EDITOR'S TABLE. 



"5 



tional is required to erect suitable 

 buildings, and $200,000 more to raise 

 the endowment to the point necessary 

 for carrying out Prof. Agassiz's plans. 

 If these arrangements be consummated, 

 a Natural History school of high char- 

 acter and large usefulness cannot fail 

 to be the result. How far it will be 

 organized in the interest of original 

 scientific investigations, or in the gen- 

 eral interests of education, or to what 

 degree both objects will be combined, 

 remains to be seen. It is to be hoped 

 that Mr. Anderson's generosity will 

 prove contagious, and that not only 

 will Prof. Agassiz be furnished with 

 the funds he requires, but that men of 

 wealth in different parts of tho coun- 

 try will contribute to kindred enter- 

 prises in their own localities. For the 

 organization of such Scientific Teach- 

 ers' Institutes as we have suggested, 

 large sums of money would not be re- 

 quired. Buildings can be found suit- 

 able for school sessions, lectures, and 

 demonstrations, and no care or outlay 

 would be necessary to provide for the 

 living of students and professors. The 

 expenses to be incurred would be only 

 for the liberal remuneration of the pro- 

 fessorial corps, and for the various 

 scientific appliances needed to illus- 

 trate the teaching. The project is 

 feasible, if there i3 sufficient interest 

 in the subject to carry it out. 



MR. G0DWI2TS LETTER. 



We publish an able communication 

 from Mr. Parke Godwin, called forth 

 by our strictures, in the April Monthly, 

 on his speech at the Tyndall Banquet, 

 and restating, with more fulness, the 

 views there expressed. With much 

 that he says we cordially agree, and, 

 had the position to which we mainly 

 objected been originally stated as it is 

 now, there would have been less occa- 

 sion for criticism. In his address, after 

 some remarks on the great results of 



modern science, Mr. Godwin said : 

 "But it is real science, with its rigid 

 restrictions to its own sphere and its 

 exact methods, and not any pseudo- 

 science, that will accomplish these 

 grand results." He then gave exam- 

 ples, and classed among them the doc- 

 trine of Evolution as interpreted by 

 Herbert Spencer. But, in his present 

 communication, Mr. Godwin admits 

 that " the nebular, the Darwinian, and 

 the Spencerian views are hypotheses 

 quite within the domain of scientific 

 theory, and capable, to a certain ex- 

 tent, of explaining the phenomena to 

 which they refer." He allows their 

 legitimacy, which is what we contend- 

 ed for; but he denies that they are 

 fairly-accredited scientific truths, and 

 here we suspect he is again mistaken. 



What, then, are we to understand 

 by scientific truth ? Mr. Godwin inven- 

 tories the chimeras of the past, and, 

 pointing to the debris of abandoned 

 theories which strew the road of sci- 

 ence, admonishes us not "to be too 

 confident that our little systems of nat- 

 ral law will not, like other systems of 

 thought referred to by Tennyson, have 

 their day." The lesson is a wholesome 

 one ; but are scientists the parties that 

 most need it ? Is it they that are for- 

 ever affirming "finalities," "absolute 

 verities," and " eternal principles ? " 

 In what school are men so trained to 

 distrust themselves, and to hold their 

 views subject to constant revision, as 

 in the school of science ? Is it not ever 

 seeking to supersede existing truth by 

 larger truth ? Chemistry reposes upon 

 its ascertained elements, but chemists 

 are prepared to see them at any time 

 abolished or resolved into a single one, 

 and in that case the gentlemen of the 

 laboratory would be the first to throw 

 up their hats in exultation. Even the 

 principle of gravity is not held as a 

 finality : Faraday labored for its rein- 

 terpretation, and, should it disappear 

 in some larger generalization of dy- 

 namical law, physicists will not go in- 



