Readers of literary bent, who have as an clement of their pathos
the belief that they arc persecuted by science, 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.
 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