SHORTER ARTICLES AND CORRESPONDENCE. 565 



tcr. Thus in the lirst paragraph he 

 says : 



Tlie nature of matter has been regarded 

 by philosophers from many points of view, 

 but it is not from any philosophic stand- 

 point that I presume in this university to 

 ask you to consider the subject under my 

 guidance. 



And in the second paragraph he 

 adds : 



If I may venture to say so, it is the 

 more philosophic side of physics which 

 has always seemed to me the most suit- 

 able for study in this university ; and 

 although I disclaim any competence for 

 philosophic treatment, in the technical 

 sense, yet I doubt not that the new 

 views, in so far as they turn out to be 

 true views, will have a bearing on the 

 theory of matter in all future writings on 

 philosophy ; besides exercising a profound 

 effect on the pure science of physics and 

 chemistry, and perhaps having some in- 

 fluence on certain aspects of biology also. 



The course which Sir Oliver fol- 

 lowed on the occasion of this Ro- 

 manes Lecture is not without emi- 

 nent precedent. Many a man of sci- 

 ence has acknowledged subserviency to 

 philosophy on similar occasions; and 

 there is no doubt tliat the most of us 

 have inherited a belief in the inferi- 

 ority of science to philosophy. But the 

 question I would ask is whether such 

 subserviency and such belief are any 

 longer justified and hence dignified? 



This, of course, raises squarely the 

 question of the distinction between 

 science and philosophy. I assume, how- 

 ever, that it is imnecessary to thrash 

 over old straw here and now. Brush- 

 ing aside pseudo-science and barren 

 philosophy, what is the distinction, if 



any, between sound science and sane 

 philosophy? 



If one applies the scientific method 

 of investigation to scientists and to 

 philosophers of the modern types he 

 will find, I think, that they are very 

 much alike and that neither claims 

 any superiority over the other. It 

 \\ouId appear also that the two words 

 science and philosophy are now very 

 frequently used as synonymous in 

 spite of their widely diff'ering shades 

 of meaning. 



^Vhy then should we prolong dis- 

 tinctions which are no longer tenalde? 

 Why, to return to the Romanes Lec- 

 ture, should we be asked to entertain 

 the hypothesis that some Oxford phi- 

 losopher is more likely to see straight 

 with respect to the intricate properties 

 of matter than Sir Oliver himself? 

 How much, in fact, has all philosophy, 

 in the sense in which Sir Oliver uses 

 the word, contributed to our knowl- 

 edge of matter? There was a time 

 when every obscure professor of 

 ' moral ' or ' mental ' philosophy was 

 held, by common consent of the educa- 

 ted, more competent to judge of the 

 philosophic aspects of the ' Origin of 

 Species ' than Charles Darwin. But 

 have we not outlived that time, and is 

 not a relapse to the ways of that 

 time, even for the purposes of compli- 

 ment, reprehensible ? 



Phtsicist. 



[The point of our correspondent ap- 

 pears to be well taken. But possibly 

 Sir Oliver Lodge's compliment im- 

 plied that experimental science has 

 been neglected at Oxford. — Ed.] 



