ORGANIZED SCIENCE 303 



normative forces no less powerful for all that they are unenshrined 

 in a legal code. The normati\'e forces are not laws but customs, the 

 mores of the community. And for the scientist his peers function not 

 as policemen, judge and jury, but rather as a family, tribe or fellow- 

 ship that acknowledges certain canons of "good taste." These canons 

 are not unduly restrictive, and the individual may be disposed to 

 accept them simply as a matter of enlightened self-interest. Thus, 

 though this acceptance demands something of him, he recognizes 

 that general acceptance of these canons will yield him rather more 

 in return. 



Protection. What are some canons of taste? Dishonesty,, plagiarism, 

 and gross irresponsibility are, of course, in the worst of taste. Such 

 trespasses are comparatively rare— because punishable by ostracism 

 from the community in which most scientists value their member- 

 ship. Since science can flourish only in an atmosphere of mutual con- 

 fidence, polemic arguments impugning the intelligence or integrity 

 of one's opponents are in bad taste. Mere absence of desire to reach 

 agreement— evidenced in stubborn misunderstanding or misrepre- 

 sentation of an opponent's position, or one's own— is in very bad taste, 

 because it threatens the precious possibility of a communal consen- 

 sus. Polanyi correctly notes that the tone of scientific debate, if not 

 always one of sweet reasonableness, is generally held to a fairly high 

 level by the discrimination of the audience addressed. 



Controversies between leaders of thought are usually conducted in 

 order to canvass supporters rather than to convert each other. Fair- 

 ness and tolerance can hardly be maintained in a public contest un- 

 less its audience appreciates candor and moderation and can resist 

 false oratory. A judicious public with a quick ear for insincerity of 

 argument is therefore an essential partner in the practice of free con- 

 troversy. It will insist upon being presented with moderate claims 

 admitting frankly their element of personal conviction. It will demand 

 this both in order to defend the balance of its own mind and as a 

 token of clear and conscientious thinking on the part of those canvass- 

 ing its support. 



Today, for example, it is extraordinarily bad taste— because a threat 

 to the integrity of the community— to appeal to extra-scientific con- 

 siderations {e.g., religious or economic dogmas) on which all scien- 

 tists cannot agree. Such arguments were apparently countenanced in 

 scientific circles as little as a century ago, at the time of Darwin. But 



