Letters to the Editor

Abstract

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: In the Spring 1961 issue of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine there appears a letter by George Engel, which is apparently inspired by a paper published in die previous number, one which was written by Percival Bailey. Doctor Engel claims that his letter does not "presume a critique" ofBailey's paper. He writes mainly to attack what he calls the "polemic," ofwhich the Bailey paper is presumably an example. It is not clear from Engel's textjust exactly what he means by "polemic," but a recourse to the ever-faithful Webster reveals that a polemic is an "aggressive attack on, or the refutation of, others' opinions, doctrines, or the like; controversial." So it would appear that Dr. Engel considers controversial attacks on, or refutations of, others' views to be, as he puts it, "not the way ofscience." One could, ofcourse, attempt to dismiss the Engel letter by pointing out that ifanything is polemical, it certainly deserves that label. Like the logical positiviste, who rejected metaphysics widi a metaphysic oftheir own, Engel would be seen to be merely a victim ofhis own inconsistency. But the issue goes deeper thanthat. By attacking controversy,which his psychoanalytic colleague Henry Brosin called "the life of science," Engel opens himself to the serious charge ofbeing an advocate ofobscurantism. As the philosopher Ernest Nagel wrote (in a discussion of the methodology of psychoanalysis): "Objectivity in science is achieved through the criticism of publicly accessible material by a community of independent inquirers." What then could be at the root ofEngel's position? It would appear that he is a victim ofa methodological confusion which is, unfortunately, extremely widespread in the sciences —especially biology—today. I refer to that "naive inductivist" doctrine which would have us believe that fact-gathering is the essence ofscientific mediod and diat somehow the facts will order themselves into workable wholes and, as Engel claims, will "speak louder and longer than men." As it would appear from their advertising copy, the editors ofPerspectives in Biology and Medicine apparently do not share A.J. Carlson's advice to "keep your mouth shut and your pen dry until you know the facts." They recognize that theory is the essence of science and that facts are only useful—and even identifiable—insofar as diey fit widiin a hypothetico-deductive framework. Without controversy it is impossible to engage in anything like general or even "intermediate" theorizing in any ofthe sciences. The bases ofour ideas and our operations must constantly be subject to re-examination and criticism 491 ifwe are not to end up in a sterile repetition ofthe "authoritative" word, as happened to large areas ofmedieval and Soviet science. This issue is a very large one, and I can only restate the opinion that biology and psychology will advance only to the extent that they give up naïve fact-gathering for a more fruitful approach via the development oftheory. Whether or not one agrees with Bailey's critique ofpsychoanalysis, one must conclude that he has not avoided consideration ofissues crucial to all the sciences concerned with human experience. The beginning ofKarl Popper's Logic ofScientific Discovery contains a most apt quotation from Novalis: "Theories are nets: onlyhe who casts will catch." It is indeed surprising to find a lack ofawareness ofthis fundamental principle on the part of George Engel, a man who has cast some rather interesting nets himself. Martin Hoffman, M.D. State University ofNew York Upstate Medical Center Department ofPsychiatry Syracuse 10, New York Dear Sir: "A Rigged Radio Interview—with Illustrations of Various Ego-ideals" by Percival Bailey in your Winter issue, 1961, was followed in the next issue by two anguished responses . In the first, Engel, having asked whether scientific polemics have any real value, uses Bailey's article to illustrate vividly the general worthlessness of such polemics, although they may be "good," i.e., written by an "erudite" man. Since polemic, after all, means a controversial argument or discussion or an aggressive controversy (see Oxford International Dictionary), Engel makes the curious claim that science, as practiced by scientists, must not engage in aggressive controversy. This is surely an interesting plea and is at such variance...