274 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



we name "nature" or "the world." The way in which I have raised 

 the question forecasts not only my belief that science has done and is 

 doing very much in this direction, but also something of the methods 

 by which I conceive this greatly-to-be-desired good may be still farther 

 attained. 



Do you remember how Christian on his journey to the Celestial City 

 used to get out his roll in times of sore perplexity and read what was 

 written therein? The Eoll which, according to my doctrine, every 

 successful pilgrim must have easy of access when the trail grows dim, 

 the body weary, and hope and faith weaken while traveling the hard 

 road toward his Fair View of the world, is Common Sense. Notice I 

 do not say such a guide alone would take anybody anywhere. What I 

 mean is that I do not believe anybody's Fair View is truly fair unless 

 he does read in this Eoll over and over again. And one of the things I 

 want to hammer home to-night is that Section I. of the Eoll is natural 

 history — unostentatious, old-fashioned description, designation and 

 classification of the myriads of objects by which we are surrounded : 

 men and dogs, wagons and cows, trees and disease germs, clouds, rivers 

 and birds, stars and mosquitoes, windmills and cherry blossoms, and all 

 the rest. 



I am particularly solicitous about this Section I. of the Eoll because 

 generous as is my recognition of what science is doing to help forward 

 a better world view, and profound as is my faith that it will not, in the 

 long run, be lukewarm or ineffective in this part of its mission, I am 

 unable to be blind to the great neglect of this section in our day by 

 many men of science, particularly those who are cultivating certain 

 compartments of the realm of nature. And negligence in both fact and 

 spirit of this first section (of clear description and designation) unavoid- 

 ably entails considerable neglect of the whole Eoll. 



To make sure that my allegory is clear, I explain that it means that, 

 according to my view, there are always currents in the sciences of 

 external nature setting against common sense ; and that in our era these 

 seem to be particularly numerous and strong. Always in considerable 

 danger of becoming sophisticated, science is specially open to this peril 

 in an era like the present, when the momentum of its advance is so 

 great that restrictions and criticisms leveled against it from the outside 

 are hardly felt by it at all. It is doubtful if internal criticism in any 

 great and well-established realm of knowledge is quite sufficient to 

 insure its complete doctrinal healthfulness. 



The particular form of sophistication which science is now suffering 

 and against which pressure from the outside is, I believe, going to compel 

 a reexamination and readjustment, is what is called, indifferently be- 

 cause uncritically, sometimes materialism and sometimes mechanism. 

 A sharp distinction ought, I am sure, to be made between materialism 



