Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

194 Scientism and Values
This absence of a clear pattern may be a sign of developments
to follow. Confusion at the beginning seems to be a normal step
in the growth of theories. For examples of this see the Harvard
Case Histories in Experimental Science) especially the one by Nash
(10) on The Atomic-Molecular Theory in which Dalton's early
difficulties are discussed.
Olson (14) first defines growth, maturation, and development.
He then presents five "developmental equations" as follows:
1. Maturation X Nurture = Development
He says that equation I is too simple if thought of only as a
factor system.
2. Maturation X Zero nurture = Zero achievement
3. Variable maturation X Constant supply nurture = Variable
achievement
4. Constant maturation X Variable supply nurture = Variable
achievement
Equations 1 through 4 are clearly too simple an answer, for there
appears to be evidence for "differential uptake." This results in an
enhancement effect, because the differentials, once established in
achievement, in turn so modify the organism as to make it more
selective, permitting more rapid uptake in some and less rapid in
others. In effect, then, the constant supply is surely a myth, since
children seek a larger or smaller supply from what is available, as in
the following equation:
5. Variable maturation X Differential uptake of nurture = Enhanced
variable achievement
Next Olson presents "The Nature of the Evidence." He says:
"There is much evidence to support the general theory back of
the writing of such equations as those preceding." What can he
mean by this? I had presumed that the equations were possibly
the postulates of the theory. Does the theory lie behind these,
or is the evidence what lies behind them?