Science, Faith and Society

In Background & Prospect, the author sets out the aims of this 1946 work which was written in reaction to the persecution of scientists in the Soviet Union. Polanyi felt the need to formulate a philosophy of science that defines the nature of and provides justification for science in light of the Marxist-Leninist denial of the creative power of thought. Part One: Science & Reality seeks to define the nature of science. He demonstrates that the propositions embodied in natural science are not derived by definite rules from experiential data. It is rather a process of (a) guessing or intuitive speculation driven by the creative impulse, guided by (b) critical caution or verification by observation. Both the aforementioned are channeled through the scientific conscience. The mind of the scientist transcends both the guessing and verification. In Part Two: Authority & Conscience, Polanyi distinguishes between General Authority and Specific Authority. The first leaves the decision for interpreting traditional rules in the minds of numerous independent individuals; this type of authority requires freedom. Specific Authority centralizes such decisions at one point; this type requires obedience. Part Three: Dedication & Servitude, considers how freedom is maintained within science itself. Sovereignty in the scientific realm is divided into fragments represented by individual scientists of whom fairness and tolerance are required. Fairness means that the scientist makes an effort to put her/his case objectively, recognizing the limitations of their own abilities and the existence of personal bias; tolerance requires the capacity to endure the unfair/hostile statements of opponents. Upholding fairness and tolerance involves the public. Controversies between proponents of ideas are conducted in order to canvass support instead of persuading one another. In a public contest, fairness and tolerance can be maintained only when the audience resists false oratory and values moderation. A discerning public able to perceive insincerity of argument is an essential partner in the process of open debate. Such an audience will prefer moderate claims admitting an element of personal conviction in order to maintain mental balance and as proof of conscientious thinking by those appealing for its support. Institutions that provide shelter to free discussion in a free society may include houses of parliament, courts of law, churches, the media, local government and various private committees in charge of a multitude of cultural, humanitarian and political organizations. A community which practices free discussion agrees with the fourfold proposition that (i) truth exists (ii) all its members value it (iii) they feel compelled to pursue it (iv) they are capable of doing so. Thus the sovereignty of a free public opinion is the foundation stone of science since a society committed to truth must grant freedom to science as one form of truth. Even though true pro

"Science Faith and Society" is an attempt by philosopher/chemist Michael Polanyi to dispel the myth of science as an impersonal and detached quest for certain truth. Far from being a radical postmodernist, Polanyi argues that science cannot be passion- or value-free, does not operate by a hard and fast rule-set, and, most importantly, relies on faith as much as reason. Of course, much of this is old hat by now. Polanyi wrote SFS before Popper left his significant mark on science saying many of the same things, only louder. Kuhn was a direct contemporary of Polanyi and Feyerabend was still to come. Thus, SFS, consisting of three lectures given to the British Asskociation for the Advancement of Science, has an air of immediacy about it that certain similar works in philosophy of science don't have. The first essay is "Science and Reality," which discusses why (a) science operates on no a priori rule set, but, at best, a collection of loosely held operational guidelines; and (b) why the act of scientific discovery is every bit as creative an act as artistic creation, and thus, must necessarily be value-imbued. (Popper, anyone?) The second essay, "Authority and Conscience" discusses the type(s) of authority involved in science. From the necessarily hierarchal nature of article publishing to the master/apprentice relationship of science education, Polanyi argues that science is necessarily hierarchal, and that this hierarchy, while not ideal, is not per se a bad thing (contra Popper). He also begins his argument that while science is hierarchal, it is not the type of hierarchy that submits to an authority that barks orders. Rather, science is the type of hierarchy that allows all members to be free in exploration, and to challenge the upper tiers of the hierarchy should they feel them wrong. (Polanyi compares the hierarchy of science to the hierarchy of the protestant church; a hierarchy is noticeable, but members are left free to interpret the bible themselves. This, in contrast to the hierarchy of the catholic church, where the hierarchy involves telling members how the bible is to be interpreted.) The third essay, "Dedication or Servitude" is a discussion of why science must be free to survive - that is, why if there needs to be a hierarchy, that hierarchy must not be the type that tells sceintists what to think, but should be one that allows for intellectual freedom, including the freedom to challenge science's conclusions. Polanyi's defense of freedom for science is much the same as Hayek's argument against central planning in society. The overarching theme of this book, though, is that sicence is a human enterprise that was invented by and furthered by humans. As such, it cannot be impersonal, value-neutral, or able to attain certitude. Science presupposes a belief shared in common by all scientists - a faith, that is, in the ideals of science and intellectual inquiry that is a faith like any other, to be sure. While I think Polanyi's eq