"The Philosopher's Stone" and Modern Scientific Endeavor

Abstract

A few centuries ago, when what we call modern science was still in a nuclear form and overshadowed by religious concepts, scientific insight was viewed as deeply related to ethical experience. In the symbolic language of the time, it was believed that for deeper or even deepest insight into the world and the nature of man, one had to find the This meant, first, an inner ethical development, and second, a spiritual development. On this one's success in achieving a deeper and essential understanding of reality depended. Modern scientific thinking has discarded such concepts, relegating them to a mystical and religious past. In spite of this questions remain, as to any relationship between ethical behavior and a scientific endeavor, which are hardly ever discussed. It is generally claimed that scientific activity and scientific striving have innate professional behavior standards and demands for which socalled ethical problematics are not essential. Regarding the old ethical rules and their codex, it is claimed that, because of the way in which our modern scientific standards have developed, we have no further need for such an ethical or religious background. What we call our scientific objectivity corresponds to the old Philosopher's Stone. That this, in the final analysis, is not absolutely true has concerned this author for some time. The objections started with observations made from the point of view of an abnormal psychologist. In dealing with the treatment of predominantly academic clientele, one hears continually of an inability to execute professional scientific tasks, be they tasks of experiment, teaching, or research, because of neurotic or more severe pathological mental conditions. It is evident that scientific activity can be interfered with or even impeded by adverse psychological conditions. A further question arises as to what, other than actual psychopathology, can interfere or is interfering with good scientific performance. And finally, one wonders what personal and human attitudes can improve a man's ability to perform his scientific tasks. Experimenting especially with the third question, several sets of questionnaires were worked out. It was soon realized that the standardization of such a questionnaire interfered with the basic, individual character which these problems had in the minds of scientific workers. A variety of questions were asked a large number of different kinds of scientists selected at random. After several hundred answers had been collected and studied, it became evident that it would be almost impossible to formulate a single questionnaire and expect to receive comparable replies. A decision was therefore made, first, to question several different types of scientist. Further, the questionnaire was to be differentiated and the application individualized. It was finally decided to select twelve individuals about whom no further personality and character investigation was to be made. Eight groups of scientists were selected. Groups with potential influencing power, such as religious and military men, were avoided. However, we did include two groups of scientists known to belong to organizations having a specific ethical pattern: Quakers and Freemasons. It appeared that the responses of these latter two groups might prove enlightening in regard to the borderline between specific ethical patterns and a general scientific attitude. There were two further deviations from the basic pattern. Instead of general medical workers, surgeons were selected because of their great responsibilities, which account for their well-known high ethical standards. Since it was also apparent that students gave the most enlightened replies, several dozen-rather than one dozen as originally