646 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



death.. Tlie continued existence of animals and men is based on 

 the adequacy of their sensations and the veracity of their actions. 

 The existence of any creature is, in general, proof of the sanity 

 of its ancestry, or at least of the sanity of those who controlled 

 the actions of its ancestors. 



This veracity is gauged by the degree of coincidence of sub- 

 jective impressions and objective truth. "Whoever makes a fool's 

 paradise or a fool's hell of the world about him is not allowed to 

 live in it. This fact in all its bearings must stand as a proof that 

 the universe is outside of man and not within him. In this ob- 

 jective universe which lies outside ourselves we find " the cease- 

 less flow of force and the rational intelligence that pervades it." 

 No part of it can be fully understood by us, but in it we find no 

 chance movement, " no variableness nor shadow of turning." 

 That such a universe exists seems to demand some intelligence 

 capable of understanding it, of stating its properties in terms of 

 absolute truth as distinguished from those of human experience. 

 Only an Infinite Being can be conceived as doing this, hence such 

 knowledge must enter into our conception of the Infinite Being, 

 whatever may be our theology in other respects. For to know 

 an object or phenomenon in its fullness, " all in all," " we should 

 know what God is and man is." 



It is therefore no reproach to human science that it deals with 

 human relations, not with absolute truths. " The ultimate truths 

 of science," Dr. Schurman has said, "rest on the same basis as the 

 ultimate truths of philosophy" that is, on a basis that trans- 

 cends human experience. This is true, for science has no "ulti- 

 mate truths." There are none known to man. "The perfect 

 truth," says Lessing, " is but for Thee alone." With ultimate 

 truths human philosophy tries in some fashion to deal. To look 

 at the universe in some degree through the eyes of God is the 

 aim of philosophy. In its aim it is most noble. Its efforts are a 

 source of strength in the conduct of human life. But its conclu- 

 sions are not truth. They range from the puerile to the incom- 

 prehensible, and only science that is, "common sense" can dis- 

 tinguish the two. For this reason just in proportion as philosophy 

 is successful it is unfit as a basis of human action. Human 

 knowledge and action have limitations. The chief of these is 

 that whatever can not be stated in terms of human experience is 

 unintelligible to man. Whatever can not be thought can not be 

 lived. 



Philosophy has its recognized methods of procedure. These 

 are laid down in the mechanism of the human brain itself. Sci- 

 ence has found these methods untrustworthy as a means of reach- 

 ing objective truth. The final test of scientific truth is this : Can 

 we make it work ? Can we trust our life to it ? This test the 



