Science and Tradition 15 



sive, witness Whewell of whom it was said that science was his forte, 

 and omniscience his foible. They should bear in mind, and the historian 

 of science himself should never forget it, that he is simply a specialist 

 like the others, having a special knowledge and special duties and using 

 special methods. He may be good or not so good, and may have all 

 kinds of virtues and vices like other people, but that is another question. 

 Other scientists must have the grace to admit on their side that investi- 

 gations which have occupied their whole life and may have entailed 

 numberless sacrifices, may be understood in a relatively short time, and 

 that it may be possible for the historian to explain and discuss them with- 

 out taking anything away from their merit, but rather the contrary. 

 The historian should not take a superior or dominating attitude and 

 other scientists should not be unduly jealous of him, nor contemptuous. 

 He is a fellow like themselves who may be more or less successful in dis- 

 covering new things; if he be honest and modest he deserves their re- 

 spect even when he is out of luck. 



The conflict between scientist and historian of science is only one 

 example of the temperamental opposition between creator and critic. 

 That conflict is far better known in other fields such as literature and 

 art. The artist resents the critic and historian yet he needs them more 

 deeply than he realizes, the public needs them, and the art itself cannot 

 grow without them.^^ It is very significant but not surprising, that his- 

 tories of art or of music the writing of which was attempted by great 

 artists have generally been mediocre. The qualities required for crea- 

 tion and for criticism are not only different but opposite, even mutually 

 exclusive. This is as true in science as it is in art. 



The main duty of the historian of science is the defense of tradition. 

 The traditions of science are not essentially different as traditions, from 

 traditions in other fields, even if we may perhaps flatter ourselves that 

 they are generally better and purer. These traditions deserve to be 

 known and religiously kept because they are really the best we have; 

 they are all that makes life worth living, they are the nobility and the 

 goodness of life. Without them we are like animals and without them 

 all the technicians and the "wizards" of the world could not lift us from 

 the mud of our material desires. We owe gratitude to the benefactors 

 of the past, in particular the great men of science who opened the new 

 paths, and also the lesser men who helped them, for we are standing on 

 their shoulders. While we express our gratitude we feel that we become 

 worthy of them, worthy to grasp with our own hands the torches which 

 they have brought to us. We are encouraged to continue their task, 



^"Professor Dingle's lecture, referred to in another footnote, above, was given 

 by him the challenging title "The missing factor in science." What is the missing 

 factor? According to him, it is the internal criticism of science, a criticism largely 

 based upon historical knowledge, and without which scientific growth may become 

 stupid and dangerous. There can be no real understanding of science, that is, 

 there can be no science, without continuous criticism of it. 



