COBRESP ONDENCE. 



265 



(EjOXXZSXS UtlCUCJC. 



THE MORAL OF THE " SYMPSYCHO- 

 GRAPH." 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : I was both surprised and humiliated 

 to find on my return from Bering Sea, a few 

 days ago, a large correspondence from per- 

 sons who had taken the " Sympsychograph " 

 seriously. I had not the slightest idea that 

 any one capable of " reading bound books " 

 would be deceived by the meaningless phrases 

 in that bit of burlesque. I intended it as a 

 piece of gentle satire on the '' wizards " and 

 " impressionists " who follow in the wake of 

 scientific work which attracts attention, and 

 who pour their vagaries into the long ears of 

 the daily newspaper. 



The important element of one's belief 

 arises from the way in which that belief is 

 formed. No one was capable of understand- 

 ing my story who did not at once see the in- 

 congruity of it. One might as well believe 

 in Mahatmas and Odic forces as in cathode 

 radiation or evolution if he does not have 

 any clear ideas or a clear conception of the 

 basis on which generalizations rest. One 

 writer speaks of the article in question as a 

 hoax upon an innocent public ; but a public 

 which has swallowed the alleged experiments 

 of luglis Rogers and other impressionists as 

 scientific truth, and does not see any differ- 

 ence between the methods of these persons 

 and the methods of Rontgen and Helmholtz, 

 is not an innocent public. A vast amount of 

 suffering In our society arises from the fact 

 that men are ready to follow any notion in 

 medicine, in politics, or in social reform, no 

 matter how absurd, if it contains an element 

 of mystery, or if it proposes to make life 

 a little easier for men incapable of clear 

 thinking. 



I had a serious moral in thC' fable, and 

 this, at the risk of trying to explain a joke, 

 I shall give. 



The methods ascribed to the "Astral 

 Camera Club " are those which never have 

 yielded and never can yield any results to 

 science. Scientific investigators are not 

 " wizards," their discoveries are not pre- 

 saged by uncanny feelings nor green dark- 

 ness, nor is there anything " occult " about 

 their ways of working. They are simply 

 men of unusual persistence and steady com- 

 mon sense. Everything easy was found out 

 long ago, and additions to knowledge can 

 only come from mastery of past achieve- 

 ments and mathematical accuracy in the 

 registration of small details. The progress 

 of science is not marked by surprises and 

 contradictions. The result of scientific in- 

 quiry comes as a surprise only to those igno- 



rant of the steps in investigation which leads 

 up to it. 



The discovery that the peculiar rays 

 called " X " by Rontgen could be made to 

 cast shadows on a sensitized plate does not 

 imply that thought can be photographed. 

 One might sooner expect to photograph the 

 songs of birds than " the cat's idea of man." 



The great power which exact knowledge 

 gives adds nothing to the pi-obability of the 

 mythology of our own or other times. The 

 " power of mind over matter " is not a form 

 of hysterics. It depends on exact knowl- 

 edge of the nature of material things. It 

 is no occult influence showing itself in neu- 

 rotic " adepts " by uncanny lights, under 

 " astral " conditions. It is greatest by day- 

 light, with sane men, with whom science is 

 simply enlightened " common sense." 



David Starr Jordan. 

 Palo Alto, Cal., October 10, 1896. 



SHALL VIVISECTION BE RESTRICTED ? 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : In his interesting and valuable con- 

 tribution to the literature of vivisection, in 

 the October number of your periodical. Prof. 

 Hodge makes one or two statements which 

 are decidedly erroneous, and which I beg 

 you will permit me to correct. Quoting 

 from an article of my own on the same sub- 

 ject, published over twelve years ago in Lip- 

 pincott's, he states that " a recent writer has 

 actually cited mortality statistics to prove 

 the futility of vivisection." This deduction 

 is wholly incorrect. The very book from 

 which he quotes, again and again affirms the 

 use of vivisection. Exaggerated claims of 

 potency, such as were rife when this article 

 was written, some fourteen years ago, may 

 certainly be challenged, without being care- 

 lessly translated into affirmation of "futil- 

 ity " ; just as one may believe in experiments 

 regarding aerial navigation without looking 

 forward to lunar voyages. 



With the gratuitous imputation of "un- 

 fairness " in the selection of statistics I am 

 more seriously concerned, for no charge 

 more vitally affects the character of scien- 

 tific work. Prof. Hodge admits, as he is 

 forced to do, that " the figures do show that 

 in England, since 1850, certain organic dis- 

 eases have been on the increase, despite the 

 slight advance in our knowledge of them." 

 Well, that also is my own conclusion. Such 

 facts as these " afford the strongest possible 

 argument for the side of research." Again 

 I agree with your learned contributor, al- 

 though I should give the word " research " 



