"All science is either physics or stamp collecting"

Ernest Rutherford’s remark that all science is either physics or stamp collecting reflects a provocative and reductionist view of scientific disciplines. By elevating physics as the foundational science, Rutherford characterizes it as the field that seeks to uncover fundamental laws governing the universe. Physics, in his evaluation, does not merely enumerate or categorize phenomena but strives to develop broad, predictive theories and principles that explain why and how things happen at the most basic level. In contrast, he refers to other sciences, especially those that focus on classification, taxonomy, or the accumulation of observational data, as engaging in “stamp collecting.” The implication is that without the aim of uncovering fundamental principles, the mere collection and categorization of facts or specimens lack the depth and ambition associated with physics.

This perspective emerges from the early twentieth-century ethos, when physics was making remarkable progress, illuminating the structure of matter, radioactivity, and quantum processes. Observational sciences like biology, chemistry, and geology were often viewed as descriptive rather than theoretical. The metaphor of stamp collecting alludes to a hobby where the emphasis is on assembling a comprehensive array of objects and organizing them, often without necessarily seeking patterns, mechanisms, or laws underlying their existence or relationships.

However, Rutherford’s dichotomy has been widely challenged. The fallacy lies in underestimating the complexity, creativity, and theoretical richness in fields outside of physics. Biological sciences, for example, have evolved from descriptive natural history to uncover profound principles such as evolution, genetics, and molecular biology. Chemistry reveals principles governing matter’s transformations, and fields like computer science and neuroscience push boundaries in ways that transcend physical laws while still depending on them. Discovery in these areas often begins with descriptive observation, the “collecting of stamps”, but advances through the formulation of unifying theories.

Rutherford’s statement, though reflective of his era, thus serves more as a provocation for debate about what constitutes explanation and understanding in science rather than as a rigid boundary demarcating the true sciences.