I can't see how Ibsen is a Scientist, but I can science in the play

Morten Kiil (resting his hands and his chin on the handle
of his stick and winking slyly at the DOCTOR). Let me see,
what was the story? Some kind of beast that had got into
the water-pipes, wasn’t it?
Dr. Stockmann. Infusoria—yes.
Morten Kiil. And a lot of these beasts had got in, according to Petra—a tremendous lot.
Dr. Stockmann. Certainly; hundreds of thousands of them,
probably.
Morten Kiil. But no one can see them—isn’t that so?
Dr. Stockmann. Yes; you can’t see them. (ACT II, Scene I EOTP)


When we read the Biographer's Tale and talked about Ibsen, I expected his play to ooze objectivity and science lingo.  I'm glad to find that that wasn't the case at all.  Science is the subject of interest, but the real action revolves around politics and societal conformity.  It was an interesting commentary on the individual versus the majority, but I'd have to agree with Maria, that I don't quite see how referring to bacteria makes him a scientist on the same level of Linnaeus and Galton. He might have grouped his characters into different stereotypes, (classified them, so to speak), but he seems to do so with prejudice.  The young are generally liberal, the older women are domestic and subservient and the men are . . . men.  Stockman has a crazy beard and is a crazy man.   


I think this passage above might be a link between Ibsen, science/bacteria and his study of humans. The tone mocks science, reducing it to the stuff of myth.  "No one can see them-- isn't that so?"  He sheds doubt on the situation by bringing up faith, the mentality of "even though we can't see it, we believe it is still there?"  It sounds funny, because we often think of science as irrefutable stuff.  Stockman tested his water samples.  He had his chemist friend confirm his suspicions.  And his father-in-law, who makes fun of the bacteria is weird and probably not a legit source.  But I like how this seed of dialogue foreshadows how everyone will accuse Stockman of lying.  They are afraid of what his science means and they kind of hunt him like he's a witch.

And now, I'm thinking a *Lightbulb*  

Stockman discovers something and wants the discovery to speak for itself (even though he has a crazy man's agenda pushing that discovery forward).  It is possible his discovery is fabricated. . . maybe not.  But Mr. Peter the Mayor pushes his own report through the paper, which doesn't just discredit Stockman, but also conforms reality to his idea of what the Baths should be.  And this reminds me of a book I'm reading called, "Reading Lolita in Tehran," when the narrator discusses Nabokov's novels and how "there was always the shadow of another world, one that was only attainable through fiction." She talks about Humbert and other men in her life who have tried to "shape others according to their own dreams and desires."  Humbert is all imagination and craft.  He reinvents Lolita's history and person to suit him.  He creates, but he also imposes.  I feel like Peter Mayor is like him in that respect.  He can calm the storm of people and channel it to do his will.  But I'm not sure that the play is a celebration of man-made power over scientific discovery.

I think Dr. Stockman is the protagonist, because he is the true man of science trying to make his crazy discoveries heard.  He's the underdog. He's like the time traveling scientist in Kate and Leopold.  "It is no more crazy than a dog finding a rainbow. Dogs are colourblind, Gretchen. They don't see colour. Just like we don't see time. We can feel it, we can feel it passing, but we can't see it. . . .And that's it; it's that simple. That's all I discovered. I'm just a... a guy who saw a crack in a chair that no one else could see. I'm that dog who saw a rainbow, only none of the other dogs believed me."

There is a connection of science and what's going on, there is some kind of relationship between discovery and creation, but I'm still not sure how Ibsen's bacteria observation skills are evident in his method. 

*Disclaimer-- I have never read Lolita, just Reading Lolita in Tehran.