462 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



reflect that at the same time we exclude from 

 the school programme a whole series of sciences. 

 Are there not still hypotheses without number 

 in astronomy ? lias not the nebular hypoth- 

 esis of Kant and Laplace for a long time been 

 taught everywhere ? Do we hesitate to acquaint 

 pupils in the schools with the principles and the 

 conclusions of geology ? In fact, is it not usual 

 to give to them as their first history-lesson a lot 

 of fables which in so far are much worse 

 than scientific hypotheses as they cannot stand 

 scientific criticism ? Do we not know that the 

 current accounts of Jewish, Greek, and Roman 

 history are false, and that the pupils have in 

 later years laboriously to disencumber their 

 minds of the lessons learned by them in child- 

 hood ? In short, is not the human soul itself — 

 though in the school held to be an undisputed fact 

 — an hypothesis, a simple postulate, incapable of 

 exact demonstration ? Of the doctrines of re- 

 ligion, which are so zealously taught in our 

 schools, I say nothing, as they are not matters of 

 scientific instruction; but yet one who makes 

 such resistance to the " dogmatic stream which 

 tumultously makes its way through the fields of 

 the sciences of observation," and who strives to 

 protect the schools against the same, should first 

 of all labor to exclude this kind of instruction, the 

 dogmatic character of which is unquestioned. 



I, on the whole, agree with Virchow when he 

 says that it is incumbent on the investigator loy- 

 ally to declare — 1 . What is established fact (though 

 from the Kantian point of view this would not 

 come to much) ; 2. What is an hypothesis of in- 

 finite probability — for instance, the earth's revo- 

 lution round the sun, and the greater part of what 

 we call positive science ; 3. What is probable 

 hypothesis, though still needing further confir- 

 mation — as, for instance, the hypotheses upon 

 which the Darwinian theory is based ; 4. What 

 is simple and entirely undemonstrable hypothe- 

 sis — for instance, the hypothesis of atoms, of 

 light-ether, of universal gravitation, and the like, 

 which are taught in schools with impunity, albeit 

 some of them, for instance the hypothesis of 

 universal gravitation, are simply a cloak for our 

 ignorance. But these distinctions can only be 

 drawn by the individual himself, since we cannot 

 demand of one who is convinced of the entire 

 correctness of the results of his own researches 

 that he shall represent them as only probable. 

 Hence the line of demarkation postulated by 

 Virchow, and which I myself hold to be desirable, 

 between facts and problems, never will and never 

 can be drawn by the man of research, but will and 



must in the future, as in the past, continue to be a 

 matter to be settled by the schoolmaster. Only he 

 who stands outside of the domain of research 

 can, by impartial comparison and unprejudiced 

 criticism of the different opinions, form for him- 

 self an approximately objective judgment as to 

 whether a proposition is to pass for a doctrine of 

 science or not; the investigator himself cannot 

 do this. Nor will Virchow's address make any 

 change. Every investigator must be absolutely 

 free to teach what he in his inmost scientific 

 convictions holds to be true ; and to require him 

 to formulate the positive and the problematic is 

 simply to restrict his scientific liberty. Now, we 

 cannot make any such concession as that to the 

 illustrious Berlin professor. With great truth 

 does Karl Griin observe: "Science either enjoys 

 perfect liberty, or she is not free at all. Setting 

 up hypotheses, and tracing their ultimate conse- 

 quences, are part and parcel of science, and of 

 the liberty of science." 



I do not class Virchow's strictures with those 

 which I characterized at the opening of these 

 few observations. While the latter, systemati- 

 cally practised, are the utterances of certain par- 

 ties, and designed to serve certain partisan ends, 

 and hence, as being of a political nature, are ut- 

 terly void of scientific weight, on the other hand, 

 Virchow's motives were, at bottom, purely scien- 

 tific. Unfortunately, he let slip a momentous ex- 

 pression, on the strength of which many political 

 partisans have accounted him as one of them- 

 selves ; and, indeed, they have not failed, out of 

 the professor's utterances at Munich, to straight- 

 way make political capital — a thing deeply to be 

 regretted in the interest of science as well as of 

 the orator himself. Inasmuch as Virchow called 

 attention to the fact that socialism already sym- 

 pathizes with the evolution theory, it is high time 

 for us, in the most solemn and impressive way, 

 to declare that scientific specidalion cannot have 

 anything whatever in common with political move- 

 ments of any kind, and that they must not be gov- 

 erned by any considerations of their effects upon 

 political questions. Where is the doctrine that is 

 exempt from misuse? Is it that of the Bible — 

 the very text-book of socialism ; or is it the Chris- 

 tian religion, in whose name hecatombs have been 

 sacrificed ? Is it medicine or philosophy ? Nay, 

 even cellular pathology, as Virchow himself ad- 1 

 mits, is not safe from misuse and misapplication. 



Scientific research aims at the discovery of 

 truth, never inquiring who is to be benefited 

 thereby. The question Cuiprodest ? ' is fortunate- 

 1 Who is benefited ? 



