50 SCIENTIST 



example, the growth of crystals may be thought by some 

 to bear a kind of resemblance to biological growth. Some- 

 what more relevant is the recent work on the differentia- 

 tion of the chemical elements and the evolution of the 

 universe. Here the physical scientist seems to be coming 

 face to face with the kind of increase in complexity that 

 has long challenged the biologist. Other points of contact 

 are developing between the mathematicians, who design 

 and program modern computers, and Ufe scientists inter- 

 ested in the function of the nervous system. In the long 

 run, biologists will become more like physicists and physi- 

 cists will think more like life scientists. Finally the differ- 

 ences between the two great branches of science will in 

 all likelihood wither away. 



A few years ago it would have been easy to draw a 

 distinction between the physical and hfe sciences on the 

 basis of their attitudes toward the principle of "simplicity." 

 Until very recently physics and chemistry seemed primarily 

 concerned with finding simplicity and order in what ap- 

 peared at first glance to be complex and diverse events. In 

 fact, as scientists and philosophers tried to answer Pilate's 

 famous question, "What is truth?" they became more and 

 more interested in the possibility that simplicity and the 

 kind of beauty that emerges from simplicity are in fact 

 the best evidence for the "truth" of any scientific statement. 

 The classical case was found in the almost immediate ac- 

 ceptance of the Newtonian conception of the solar system. 

 It is entirely characteristic of this close interrelationship 

 between scientific and esthetic truth that one of the greatest 

 poets of Newton's time described the latter's achievement 

 in the following way: 



Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: 

 God said, Let Newton be! and all was light. ^ 



