Nice quote mining. Let's let the gentleman continue, shall we?
And of course there is always the possibility that this may in fact be just the right thing to do. This may be precisely one of those cases when one has to disregard exceptions to start with and leave them for later consideration. His emotion, born of an intuition which penetrates deeper than the day-to-day evidence, may be quite right, and his correct procedure may be to persevere in following its guidance, even against the apparent evidence.He's saying that scientists are people too, not just data-gathering machines, and have emotional reactions to the results of their activities. It's up to the scientist to decide how to incorporate those responses into his work. So what makes their results worth paying attention to? "If his statements are confirmed by others, in whatever form and in whatever manner, even though quite unthought of at the time when he first propounded them, he will claim to have been right." [emphasis added]
Yes, let Polanyi continue:
I have said before that problems of this kind can be resolved by no established rule and that the decision to be taken is a matter for the sciuentist's personal judgement; we now see that this judgement has a moral aspect to it. We see higher interests conflicting with lower interests. That must involve questions of conviction and faithfulness to an ideal; it makes the scientist's judgement a matter of conscience.And let Polanyi conclude:Faithfulness to the scientific ideals of care and honest self-criticism is, of course, indispensable even for the execution of the simplest jobs in the workshop of science...
The scientist's task is not to observe any allegedly correct procedure but to get the right results. He has to establish contact, by whatever means, with the hidden reality of which he is predicating...
Unfettered intuitive speculation would lead to extravagant wishful conclusions; while rigorous fulfilment of any set of critical rules would completely paralyse discovery. The conflict can be resolved only through a judicial decision by a third party standing above the contestants. The third party in the scientist's mind which transcends both his creative impulses and his critical caution, is his scientific conscience. We recognize the note struck by conscience in the tone of personal responsibility... This indicates the presence of a moral element in the foundations of science...
Of course, believing as I do in the reality of truth, justice and charity, I am opposed to a theory which denies it and I condemn a society which carries this denial into practice...I believe to have shown that the continued pursuit of a major intellectual process by men requires a state of social dedication and also that only in a dedicated society can men live an intellectually and morally acceptable life. This cannot fail to suggest that the whole purpose of society lies in enabling its members to pursue their transcendant obligations; particularly to truth, justice, and charity.