Introduction.

Abstract

When one considers the philosophy and teaching of science, it seems significant that little, if any, formal attention is paid to naturalistic observation and research, although it is quite clear that they constitute the foundation of all science. The science of physics is profoundly indebted to the uncontrolled observations of superstitious Babylonian and Chaldean priests. Recently we have witnessed widespread observances of the centennial of the masterwork of naturalistic observation and research, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which is still revolutionizing our concept of the biological world and, indeed, of ourselves. Yet in many current discussions of science by philosophers or by scientists in the role of philosophers, we find a great deal of emphasis placed upon what are considered to be the two major aspects of science: experimental method and logic, and the personal element, the latter being discussed under such headings as "genius", "creativity", "scientific imagination", and "luck".Although scientific method is greatly admired, it seems that the practitioner of scientific method, the experimental scientist, is not. The skilled experimentalist at best attains second rank as a scientist; the highest rank he can hope to attain is that of Boyle. The deepest admiration is reserved for the Newtons, Einsteins, Darwins, and Flemings who are considered to be geniuses or to be lucky discoverers able to capitalise on the significance discerned in accidental events. Understanding science by division into the two aspects of objective method or verification and personal subjective elements creates a rather uncomfortable situation for the majority of scientists who do not possess genius and who realise that luck is a synonym for chance.