“The Conspiracy of Silence”

Abstract

THOUGH I am sorry to have misunderstood the meaning of the Duke of Argyll in his “Great Lesson,” when I supposed him to accuse scientific men of virtually conspiring to suppress any unwelcome truth, I think I am not without excuse. Certainly I was not alone in the illusion, and I believe that many would even now say that the Duke of Argyll—in writing some of the passages which I quoted, and in using such phrases as “reluctant to admit such an error in the great idol,” “slow and sulky acquiescence,” “reluctantly, almost sulkily,” “a grudging silence,” not to quote any others—has certainly not expressed with felicity the lesson which he intended to inculcate. Further, in regard to the special instance brought forward by the Duke (that of Mr. Murray's paper) it does not appear to me that he has even now established his charge. The Duke states that he has seen a letter, written by the late Sir Wyville Thomson, most strongly urging Mr. Murray to withdraw the paper which he had sent to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The Duke further tells us candidly that no reason is alleged in the letter. Hence, Sir Wyville Thomson's motive is a matter of inference only. I hope I shall not give offence to my friend Mr. Murray if I suggest that it may have been different from that which the Duke supposes. In 1877, so far as I can ascertain, Mr. Murray had not had much practice in writing papers. There is an art in this, which we have to learn by practice and the kindly criticism of our manuscripts by friends. As the best meat may be spoiled by an inexperienced cook, so the best material may be damaged by an inexperienced author. Sir Wyville Thomson would naturally feel very sensitive about any communications bearing the names of members of the Challenger Expedition, for if among its first-fruits had been a paper unsatisfactory either as to style or arrangement, yet controverting the deliberate conclusions of those hardly less well qualified to judge, a spirit of criticism and of distrust as to the thoroughness of the work of the Expedition would have been aroused. Of course this Is an hypothesis only, which I trust Mr. Murray will forgive me for making, but I can assure him that I am conscious of my own youthful imperfections (not to mention the mistakes of maturer years), and I submit that it is at least as good as the Duke's, and more charitable to the memory of Sir Wyville Thomson.