Overview:
In this address, Boring delves into the paradoxical nature of scientific progress. He argues that while ideally science should be objective and devoid of personal bias, the history of science reveals a different story. Controversy, he contends, is not only a part of the scientific process but often serves as its driving force. Examining famous controversies like Mesmer’s animal magnetism and the Wundt-Stumpf debate about tonal distances, Boring highlights how the very drive that propels scientists toward truth can also hinder it.
Main Parts:
- The Paradox of Controversy: The text begins by establishing the idea that controversy is a fundamental element of scientific advancement, similar to a legal trial where opposing sides clash to uncover the truth. However, Boring highlights the paradox that scientists often engage in controversy with a “I am right and you are wrong” mentality, which can lead them to cling to flawed theories and resist accepting alternative perspectives.
- Case Studies of Controversy: Boring presents historical examples of scientific controversies, focusing on the cases of Mesmer, Elliotson, and the Wundt-Stumpf debate. These examples illustrate how personal biases, emotional attachments to theories, and the need to prove oneself right can hinder scientific progress.
- The Negativism of Progress: Boring then tackles the idea that progress in science often appears as regression. He argues that new movements and schools of thought frequently emerge as reactions against existing ideas, often defined by what they are against rather than what they are for. This negativism, he believes, is essential for gaining attention and sparking the necessary discussion for progress.
- The Dual Personality of the Scientist: Recognizing the inherent tension between the need for personal conviction and objective evaluation, Boring proposes that scientists should cultivate a “dual personality.” This duality would allow scientists to step back from their own convictions, act as impartial judges, and temper their emotional biases in order to promote more fruitful discussion and research.
View on Life: The text presents two contrasting views on how to approach scientific inquiry:
- Objective Truth Seeker: The ideal scientist strives for impartial truth, free from personal biases. This view emphasizes objectivity and dispassionate inquiry.
- Proactive Advocate: The scientist as an advocate, driven by personal conviction and a desire to prove their own theories correct. This view recognizes the role of personal biases and the need for strong convictions to drive scientific exploration.
Scenarios:
- Mesmer’s Animal Magnetism: Mesmer, a physician, discovers the therapeutic effects of what we now know as hypnosis, but his flamboyant personality and insistence on his personal power alienate the scientific community and hinder the acceptance of his findings.
- Elliotson and Mesmerism: Elliotson, a physician who embraces mesmerism, faces staunch opposition from his colleagues and even the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, who deny the validity of his findings due to prejudice and emotional resistance to the unconventional.
- Wundt-Stumpf Debate: The debate over tonal distances highlights how two renowned psychologists, driven by their own convictions and vying for intellectual dominance, engage in a highly personal controversy that ultimately hinders progress.
Challenges:
- Overcoming Personal Biases: The text emphasizes the challenge of separating personal convictions from scientific objectivity. Scientists must strive to be aware of their biases and actively work to minimize their impact on their research.
- Resisting Dogma: Scientists face the challenge of resisting the allure of established doctrines and staying open to new ideas and perspectives.
Conflict:
- Scientific vs. Personal: The primary conflict revolves around the tension between scientific objectivity and the influence of personal beliefs, prejudices, and emotional attachments to theories.
- Individual vs. Group: Scientists often find themselves in conflict with the scientific community, facing resistance from established institutions and facing pressure to conform to accepted norms.
Plot: The text follows a narrative arc that builds upon the idea of controversy as a driving force in scientific advancement. The introduction sets up the paradox of controversy, outlining the ideal of objective truth-seeking against the reality of scientific practice. The case studies serve as concrete examples of this paradox, illustrating how personal biases and emotional attachments can hinder progress. The discussion of the “negativism of progress” provides a theoretical framework for understanding how new scientific movements emerge in opposition to existing paradigms. Finally, the conclusion offers a solution in the form of cultivating a “dual personality,” which allows scientists to maintain their passion while simultaneously engaging in more objective evaluation.
Point of View: The text is written from the perspective of a seasoned psychologist, reflecting on the history of his field and sharing his own observations and insights. This perspective lends credibility to the arguments, drawing upon personal experience and nuanced understanding of the scientific process.
How It’s Written: The text is written in a formal and engaging style, using vivid examples and personal anecdotes to illustrate its points. The author’s tone is conversational yet insightful, engaging the reader in a thoughtful dialogue about the nature of scientific inquiry. For example: “The scientist needs to be a dual personality. He needs to be able to become the prosecutor or the judge at will.” This example demonstrates the author’s use of straightforward language and imaginative metaphors to convey complex ideas.
Tone: The text exhibits a reflective and analytical tone, acknowledging the complexity of the subject while advocating for a more balanced approach to scientific inquiry.
Life Choices: The text suggests that scientists should make conscious choices to cultivate a more objective and dispassionate approach to their work. This involves recognizing and managing their own biases, engaging in open-minded dialogue with colleagues, and seeking a broader perspective beyond the confines of their own convictions.
Lessons:
- Embrace Controversy: Controversy can be a powerful catalyst for scientific advancement, but it should be approached with a spirit of critical thinking and an openness to diverse viewpoints.
- Cultivate Self-Awareness: Scientists should strive to understand their own biases and the impact they have on their research and interpretations.
- Value Dialogue: Open and respectful dialogue with colleagues is essential for challenging assumptions, generating new insights, and fostering progress.
Characters:
- Edwin G. Boring: The author, a prominent psychologist, serves as a guide for the reader through his reflections on the history of psychology and his insights into the nature of scientific inquiry.
- Franz Anton Mesmer: A physician who, while inadvertently discovering hypnosis, becomes entangled in controversy due to his eccentric personality and overemphasis on personal power.
- John Elliotson: A pioneering physician who champions mesmerism and faces intense opposition from the medical community for his unconventional approach.
- Carl Stumpf: A psychologist who, despite his contributions to the field, becomes embroiled in a bitter debate with Wilhelm Wundt over tonal distances, highlighting the potential for personal bias to derail progress.
- Wilhelm Wundt: A highly influential psychologist who, while credited with founding experimental psychology, also demonstrates how even renowned figures can succumb to personal biases and engage in heated controversies.
Themes:
- The Nature of Scientific Progress: The text explores the complex and often contradictory nature of scientific progress, highlighting the interplay of personal biases, social forces, and the pursuit of objective truth.
- The Impact of Controversy: The text examines the role of controversy in scientific advancement, arguing that while it can hinder progress, it is also essential for challenging assumptions, stimulating debate, and driving forward new ideas.
- The Importance of Objectivity: The text underscores the importance of striving for objectivity in scientific inquiry, acknowledging the challenge of navigating personal biases and achieving impartial evaluation.
Principles:
- Fallibility of Human Reason: The text emphasizes that even the brightest minds are susceptible to biases and errors in judgment. This recognition encourages humility and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints.
- The Power of Dialogue: Open and critical dialogue among scientists is crucial for uncovering biases, refining theories, and moving forward in the pursuit of knowledge.
- The Role of Dissent: The text highlights the importance of dissent and disagreement in scientific inquiry, as it serves to challenge assumptions, stimulate new ideas, and ultimately lead to greater understanding.
Intentions of the Characters in the Text or the Reader of the Text:
- Edwin G. Boring: Boring’s intention is to prompt reflection on the role of controversy in scientific advancement, highlighting the challenges and paradoxes inherent in the pursuit of knowledge.
- Reader: The reader’s intention is likely to gain a deeper understanding of the complex nature of scientific inquiry, recognizing the interplay of personal biases, social forces, and the pursuit of objective truth.
Unique Vocabulary:
- Gestaltqualität: A term used to describe the integrated quality of perceptions, often contrasted with the elementaristic approach of breaking down perception into individual components.
- Bewusstseinslagen: A term used by Külpe to describe “mental states” or “states of consciousness,” referring to non-sensory mental processes.
- Bewusstheiten: A term used by Külpe to denote “consciousnesses” or “conscious experiences,” indicating a broader awareness beyond simple sensory perceptions.
- Reductio ad absurdum: A logical argument that reaches a contradictory conclusion by taking a premise to an extreme, demonstrating its absurdity.
Anecdotes:
- The Ward Case: This anecdote, detailing a surgeon’s use of mesmerism as an anesthetic, vividly illustrates the emotional resistance and entrenched biases of the medical community at the time.
- Wundt and Stumpf Debate: This anecdote offers a compelling example of how two esteemed psychologists, driven by their own convictions, engage in a personal and potentially unproductive conflict that underscores the challenges of navigating scientific controversy.
Ideas:
- The Paradox of Controversy: The text presents the idea that scientific progress is often fueled by controversy, a paradox that highlights the tension between personal biases and the pursuit of objective truth.
- The “Negativism” of Progress: The text proposes that scientific movements and schools of thought often emerge as reactions against existing ideas, suggesting that progress often involves defining oneself by what one is not, rather than by what one is.
- The Dual Personality of the Scientist: The text promotes the idea that scientists should cultivate a dual personality, allowing them to step back from their own convictions, act as impartial judges, and temper their emotional biases.
Facts and Findings:
- The text does not contain any specific facts or findings as the primary focus is on the philosophical and historical analysis of scientific inquiry.
Points of View:
- The text is written primarily from a first-person perspective, reflecting the author’s own observations and insights as a psychologist.
- This first-person perspective shapes the reader’s understanding of the subject, offering a personal and nuanced view of scientific inquiry.
Perspective: The text provides a historical and philosophical perspective on the nature of scientific inquiry, challenging the reader to consider the interplay of personal biases, social forces, and the pursuit of objective truth. The text emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, critical dialogue, and a balanced approach to scientific controversy.