The Controversy on Freedom in Science in the Nineteenth Century
ITlt1 ･ー
)ination, there should be no
!e, reminiscent of Polanyi'S
_tted that faith has its place
deT Wissenschaft ein gewisses
lg10n there were three parts-
同山相川川川川川川
dmiddle path of faith, and a
= himselfCould not entirely
he saw how necessary it was
n of inquiry (die Freiheii der
Irkers must pose and discuss
to the public as doctrines. He
a that man had animal ances一
ヒes might be fわund in the fu-
nore ape-like than the most
that scientists would receive
ld support in whatever direcI
s speech made a profound
lrOughOut Germany.
:leaf distinction between die
t加enschaftlichen Lehre. The
･
汲red the teaching of specula-
lat the reputation of science
)w amived, but the latter's
nonth. Haeckel was not the
P
･eply took the form of a small
unich conference,10 and sub-
ledwith a preface by T. H.
my Of Haeckel's wdtings. It
. The argument is eirective,
詑n tO discredit Virchow by a
e owes to his former teacher,
st converted him to monism,
life. He claims, however, that
einoutlook. The latter was
le Was Willing to discuss his
: himself to the recitation of
lnS reject the publication of
tneralization, Omnis cellula e
it was not universally valid,
thoughit contained an important element of truth.12 Now, after the lapse
of years, Virchow claims that such theories should not be taught to
students.
With some justice, Haeckel lays emphasis on Virchow's ignorance of
morphology, especially so far as the lower animals are concerned, and does
not hesitate to agree with the latter's confession of the limitations of his
own knowledge.
Haeckel ridicules the idea that nothing is known except what can be
proved by experiment. Virchow allows that fossils actually represent the
remains of extinct animals, though no absolute proof of this can be
brought forward, and no experiment devised to settle the matter. The
Mesozoic mammalia are known only by血eir lower Jaws. It is reasonable
to assume that the rest of the skeleton was mammalian. Virchow, however,
to be consistent, must suppose that in these remarkable creatures the only
skeletal element was the lower Jaw !
Haeckel uses his M1 capacity as a polemical writer to attack Virchow'S
suggestion that the doctrine of evolution has some connection with social-
ism. Virchow's vague remarks on this subject are interpreted by Haeckel
as meaning that the horrors of the Paris Commune of 1871 were somehow
to be regarded as a consequence of the spread of Darwin's ideas. Haeckel
points out with some effect that the reverse is true ; that Darwinism could
be used, on the contrary, to support aristocratic regimes. Socialists, he says,
should try to stifle the doctrine, for its teaches that inequality is essential to
progress. He makes it clear that he is no socialist himself,and remarks
savagely on 'den bodenlosen Widersinn der socialistischen Gleichmacherei '.
He expresses his surprise that Virchow should requre scientists to limit
their teaching to demonstrable facts, while clerics are pemitted to instruct
their pupils on miracles and religious dogmas.
Here and there Haeckel descends to downright abuse. For instance, he
describes Bastian (a supporter of Virchow) as the 'Acting Head Privy-
Councillor of Confusion'. He blames Virchow for being too much bound
up ln POlitical life, for argung like a Jesuit, for wasting his time in measur-
ing human skulls, and for moving from a small university (WBrzburg) to a
large one Perlin). He views with horror the possibility that German
sciencemight be centrally planned under the domination of the capital
city, and castigates the biologists of Berlin University for theirmiSunder-
standing and disregard of the theory of evolution.
Huxley'S preface to the English edition of Haeckel's book is a sparkhng
little essay in characteristic vein.13 0nemight perhaps have expected him
to come down heavily on Haeckel's side, for the two men were personal
friends and both were public champions Of the evolutionary doctrine. He
glVeS full credit, however, to Virchow, by whose arguments he is clearly
impressed. indeed, he丘nds himself able to agree with. every Important
general proposition in Virchow's address,and is surprised that it should
have been so unfavourably received by some.
93