How do we stand to the rival projects of clarification and explanation in general? We must avoid two complementary errors, that of seeking to resolve by reflection what can only be resolved by investigation and that of seeking explanation when even its successful consummation could not give us what we anticipate from it. Though we can produce specimens of both errors we have little means of knowing which is most prevalent. The habit of mind which produced the coroner's report is to be encouraged, even if it sometimes leads to breaches of decorum, such as proffering it under circumstances which called rather for theodicy. Here is an example of someone assigning to scientific explanation powers that many will feel it does not possess. Richard Dawkins writes, ‘ … the deep and universal questions of existence and the meaning of life are scientific matters which should properly be dealt with in science classes’. Among these ‘deep and universal questions’ he instances ‘Who am I? Where did I come from? What am I for?’ (The Independent, September 1993). This is pretty overweening stuff but it's no matter. This is not why I have withheld the third cheer.

Schiller is reported to have observed that whereas to some people science is a goddess, to others she is the cow that gives milk. For many men of our time science is the goddess that gives milk; and if we stop treating her like a goddess she may stop giving milk, so let's go on treating her like a goddess.