Physics Today
Jump to Content
Increase text size Decrease text size
  • Sign In
  • View Items in Cart View Cart
  • Advanced
  • Keyword
 
  • Home
  • Print Edition
  • Daily Edition
    • News Picks
    • The Dayside
    • Physics Update
    • Singularities
    • Points of View
    • Politics and Policy
    • Science and the Media
    • Obituaries
    • We Hear That
    • Events Calendar
  • Advertising
  • Buyer's Guide
  • About us
    • Our mission
    • Our people
    • American Institute of Physics
    • Member societies
    • Register
    • Subscribe
    • Submit content
    • Marketing reprints
    • Rights and permissions
    • Help/FAQ
    • Change mailing address
    • Contact us
  • Jobs
    • Job Seeker Login
    • Search Jobs
    • Post Resumes
    • Career Resources
    • For Employers
    • Success Stories
    • Resume Templates
    • About Us
    • Advertising
    • Display Advertising
    • Employer Resources
    • Banner Advertising
    • Security Tips
Follow us: Facebook    Twitter    rss    E-mail alert
  • Table of contents
  • Past issues

yellow star Featured Jobs

  • Search jobs
  • Post jobs
letters

When Did the Science Wars Start?

October 2001 page 11

In their book review "Bringing Reason and Context to the Science Wars" (Physics Today, May 2001, page 57), Craig McConnell and Robert H. March stated: "By the 1990s, a number of scientists struck back, and the fat was in the fire." The statement might be mistaken to mean that, before the 1990s, no scientists struck back, but that is not the case.

On 8 January 1988, Jon Turney, then science editor of the London (England) Times Higher Education Supplement, reported on page 2 the outcry over our Nature commentary "Where Science Has Gone Wrong."1 Turney wrote:

Teachers of history, philosophy and sociology of science . . . are up in arms over an attack by two Imperial College [London] physicists, . . . who charge that the plight of . . . science stems from wrong-headed theories of knowledge. . . . Scholars who hold that facts are theory-laden, and that experiments do not give a clear fix on reality, are denounced. . . . Staff on Nature, which published a cut-down version of the paper after the authors' lengthy attempts to find an outlet for their views, say they cannot recall such a response from readers. "It really touched a nerve," said one. There is unhappiness that Nature lent its reputation to the piece.

How would one designate this particular conflict from the 1980s?

Reference
1. T. Theocharis, M. Psimopoulos, Nature 329, 595 (1987).

Theo Theocharis
(theotheocharis@ic4life.net)
Mihalis Psimopoulos
(M.Psimopoulos@ic.ac.uk)
Imperial College
London, England
  • Article Tools
  • Enlarge text   Enlarge text
  • Shrink text   Shrink text
  • Comment on this articleWrite a letter to the editor
  • Free this month
  • Physics and Archaeology
  • The Little Machines That are Making it Big
  • Physicist Arrested in Iran
  • After-Dinner Physics
  • New Books
  • Letters
  • Most popular articles
  • Gedanken experiment: Levitate a physics sitcom?
    Points of View
  • Nanoplasmonics: The physics behind the applications
    February 2011
  • Half-quantum vortices
    Physics Update
  • Quantum criticality
    February 2011

 



SERVICES
Physics Today Jobs
Physics Today Buyers Guide
Event Calendar
Obituaries
DAILY EDITION
The Dayside
News Picks
Science in the Media
Politics & Policy
Singularities
Physics Update
Points of View
THE MAGAZINE
This month in print
Institutional subscriptions
Information for advertisers
READER SERVICE
Register
Sign in
Subscribe
Email alert
MORE INFO
FAQ
Contact us
About Physics Today
Privacy Policy
Marketing reprints
Rights and Permissions

Copyright © by the American Institute of Physics - All rights reserved

Find articles by AUTHORNAME

This PublicationThis Publication
ScitationScitation
SPINSPIN
ScitopiaScitopia
Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
PubMedPubMed