THE WORLD VERSUS MATTER 275 



and mechanism. But I shall be true to my earlier promise and spare 

 you a discussion so recondite as would be one that should undertake to 

 establish this distinction. 



What I am going to try to do is to show, briefly, that materialism 

 held down to its legitimate meaning and made a general theory of the 

 world is a form of scientific sophistication ; and then especially, to insist 

 that natural history is the natural antidote and prophylactic against 

 such sophistication. 



A young mathematical physicist, who I hear is highly regarded 

 among his fellow workmen, tells me that one of the " fathers in Israel " 

 of their science declares that physics is bankrupt to-day. Now I should 

 not take this declaration, by itself, very seriously. Of the bankruptcy 

 of science as a whole, and of particular branches of science, we hear 

 rather frequently. But from some of the things this young friend tells 

 me, and from what I gather from other sources — by conversation and 

 the reading I am able to do along the edges of the domain of physics — 

 I am led to suspect that there are conditions within that domain which 

 justify considerable solicitude for the health of that science. My young 

 friend's epigrammatic way of stating the situation is this: All nature 

 reduces itself to matter, all matter to electrons, all electrons to ether, 

 and all ether to a hypothesis. 



Only a few days ago I heard a physical chemist making a sharp 

 distinction between what he called the "world of fact," the world of 

 common sense, and as he put it, "the world with which science deals." 

 I submit that if such statements coming from within the portals of the 

 physicochemical realm are to be taken seriously, if science as understood 

 within that realm is not dealing with facts, then indeed are outsiders 

 justified in taking seriously also the ex-cathedra statement about the 

 bankruptcy of this science. , 



If then there really is cause for solicitude as to the solvency of 

 physics — if it has used its credit (its speculations) well up to the limit 

 of its assets (its facts), how has it come to do this, and how might it 

 get back to a safe business basis ? 



Should any one question the right of biology, which science I repre- 

 sent, to inquire into the internal affairs of physics, the reply is that 

 biology has heavy investments in physics both as depositor and stock- 

 holder, and so has not only the right but the duty to be informed as to 

 physics' solvency or insolvency. 



I believe physics and chemistry for years. have been and now are 

 violating certain principles fundamental and common to the right inter- 

 pretation of nature in all its subdivisions. To return to the banking 

 simile, these sciences have, unwittingly and unintentionally, invested 

 their funds in inadequately protected securities. This I understand is a 

 grave charge, and any one who should make it without being able to sup- 



