nite conclusions on any matter, until the necessary re- 

 search has been done to provide the factual basis for con- 

 clusions. He is also always ready to consider the bearing of 

 any new experimentally established facts on previously 

 accepted theories and laws of science, and will modify these 

 laws or theories in accordance with the new knowledge 

 when it shows this to be necessary. 



The objectivity of science describes very well the 

 world picture of the complete scientist: he sees the materi- 

 al world as reality, with himself as part of that reality. Of 

 all else he is uncertain, and he must, for the present, re- 

 ject the non-material as representing truth, since only 

 in the material world can he devise acceptable proof of 

 his conclusions. It is particularly striking for anyone who 

 examines the history of Man's evolving thought, to notice 

 how all his religions, ideologies, and philosophies of the 

 past, and those of the present, have included unprovable 

 bases, whereas the scientific philosophy is virtually free 

 of this logical fault in its structure. For, from our knowl- 

 edge of the working of the human mind, which we have 

 only in this century begun to understand, we now know 

 that we cannot rely on the correctness of our own thoughts 

 alone, in trying to solve the most difficult and important 

 problems facing us. In every question of the truth we 

 must test our ideas against Nature herself, and we must 

 compare our conclusions so obtained with those of others 

 in order to check the correctness of our interpretation of 

 our experiments. Repeatedly in the past has Man been led 

 to reach false conclusions because he was unaware of the 

 subjective errors affecting his thinking activities; the best 

 that we can do today, now that we recognize these errors, 

 is to demand objectivity in all the conclusions which we 

 accept as truth. We also recognize, unlike in previous 



90 



