science at the turn of the 20th century. He came up with what is frequently referred to as the Eddington parable, which has nothing to do with the stars specifically and everything to do with how we make scientific progress. Here it is for your reading enjoyment, as told in
this editorial (available by subscriptionby Diamond and Kaul, two highly respected clinician-researchers:
Let us suppose
that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the
water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he
[concludes that no] sea-creature is less than two inches long. An onlooker may object that
the generalization is wrong. "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two
inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist
dismisses this objection
contemptuously: "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the
kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't
fish”.
Suppose that a more tactful
onlooker makes a rather different suggestion: "I realize that you are right in
refusing our friend's hypothesis of uncatchable fish, which cannot be
verified by any tests you and I would consider valid. By keeping to your own method of study, you have reached a
generalization of the highest importance—to fishmongers, who would not be
interested in generalizations about uncatchable fish. Since these
generalizations are so important, I would like to help you. You arrived at
your generalization in the traditional way by examining the fish. May I point out that you could have
arrived more easily at the same generalization by examining the net and the method of
using it?"
So,you see my point? Tools determine knowledge. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment