THE VALUE OF SCIENCE 445 



It should not even be said that action is the goal of science; 

 should we condemn studies of the star Sirius, under pretext that we 

 shall probably never exercise any influence on that star? To my eyes, 

 on the contrary, it is the knowledge which is the end, and the action 

 which is the means. If I felicitate myself on the industrial develop- 

 ment, it is not alone because it furnishes a facile argument to the 

 advocates of science; it is above all because it gives to the scientist 

 faith in himself and also because it offers an immense field of experi- 

 ence where clash forces too colossal to be interfered with. Without 

 this ballast, who knows whether it would not quit the earth, seduced 

 by the mirage of some scholastic novelty, or whether it would not 

 despair, believing it had fashioned only a dream? 



§ 3. The Crude Fact and the Scientific Fact 



What was most paradoxical in M. LeKoy^s thesis was that affirma- 

 tion that the scientist creates the fact; this was at the same time its 

 essential point and it is one of those which have been most discussed. 



Perhaps, says he (I well believe that this was a concession), it is 

 not the scientist that creates the fact in the rough; it is at least he 

 who creates the scientific fact. 



This distinction between the fact in the rough and the scientific 

 fact does not by itself appear to me illegitimate. But I complain first 

 that the boundary has not been traced either exactly or precisely; and 

 then that the author has seemed to suppose that the crude fact, not 

 being scientific, is outside of science. 



Finally, I can not admit that the scientist creates without restraint 

 the scientific fact since it is the crude fact which imposes it upon him. 



The examples given by M. LeEoy have greatly astonished me. The 

 first is taken from the notion of atom. The atom chosen as example 

 of fact ! I avow that this choice has so disconcerted me that I prefer 

 to say nothing about it. I have evidently misunderstood the author's 

 thought and I could not fruitfully discuss it. 



The second case taken as example is that of an eclipse where the 

 crude phenomenon is a play of light and shadow, but where the 

 astronomer can not intervene without introducing two foreign elements, 

 to wit, a clock and Newton's law. 



Finally, M. LeEoy cites the rotation of the earth; it has been 

 answered: but this is not a fact, and he has replied: it was one for 

 Galileo, who affirmed it, as for the inquisitor, who denied it. It 

 always remains that this is not a fact in the same sense as those just 

 spoken of and that to give them the same name is to expose one's 

 self to many confusions. 



Here then are four degrees: 



1°. It grows dark, says the clown. 



