THE STABILITY OF TRUTH. 647 



conclusions of philosopliy can not meet. In so far as they do so 

 they are conclusions of science. As science advances in any field 

 philosophy is driven away from it. The fact has been often 

 noted that every great conclusion of science has been anticipated 

 by philosophy, in most cases by the philosophy of the Greeks. 

 But every conclusion science has shown to be false has been like- 

 wise anticipated. The Greeks taught the theory of development 

 centuries before Darwin. But if Darwin's studies in life varia- 

 tion had led to any other result whatsoever, he would have been 

 equally anticipated by the Greeks. In other words, every con- 

 ceivable guess as to the origin and meaning of familiar phe- 

 nomena has been exhausted by philosophy. Some of these 

 guesses contain elements of truth. Which of these have such 

 elements it is the business of Science to find out. Philosophy has 

 no means of doing so. A truth not yet shown to be true is in sci- 

 ence not a truth. It has no more validity than any other gen- 

 eralization not shown to be false. Helmholtz tells us that phi- 

 losophy deals with such " scldechtes Stoff" such bad subject- 

 matter, that it can give no trustworthy conclusions. Science 

 alone can give the test of human life. The essence of this test is 

 experiment. 



The tests of philosophy are mainly these: Is the conception 

 plausible ? Has it logical continuity ? Is it satisfying to the 

 human heart ? And in this connection the figurative word " heart " 

 is best left undefined. In other words, its sources and its tests are 

 alike subjective intellectual or emotional. If we take from phi- 

 losophy the " heart " element, the personal equation, it becomes 

 logic or mathematics. Mathematics is metaphysics working 

 through methods of precision. It is a most valuable instrument 

 for the study of the relations and ramifications of knowledge, but 

 it can give no addition to knowledge itself. Dr. William James 

 defines metaphysics as " the persistent attempt to think clearly." 

 This definition is good so far as it goes, but to think clearly is a 

 function of science also. Metaphysics is rather the " attempt to 

 think clearly" in fields where exact data are unattained or un- 

 attainable. In so far as philosophy is simply clear thinking it is 

 a most valuable agency for testing the deductions of science. 

 But, while it can reject false conclusions, it can add no new matter 

 of its own. 



For example, the claim is made in the name of evolutionary 

 philosophy that all matter is one in essence, therefore all the 

 chemical elements, some seventy in number, must be the same in 

 substance. In this case all must be derived from the same primi- 

 tive stuff, and the hypothetical basis of all ponderable matter has 

 been called protyl. As a working theory this is most ingenious. 

 But is it science ? Is it worthy of belief ? Certainly Science 



