From Watson we learn that Sherlock Holmes “ ‘appears to have a passion for definite and exact knowledge.’ ”
Such passion can lead to strange analytical accomplishments in their application. On seeing Watson’s description, my first thought was not of Conan Doyle’s credulous spiritualism with its (initially) scientific search for ghosts, but of Oppenheimer and the Vishnu, Bhagavad Gita, Now-I-Am-Become-Death-Destroyer-of-Worlds bomb. His senses overcome on witnessing the dreamed-up and overwhelming spectacle of the atomic detonation for which he was responsible, Oppenheimer is moved to invoke the pagan supernatural.
…we know where
Comparing the acute, assiduous, and untiring application of Holmes and Oppenheimer’s scientific knowledge, I do see correspondences between the fictive detective and the “Father of the Atomic Bomb” in their devotion to applying scientific findings. But also in a shared operatic flair, an instance of the poetic quality found in ratiocination; and, too, a not infrequent petulant self-regard of their several abilities. Yet that is not precisely what I’m getting at in these entries on sensation and science. Instead, I’m looking at the part sensation can play in scientific investigation, experimentation, testing and analysis, as reported in The Economist—about problems in scientific research and describing “how science goes wrong.”
The Economist says that scientists are meant to be passionate and thorough in testing one another’s results but are often checked in this by careerism. Careers are not advanced by painstaking research and verification in articles on scientific findings. Lack of rigor in testing, analytical mistakes, or honest confusion among research teams—journals will instead pick up on sensational new finds or startling twists in analysis...leaving failures of method, theory, or results out of publications.
Am I right in thinking Holmes, with his monograph on 140 types of tobacco ash would be appalled?
So, back to that connection between Holmes—who was always careful to demystify, to explain every link in his chain of observation and analysis—and Whittier with his deft hopes for the uses of supernaturalism. Novelists evoke human weaknesses, agitating a “community with signs and wonders,” without lacking substance and veracity. With artistry they make the faux real to the reading imagination but also, with artistry, the real is glimpsed. Science is not meant to be supernaturalism, but to be natural and real. Let novelists invoke the wonder of science with art. Let science find it with detailed, exact rigor, making it available for art’s use.
Thought the resolution to this essay might lie in Conan Doyle’s credulous spiritualism? No. For that his fans need no exploration, investigation, or proof.
”Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong: Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. Oct 19th 2013 | Originally from the The Economist print edition. http:// www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change- itself-how-science-goes-wrong
See also: “How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science.” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science
Science or Sensation?—done!
© S. Dorman Spring 2024