Letter: Letters : Close to home

From Stephen Westwood

London

The phrase “social science” may well be largely oxymoronic, as John Gribbin
says (Review, 10 January, p 41).
And this should indeed prompt physicists less
fortunate than himself at securing a place at the funding trough to turn their
attention to it. There is no reason why the Apollonian analytical powers of
“real” scientists should not be extremely effective in bringing new rigour to
the study of social and political life.

Perhaps they could begin with a study of their own social milieu and address
such fundamental issues as the determining factors in the allocation of research
funds or the related question of the social and scientific implications of the
age-old prostitution of physical science to military power.

The problem is that in meddling with these matters they might risk being
banished from the physics trough for the rest of their careers. Physical science
is very resource-hungry, so the discipline of never looking a gift horse in the
mouth can be added to the list of those “things that real scientists learn in
the cradle, and use by instinct when doing the research”, as Gribbin puts
it.

It may well be that Gribbin could explode the myth of social science in his
tea breaks, in between determining the age of the Universe, or it may be
that—rather unscientifically—he chooses his facts according to his
convenience, preferring them light years distant rather than on his
doorstep.