306 ORGANIZED SCIENCE 



and/or theoretical analyses that humiliatingly expose his incapacity. 

 Moreover, though on occasion the author may feel himself con- 

 strained and even injured by the impositions of editors and referees, 

 he will always agree that exacting standards of professional work- 

 manship must somehow be maintained. As James observes: 



Truth lives, in fact, for the most part on a credit system. . . . just 

 as banknotes pass so long as nobody refuses them. . . . You accept 

 my verification of one thing, I yours of another. We trade on each 

 other's truth [and truthfulness]. But beliefs verified concretely by 

 somebody are the posts of the whole superstructure. 



Thus, though the investigator may himself verify a few critical items 

 he has some reason to doubt, to get ahead at all with his own work 

 he must take on faith the soundness of the vast bulk of what is pub- 

 lished by others in reputable journals. He cannot then wholly re- 

 pudiate that selectivity of editors and referees on which he himself 

 so heavily relies. 



For the scientist's sensitivity to criticism we have now found two 

 quite practical reasons. But the ultimate factor probably is, as Conant 

 suggests, sociological. 



The traditions he inherits, his instruments, the high degree of speciali- 

 zation, the crowd of witnesses that surrounds him, so to speak (if he 

 publishes his results ) —these all exert pressures that make impartiality 

 in matters of his science almost automatic. 



Never quite impartiality, for surely Trotter is correct in insisting that: 



The dispassionate intellect, the open mind, the unprejudiced observer, 

 exist in an exact sense only in a sort of intellectualist folklore; states 

 even approaching them cannot be reached without a moral and emo- 

 tional effort most of us cannot or will not make. 



Nevertheless the very existence of the Invisible College must strongly 

 promote this eflFort. Already educated to the impossible task of clearly 

 distinguishing observation from inference, evidence from intuition, 

 accomplishment from inspiration, the scientist feels goaded to make a 

 case that will convince all doubters. In the conduct of his research he 

 seeks to anticipate the criticisms of his peers by maintaining a high 

 standard of workmanship. In shaping the presentation of his research, 

 his consciousness of the discrimination of his peers not only makes 

 him responsive to their criticisms but actively drives him, as Whe- 



