io6 



THE POPULAR SCIEXCE MONTHLY 



and desires, is the most kindly and gener- 

 ous of helpmates, and not a tyrannic lord ; 

 that these outward appearances are but the 

 shows of an inward reality which is entirely 

 human; that these phenomenal forms and 

 events are but the symbols of an eternal 

 Love and Truth, which the great spiritual 

 Sun of the Universe projects and photo- 

 graphs upon the sensitive plates of our 

 finite human intelligence." 



Thus, while I ascribed to science a po- 

 tent and beneficent efficacy, first, in dis- 

 charging the mind of its fears of Nature 

 and of other superstitions ; second, in per- 

 fecting civilization ; and, lastly, in promis- 

 ing the surest groundwork for speculative 

 generalizations, both naturalistic and theo- 

 logical, you represent me as deprecating its 

 influences, and as even questioning its util- 

 ity. That was scarcely fair. How, indeed, 

 could I do so ? Holding profoundly to the 

 conviction (how derived is not here the 

 question) that there is but one real Life in 

 the Universe, whose infinite Love is the 

 ground of all Force, and whose infinite 

 truth is the ground of all Law, and that phe- 

 nomenal Nature is but the varied manifes- 

 tation of that life to and through the human 

 mind, it would be intellectual suicide in 

 me to attempt imposing fetters upon any le- 

 gitimate search of Nature's methods. Every 

 step we make in unfolding her secrets is a 

 new revelation of an adorable goodness and 

 wisdom, and a new help toward a nobler 

 future. 



But then I said and it was the whole 

 purport of my speech, made in the inter- 

 ests of science as well as religion that we 

 can only expect these results from true 

 science, which investigates what Nature 

 really is, and not from a hasty and pre- 

 sumptuous science, which pretends to give 

 us what Nature may be supposed to be. And 

 my criterion of true science, suggested in a 

 phrase, was, that the methods and results 

 of it bear the impress of exactitude or cer- 

 tainty. You remark, as if you did not re- 

 ceive these simple and fundamental prin- 

 ciples, that the " exact sciences " are exact, 

 while others are not. There, I think, we 

 differ or misunderstand each other. I am 

 aware that none of the sciences are exact 

 in the mathematical sense of the word, save 

 the ideal or abstract sciences ; but it is 



none the less true that the real or con- 

 crete sciences are exact, in the usual sense 

 of the word, both in their methods and 

 products. If they are not exact, where does 

 the inexactness come in ? In the observation 

 of facts ? Then the induction is vitiated. 

 In the induction itself? Then the law arrived 

 at is imperfect. In the deductive verifica- 

 tion or proof? Then we have no reason for 

 trusting our process. Biology, psychology, 

 and sociology, you say, are sciences and 

 certain sciences ; to which my reply is, that, 

 to the extent in which they are not precise, 

 they are not sciences. Indeed, saving in a 

 popular and convenient sense, I should be 

 disposed to doubt whether they are yet to 

 be ranked as more than inchoate sciences. 

 They belong to the domain of science, have 

 gathered some of the richest materials for 

 science, and have attained to some extent a 

 scientific value ; but there is yet so much 

 uncertainty hanging over broad regions 

 in each that we must await the future for 

 the resolution of many unresolved ques- 

 tions, which may give a new aspect to the 

 whole. Biology is the most advanced, but 

 rather in its natural history and classifica- 

 tion, than in its knowledge of the profound- 

 er laws of life, that are yet to be found. 

 Psychology is so little of a science, that the 

 teachers of it hardly agree on the funda- 

 mental points ; or, if it be a science, whose 

 exposition of it are we to accept, Sir "William 

 Hamilton's or Mr. Mill's, Herbert Spencer's 

 or Dr. Porter's, who all profess to be ex- 

 perimental and inductive, and all disagree ? 

 As to Sociology, the name for which was in- 

 vented only a few years since by Comte, it 

 is still in a chaotic condition ; and, unless 

 Mr. Spencer, whose few introductory chap- 

 ters are alone made public, succeeds in giv- 

 ing it consistency and form, it can hardly 

 be called more than a hope. But, be the 

 truth what it may, in respect to these par- 

 ticular branches of knowledge, I still insist 

 that certainty is the criterion of true sci- 

 ence, and that, if we give that criterion up, 

 science loses its authority, its prestige, its 

 assurance of march, and its sovereign posi- 

 tion as an arbiter in the varying struggles 

 of doctrine. 



Well, then the examples I gave, without 

 mentioning names, of what I considered 

 false science, were, first, the gross material- 



