FROM CASES OF HYSTERIA TO THE THERAPEUTIC SOCIETY
235
The theoretical structures we have produced (allow me to wax roman–
tic) are the intellectual cathedrals of the twentieth century, arches from the
origin of the universe to the properties of matter, from coldest to hottest,
calculations that yield the amount of magnetism on an electron to ten dec–
imal places. It is a terrible pity that so few people understand and appreciate
what is there. The idea that it is too hard (all that mathematics) is absurd.
It is not any harder than learning a second language. We must distinguish
between the talent and virtuosity required to create science, and the abili–
ty to be led through it, to appreciate what is there. We can watch a tennis
match and understand what is going on, but we can't get on the court with
Pete Sampras.
It
does take special talent to create science, it's true, but it's
not difficult to understand it. That holds true for all the science I know,
including the most esoteric aspects of the quantum theory.
We may also have heard (I'm shocked) that scientists don't always fol–
low the scientific method. Scientists are influenced by a current point of
view, so that what they are doing is relative, therefore no better than other
ways of knowing. I classify this, in my own unscholarly way, as a school of
thought that says everything is as good as everything else-total absurdity.
Because something is not the best or the worst does not mean that a dis–
tinction cannot be made. Life consists of choosing between things that are
a little bit better and a little worse; that there are no distinctions because
there is no absolute truth and no absolute falsehood is like saying that the
most magnificent lines written by Shakespeare are equivalent to anything
that comes out of anyone's mouth.
But I do agree that there is a point of view in science. It is important
to teach science in a historic context, because the questions people ask are
not really comprehensible unless you understand what they believed at the
time. Let me give you an example. You may have heard of the Michaelson–
Morley Experiment. This was done toward the end of the ninteenth
century by the famous American physicists Albert Michaelson and Edward
Morley. The results of this experiment were startling to physicists and
finally led to a complete revolution in our concepts of space and time.
(It
led to Einstein's special theory of relativity although, as one of history's
ironies, it might be that Einstein was not aware of this experiment in
1905.) What was this experiment? They thought of the sun and earth in
the universe and asked what was the motion of the earth wi th respect to
the universe. Michaelson's genius was , in part, to have the techniques
to
measure the earth's motion wi th respect to the universe. When he and
Morley made the measurements they found, to put it most simply, that the
earth was standing still, that the earth's motion with respect to the universe
was zero. They were dissatisfied because they wanted to get a number.
But the result was unambiguous. Even though the earth is moving in
its orbit about the sun at about eighteen miles a second no matter when
