for
a
scientist
by C. M. KORNBLUTH
When is a scientist not a scientist? A leading SF writer analyzes the work of a prominent Ufologist.
Still in his mid-thirties, Cyril Kornbluth, called S.F’s "angry man" wields (to quote Judith Merril) "the scalpel of social satire with savage and entertaining skill." Author of several hundred magazine pieces, and some novels, he here discusses the writings of Ivan T. Sanderson.
I DO NOT know Ivan T. Sanderson, but our mutual friend who edits this magazine tells me that Sanderson likes my writing. Well, I used to like his writing very much indeed, and I wish I still did.
The first thing by Sanderson I read was ANIMAL TREASURE, a big sumptuous book about a zoological expedition to Africa which he headed. It is a book in the great English tradition of popularized science writing, and I ask leave to expound on those last three synergic words.
Firstly, popularized: ANIMAL TREASURE is free from specialist lingo and makes its myriad points in plain language. The famous chapter on Bats, for instance, could surely be read by a child of twelve with pleasure and profit, and without bewilderment.
Secondly, science: The book is about a new and creative effort to push back the borders of the unknown. Sanderson realized that the taxonomic phase of zoology had practically ended and that the study of the living animal in its habitat was just beginning; as a scientist must, he left the old behind and explored the new. He made at least one major discovery: that the velocity, so to speak, of animal behavior varies according to barometric pressure. He applied this discovery; by matching his own velocity to that of the animal community he was able to move through it and observe, undisturbing and undisturbed.
Thirdly, writing: Sanderson is an educated Englishman and so has the literary advantage of us colonials, despite our occasional crude vigor; moreover he has a large poetic talent. One of the most magical evocations I know is his description of forest rats feeding and at play. Eden is not wholly lost when such a stylist can recall primeval innocence for a page or two.
There is no hint of what L. Sprague de- Camp calls "credophilia'' in ANIMAL TREASURE. I think an attack by Martin Gardner on an allusion to gorillas therein as retrogressed human beings unfairly distorted a moving moment of fancy. There is not much "adventure" in the book; the popularization, the science, and the writing somehow don't leave much room for "adventure." And there is one stupefying incident reported which, for all I know, knocked down Sanderson's scientific skepticism once and for all. Some of Sanderson's native help went fishing in a freshwater African river and hauled out—an enormous sting ray! A creature whose existence in inland waters was utterly unsuspected by science! It must have been a shattering experience; how shattering, only Sanderson could say.
The next book by Sanderson which I read was about zoological exploration in the rainforest of South America. The prose was as good as ever. The scientific content was nil. "Adventure" and "human interest" were rampant. Perhaps a publisher told Sanderson: "People are interested in what things cost; put in all the prices." That is the kind of thing publishers are always telling writers, and that is one of the 700 reasons why mediocre books get written. The South America book was mediocre.
My subsequent acquaintance with Sanderson's work has been through the newspapers, television and this magazine. He has a zoo—in New Jersey? —which was hit by the summer floods of 1955. (As one victim to another, the hand of sympathy: they caved in my place's basement retaining wall.) He appears on television with his "animal friends" and renders value received; there is an entertaining tension in the idea of an uninhibited animal and a proper English, gentleman umbilically twinned by a leash. He wrote a book on the history of whaling which I shalt not read beclause it derides the New England whaleboat.* (*It does not: it praises them to the skies!!! (I.S.))
He writes articles which describe the African lion and articles which speculate on (after the African sting ray, why not?) African brontosaurus.
In none of this is there any trace of the scientist Sanderson once was. A scientist's franchise does not lapse through disuse; Newton's genius slept for decades and then awoke unimpaired for one final effort that awed the mathematicians of Europe. But this is not to say, as our editor does, that Sanderson is, in 1957, a "noted scientist"—let alone “the noted scientist." I think Sanderson's career for some time has been that of a writer and entertainer. I am afraid that his article UFO—Friend or Foe in the August 1957 issue of this magazine abounds with inductive proof that Sanderson has left the way of science far behind him.
The article begins with a most unscientific invocation of authority: "the official pronouncement" of a rear admiral connected with a "National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena" [italics mine. CMK]. The "pronouncement", reprinted on p. 12, makes it plain that the NICAP is a private organization which had nothing "official" about it in any governmental sense. The membership of retired admirals and generals in the organization is no guarantee of soundness either, but probably the reverse. As a class, retired military officers are old men in an unfamiliar environment, men accustomed to a kind of two-way loyalty rare in civilian life. A man conditioned to believe what he is told by thirty years of "the briefing process” must be remarkably easy to hoax.
The article then says "the science of Ufology has been established. Now it has to be accepted. This statment would have delighted some medieval schoolmen, bat I am afraid it is eight centuries out of date. The Nominalism-Realism controversy is over, and Nominalism won—as Sanderson demonstrates three paragraphs later with the sound Nominalist statement: "A good example of this fallacy is the notion that there is an animal called 'The Whale'. Actually there are more than 150 entirely different kinds of whales..." An even better example of the Realist fallacy is the notion that there is a science called "Ufology". Actually there are an indefinite number of anecdotes ranging from the plausible to the incredible, several hypotheses about the anecdotes, and an absence of tangible evidence.
The article then lists four of these hypotheses and discusses the first ("unexplained natural phenomena...not alive") mostly by scientist-baiting in the manner of Charles Fort, though without his good humor. Terms like "established, entrenched, or orthodox Science"; "Science—the Holy Cow": "poor benighted ... scientist"; "'expert'" used ironically; a scientist's "pure desperation"' "puerile"; "fantastic"; and an ambiguous "hot air" are not what we would expect to hear from "the noted scientist" of the blurb.
The next hypothesis discussed is that some at least of the anecdotes are about living creatures hitherto unknown whose habitat is the upper air or outer space. Sanderson professes surprise that the lady resident in Austria who originated the hypothesis is "well known in ... astrological circles." I can only say that I am surprised at his surprise, and would wager that she is also well known in anthroposophical circle, antivivisectionist circles, spiritualistic circles, and, if fluoridation has spread to Austria, in antifluoridation circles. Sanderson's "surprise" seems to me equivalent to willful ignorance of the fact that many UFO fans are devoutly anti-scientific people.
The, hypothesis itself is a charming piece of floss-candy. If it is correct, a UFO trap baited with energy can be easily built and eventually one of the tenuous creatures will be found thrashing about in it, changing desperately from sphere to spindle to hexagon to lens. But Sanderson does not envision anything as scientifically operative as an experiment to test a hypothesis. He says the "Wassilko-Serecki theory is worthy of the profoundest consideration." Think about it; believe in it. But do anything? No; that's clean off the coordinates of "Ufology."
The third hypothesis of the article is that some of the anecdotes are about alien space ships. Sanderson says he will discuss it in a later article, pausing only to remark that "armed with the appropriate findings of modern science, nobody in their right mind should" doubt that somewhere out there is intelligent life. It may be so, but how did "established, entrenched, or orthodox Science...the Holy Cow" adored by "poor benighted, overworked and usually underpaid votaries suddenly become capable of accurate prediction when five pages back it couldn't see its hand in front of its face? Perhaps there is some distinction here which I miss; perhaps there is Good Science and there is Bad Science, and Sanderson can tell one from the other. I admit that I cannot.
The last of the hypotheses discussed in the article is chiefly that some of the anecdotes are really about Russians who land disk-shaped, German-designed aircraft in rural parts of the United States, pretend to naive hayseeds that they are space-travelers, and try to indoctrinate hem with the Communist peace line.”
Of this hypothesis we might say that it unnecessarily multiplies elements, but this would be to apply the scientific test called "Oceans Razor" and Sanderson might not approve. William of Occam was the great champion of the Nominalists, and we have seen where Sanderson appears to stand on that question.
Aside from Sanderson, I feel that my article would be incomplete without a brief but warm personal attack on the editor of this magazine. Hans Stefan Santesson is a wily. professional who knows all the tricks by which a magazine can be made to appear, impartial in a controversy while it actually favors one side. He has intimated to me that the method he will use is to give Sanderson the last word in a counter-article or perhaps let him do a running commentary on this one. Either way should be effective; I can be taken up on quibbles and distinctions that are not differences until the impression is created that an avalanche of facts has buried me from sight. May the reader merely know that I am not miffed at Sanderson for holding his views or expressing them; if he has a faith, he has a duty to spread it. But I do object to its being done in the name of science, and to a mahdi being described, in what is presumed to be an objective editorial note, as a scientist.