Readers of literary bent, who have as an clement of
their pathos
the belief that they arc persecuted by science[1],
will set special
store by those parts of the novel that have the effect
of exposing
the arrogance as well as the contradictions and
absurdities of the
physical science of the day. Everyone who has ever
studied litera-
ture knows that physical science was the basis of the
vulgar
materialism of the nineteenth century. In this regard
it is well
to remember that Flaubert had no principled hostility
to science
as such — quite to the contrary, indeed. He takes note
of the ridic-
ulous statements that science can make, but much of
the confu-
sion that Bouvard and Pccuchct experience is the
result of their
own ineptitude or ignorance rather than of the
inadequacy of
science itself. It is not the fault of botany—
although it may be
the fault of a particular elementary textbook of
botany — that
they believe that all flowers have a pericarp, but
look in vain for
it when confronted by buttercups and wild strawberry.
[1] It is not sufficiently
understood that men ..f science have an analogous-
homologous?—
pathos to support them in their own troubles: they believe that they
are
systematically persecuted by the humanities.
Let´s not consider the reciprocal ‘pathos’ between Science and
Humanities, which is against to this blog´s spirit. We have already
talked about the novel Bouvard and Pecuchet here. When you read it you can´t
raech any negative conclusion about Science, rather that negativity goes
against those ‘hicks’ who are the novel´s protagonists.
Regarding the Physics´arrogance, there is a famous sentence by Lord
Kelvin that says: "There is
nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more
precise measurement." It was said on 1900,when the classic Physics was
about to break down
