Published in the July 14, 1994 Nature
John Maddox is concerned about the forces of anti-science, and he asks for a polemicist to take up the fight against them. His outrage, although I do not share it, deserves a response.
Certain philosophies are inherently paradoxical. Advocates of democracy, for instance, are surely frustrated that they must occasionally tolerate speeches for tyranny and bigotry. Such frustration is a side effect of democracy, and may be an essential aspect of democracy. The paradox is that stifling undemocratic speeches puts one in the undemocratic camp.
Advocates of science must also invite criticism, as criticism of the basic tenets of science is the only way in which science can progress. Must this criticism come only from the true believers? That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy. Science, in the mirror of anti-science, has its blemishes magnified, and that is good for science. Maddox asks for someone to take up the cudgel against anti-science, but that cudgel would strike against science itself, in breaking the mirror. I believe that the restraint that Maddox criticizes in Holton's anti-anti-science stance is an essential aspect of science.
If anyone is unconvinced that Maddox's argument stands more on the side of anti-science than science, one only has to ask what, if anything, the approaching end of the millennium has to do with the need for science to describe itself. That sounds like an astrological casting to me.
Richard Mentock
3418 Heatherwood Ln.
Durham, NC 27713 USA