DEPARTMENT I PHILOSOPHY 



(Hall 6, September 20, 11.15 a. m.) 



CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR BORDEN P. BOWNE, Boston University. 

 SPEAKERS: PROFESSOR GEORGE H. HOWISON, University of California. 

 PROFESSOR GEORGE T. LADD, Yale University. 



IN opening the Department of Philosophy, the Chairman, Pro- 

 fessor Borden P. Bowne, LL.D., of Boston University, made an 

 interesting address on the Philosophical Outlook. Professor Bowne 

 said in part : - 



I congratulate the members of the Philosophical Section on the improved out- 

 look in philosophy. In the generation just passed, philosophy was somewhat at 

 a discount. The great and rapid development of physical science and invention, 

 together with the profound changes in biological thought, produced for a time a 

 kind of chaos. New facts were showered upon us in great abundance, and we had 

 no adequate philosophical preparation for dealing with them. Such a condition is 

 always disturbing. The old mental equilibrium is overthrown and readjustment 

 is a slow process. Besides, the shallow sense philosophy of that time readily lent 

 itself to mechanical and materialistic interpretations, and for a while it seemed 

 as if all the higher faiths of humanity were permanently discredited. All this has 

 passed away. Philosophical criticism began its work and the nai've dogmatism of 

 materialistic naturalism was soon disposed of. It quickly appeared that our trouble 

 was not due to the new facts, but to the superficial philosophy by which they had 

 been interpreted. Now that we have a better philosophy, we have come to live in 

 perfect peace with the facts once thought disturbing, and even to welcome them as 

 valuable additions to knowledge. . . . 



The brief naturalistic episode was not without instruction for us. It showed 

 conclusively the great practical importance of philosophy. Had we had thirty 

 years ago the current philosophical insight, the great development of the physical 

 and biological sciences would have made no disturbance whatever. But being 

 interpreted by a crude scheme of thought, it produced somewhat of a storm. 

 Philosophy may not contribute much of positive value, but it certainly has an 

 important negative function in the way of suppressing pretentious dogmatism 

 and fictitious knowledge, which often lead men astray. It is these things which 

 produce conflicts of science and religion or which find in evolution the solvent of 

 all mysteries and the source of all knowledge. 



Concerning the partition of territory between science and philosophy, there 

 are two distinct questions respecting the facts of experience. First, we need to 

 know the facts in their temporal and spatial order, and the way they hang together 

 in a system of law. To get this knowledge is the function of science, and in this 

 work science has inalienable rights and a most important practical function. This 

 work cannot be done by speculation nor interfered with by authority of any kind. 

 It is not surprising, then, that scientists in their sense of contact with reality 



