The Republic of Science - The MIT Press

THE REPUBLICOF SCIENCE

Its Political and Economic Theory

MICHAELPOLANYI

My title is intended to suggestthat the community of scientistsis organised in a way which resemblescertain featuresof a body politic and works according

to economic principles similar to those by which the production of material goodsis regulated. Much of what I will haveto saywill be common knowledgeamongscientists, but I believethat crtwill recastthe subjectfrom a novel point of view which can ,both profit from and have a lesson for political and economic theory. For in the free cooperation of independent scientistswe shall find a highly simplified model of a free society, which presentsin isolation certain .basic features of it that are more difficult to identify within the comprehensivefunctions of a national body.

The first thing to make clear is that scientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment are in fact cooperatingas membersof a closely knit organisation. The {X)int can be settled by consideringthe oppositecasewhere individuals are engagedin a joint task without being in any way coordinated. A group of women shelling peaswork at the sametask. but their individual effort~ are not coordinated. The sameis true of a team of chessplayers. This is shownby the fact that the total amount of peasshelledand the total number of gameswon will not be affectedif the membersof the group are isolated from eachother. Considerby contrast the effect which a completeisolation of scientistswould have on the progressof science. Each scientist would go on for a while developing problems derived from the information initially available to all. But theseproblemswould soon be exhausted, and in the absenceof further information about the results achievedby others. new problems of any value would cease to arise and scientific progress would come to a standstill.

This showsthat the activities of scientistsare in fact coordinated. and it also revealsthe principle of their coordination. This consistsin the adjustment

of the efforts of eachto the hitherto achievedresultsof the others. We

may call this a coordination by mutual adjustmentof independentinitiatives - of initiatives which are coordinated becauseeach takes into account all the other initiatives operating within the same system.

This article from Minerva, I , 1 (Autumn, 1962) , pp. 54- 73.

1

THEREPUBLICOF SCIENCE

WHEN put in these abstract terms the principle of spontaneous coordination of independent initiatives may sound obscure . So let me illustrate it by a simple example . Imagine that we are given the pieces of a very large jig -saw puzzle , and suppose that for some reason it is important that our giant puzzle be put together in the shortest possible time . We would naturally try to speed this up by engaging a number of helpers ; the question is in what manner these could be best employed . Suppose we share out the pieces of the jig -saw puzzle equally among the helpers and let each of them work on his lot separately . It is easy to see that this method , which would be quite appropriate to a number of women shelling peas, would be totally ineffectual in this case, since few of the pieces allocated to one particular

assistant would be found to fit together . We could do a little better

by providing duplicates of all the pieces to each helper separately , and eventually somehow bring together their several results. But even by this method the team would not much surpass the performance of a single individual at his best. The only way the assistants can effectively cooperate and surpass by far what any single one of them could do , is to let them work on putting the puzzle together in sight of the others, so that every time a piece of it is fitted in by one helper , all the others will immediately watch out for the next step that becomes possible in consequence. Under this system, each helper will ~ct on his own initiative , by respondJng to the latest achievements of the others , and the completion of the,ir joint task will .be greatly accelerated . We have here in a nutshell the way in which a series of independent inIitiatives are organised to a joint achievement .by mutually adjusting .themselves at every successive stage to the situation created by all the others who are acting likewise .

Such self-coordination of independent initiatives leads to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about. Their coordination is guided as by , an invisible nand ' towards the joint discovery of a hidden system of things . Since its end-result is unknown , th ,is kind of cooperation can only advance stepwise, and the total performance will be the best possible if each consecutive step is decided upon by the person most competent to do so. We may imagine this condition to be fulfilled for the fitting together of a jig -saw puzzle if each helper watches out for any new opportunities arising along a particular section of the hitherto completed patch of the puzzle , and also keeps an eye on a particular lot cf pieces, so as to fit them in wherever a chance presents itself . The effectiveness of a group of helpers will then exceed that of any isolated member . to the extent to which some member of the group will always discover a new chance for adding a piece .to the puzzle more quickly than anyone isolated person could have done by himself .

2

W

. ' 0 ~ , Q~ ~ ~ ' rn g

'

rn

8 . ~ = a PJ P 8 ' ~ . ~. = V .~ . . S ~ 2 0 ' ~ ( ~ ~ 8 ~ (

S

(

,'

(

PJ

mE REPUBLICOF SCIENCE

apply

himself

to

a

problem

that

does

not

tax

his

faculties

to

the

full

is

to

waste

some

of

his

faculties

;

while

to

attack

a

problem

that

is

too

hard

for

him

would

waste

his

faculties

altogether

.

The

psychologist

K

.

Lewin

has

observed that

that

is

much

one

's

person

never

too

hard

,

nor

in

becomes

one

that

fully

involved

is

much

too

either

in

a

problem

easy

.

The

line

the

scientist

must

choose

turns

out

,

therefore

,

to

be

that

of

greatest

ego

-

involvement

; it

is

the

line

of

greatest

excitement

, sustaining

the

most

intense

attention

and

effort

of

thought

.

The

choice

will

be

conditioned

to

some

extent

by

the

resources

available

to

the

scientist

in

terms

of

materials

and

assistants

,

but

he

will

be

ill

- advised

to

choose

his

' problem

with

a

view

to

guaranteeing

that

none

of

these

resources

be

wasted

.

He

should

not

hesitate

to

incur

such

a

loss

,

if

it

leads

him

to

deeper

and

more

important

problems

.

THIS

is

where

professional

standards

enter

into

the

scientist

's

motivation

.

He

assess

solution

es

the

primarily

depth by

of

a

problem

the

standards

and of

the

importance

scientific

merit

of

Jts

prospective

accepted

by

the

scientific

be

modified

community

.

Scientific

-

though

merit

his

own

depends

work

may

on

a

number

demand

these

of

criteria

standards which

to

I

shall

enumerate independent

.

here

under

of

each

three

headings

other

,

but

I

cannot

.

These

analyse

criteria here

are

not

their

mutual

altogether relationship

( 1)

The

first

criterion

that

a

contribution

to

science

must

fulfil

in

order publications contributions This refuse unsound

to

be

accepted

is

a

sufficient

degree

of

plausibility

.

Scientific

are

continuously

beset

by

cranks

,

frauds

and

bunglers

whose

must

be

rejected

if

journals

are

not

to

be

swamped

by

them

.

censorship

will

not

only

eliminate

obvious

absurdities

but

must

often

publication

in

the

merely

because

light

of

current

.the scientific

conclusions knowledge

of

a

paper

appear

.

It

is

indeed

to

be

difficult

even

to

start

unsound

an

experimental

.

Few

laboratories

inquiry

would

if

its

problem

accept

today

is

considered

a

student

scientifically

of

extrasensory

transmission

the

start

perception

of

.

Besides

,

and

acquired

,

even

even

a

project

for

testing

characters

would

be

when

all

these

obstacles

once severely

have

more

the

hereditary

discouraged

been

overcome

from

,

and

a

paper

has

come

out

signed

by

an

author

may

be

totally

disregarded

,

simply

for

sharply

with

the

current

Scientific

opinion

I

shall

illustrate

this

by

an

example

of

high

distinction

in

science

,

it

the

reason

that

its

~ esults

conflict

about

the

nature

of

: hings

.

which

I

have

used

elsewhere

( The

Logic experiments

of

Liberty

were

,

London

published

and

Chicago

in

June

Society

by

Lord

Rayleigh

-

a

distinguished

to

show

that

hydrogen

atoms

striking

4

,

1951

,

p.

12

).

A

series

of

simple

1947

in

the

Proceedings

of

the

Royal

Fellow

of

the

Society

-

purporting

a

metal

wire

transmit

to

it

~ nergies

up

MICHAELPOLANYI

to

a

hundred

electron

than

the

volts discovery

.

This

,

if

true

,

would

of

atomic

fission

have

by

Otto

been Hahn

far

more

.

Yet

revolutionary

,

when

I

asked

shoulders

believed

ignored

in

my

missed

physicists

.

They

what could

they not

thought

find

fault

: 1 . bout with

it

,

they

only

the

experiment

in

its

results

,

nor

thought

it

worth

while

to

repeat

it

.

A

possible

explanation

of

Lord

Rayleigh

's

experiments

Personal

Knowledge

( 1958

)

p.

276

.

It

appears

that

nothing

by

disregarding

these

findings

.

sh

rugged

yet

not

their one

it

.

They

just

is

given

the

physicists

(2 )

The

second

may

be

described

following

(c )

the

three intrinsic

criterion

as

dts

coefficients interest

by

which

the

merit

of

a

contribution

scientific

value

,

a

value

that

.is

composed

:

(a )

its

accuracy

,

(b )

its

systematic

of

its

subject

- matter

.

You

can

see

is

assessed

,.

of

the

importance these

,. three

gradings

one

in

interesting

entering biology

than

Jointly

into

the

.

The

inanimate

the

living

beings

value

of

a

paper

in

physics

things

studied

by

physics

which

are

the

subject

compared

are

much

of

biology

with

less

.

But

physics dullness and

makes

of

its

theoretical

up

by

subject

beauty

dts

great

,

while

by

its

accuracy biology exciting

and compensates matter

wide .

theoretical

scope

for

the

for

its

lack

of

accuracy

(3 )

A

contribution

may

yet

vary

of

sufficient

in

respect

of

its

plausibility originality

and

;

this

of

a

given

scientific

is

the

third

criterion

value of

scientific

merit

.

The

originality

of

technical

inventions

is

assessed

,

for

the

purpose

the

invention

of

claiming

would

a

patent

,

in

cause

among

terms those

of

the

familiar

degree with

of

surprise

which

the

art

.

Similarly

,

the

originality

of

a

discovery

is

assessed

by

the

degree

of

surprise

which

its

communication

should

arouse

among

scientists

.

The

unexpectedness

of

a

discovery

will

overlap

with

its

systematic

importance

,

yet

the

surprise

caused

by

a

discovery

,

which

causes

us

to

admire

its

daring

and

ingenuity

,

is

something

discovery

different

.

There

from

this

.

It

pertains

to

the

act

of

producing

are

discoveries

of

the

highest

daring

and

ingenuity

the

,

as

for

example

importance

the .

discovery

of

Neptune

,

which

have

no

great

systematic

BoTH conformity internal

the

criteria

.

while

tension

of

plausibility

the

value

is

essential

and

of

scientific

attached

in

guiding

to

originality

and

motivating

value

tend

to

enforce

encourages scientific

dissent work

. This

.

The

professional

standards

of

science

and

at

the

same

time

encourage

that

.

in

order

to

be

taken

seriously

to

the

currently

predominant

must

~ mpose

a

framework

of

discipline

rebellion

against

it

.

They

must

demand

.

an

investigation

should

largely

conform

beliefs

about

the

nature

of

things

.

while

allowing

that

in

order

to

be

original

it

may

to

some

extent

go

against

these

.

Thus

.

the

authority

of

scientific

opinion

enforces

the

teachings

of

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download