CORRESP ONDENCE. 



241 



never make a mistake. But, the moment 

 she leaves this path, she is in danger, or 

 rather she is sure to go wrong, because 

 whatever works by other than scientific 

 methods is not science, and at best can only 

 put on a kind of scientific garb, and mas- 

 querade in scientific phraseology. 



Are there not some indications that we 

 are not yet altogether beyond this danger ? 

 Are we not even more or less exposed to it 

 at this particular time? Some scientific 

 writers are certainly disposed to talk quite 

 as much about their conclusions and theo- 

 retical explanations as about the phenomena 

 they describe. There is no harm in this 

 (except that it occupies a good deal of time 

 that might be otherwise employed), pro- 

 vided they keep the boundary-line well 

 marked between what they know and what 

 they think on the subject in question. But 

 they do not always do this. The hypo- 

 thetical explanations are sometimes erected 

 into a law, or principle, or theory, which, in 

 the author's mind, evidently overshadows 

 in importance every thing else. So we are 

 sometimes supposed to have acquired a 

 valuable piece of information when we are 

 only, as the French say, " getting our pay in 

 words." How much has been said and 

 written for the past few years about proto- 

 plasm! Now, a student of physiology 

 would be very excusable for thinking, from 

 the manner in which this term is used, that 

 protoplasm was some newly-discovered and 

 important substance, with definite physical 

 and chemical properties, and of the highest 

 consequence in regard to vital organization. 

 He would be considerably disappointed on 

 finding it to be only a word representing a 

 certain set of ideas, or at best a group of 

 many various substances, each one of them 

 specifically different from the rest. 



There is even a certain kind of authority 

 claimed, at least by implication, for some 

 of these theoretical notions ; and there is 

 no doubt that they are occasionally assigned 

 an established position as accepted truths, 

 to which they are very far from being en- 

 titled. If it were not so improbable that 

 Science could ever be induced to imitate in 

 the least degree her old theological enemy, 

 we might suspect even now a disposition in 

 some minds to frame for us a sort of scien- 

 tific Nicene Creed, the merit of believing in 

 vol. in. 16 



which would not depend exclusively upon 

 the possession of sufficient reliable evidence. 

 If such a creed were drawn up just at pres- 

 ent, it would probably read something like 

 this : 

 I believe in the Darwinian Theory ; 



In the Evolution Hypothesis ; 



In the Undulation of Light and 

 the Luminiferous Ether ; and 



In the Atomic Constitution of 

 Matter. 

 Now, we all know that theories are use- 

 ful in their way, if confined within a very 

 small compass, and employed only to stimu- 

 late rather than satisfy inquiry, and to sug- 

 gest the direction in which new facts may 

 be discovered. But, when they are raised 

 to a higher dignity, and demand our belief 

 in them as representing the actual constitu- 

 tion of Nature, then they are a misfortune 

 to everybody concerned. If we treat them 

 with any more respect than they deserve, 

 we shall suffer for it inevitably by the loss 

 of something which is infinitely more val- 

 uable than any of them. The records of 

 the immediate past show the achievements 

 which have been accomplished by means of 

 strict adherence to exact methods of in- 

 vestigation. Should the scientific mind of 

 to-day become ever so little intoxicated with 

 its success, and undertake to decide ques- 

 tions which are beyond its horizon, it will 

 certainly stultify itself, and lose the univer- 

 sal support and confidence which it has now 

 so fairly acquired. For that reason I think 

 that Mr. Godwin, in his Tyndall Dinner 

 speech, was doing good service for science 

 and scientific men, and that we are indebted 

 to him for placing in a very distinct light 

 the only source of danger for scientific in- 

 terests in the future. J. C. D. 



A CORRECTION. LETTER FROM PROF. 

 TYNDALL. 



It is well known that many religious 

 newspapers construed several of the speech- 

 es at the Tyndall banquet as righteous re- 

 bukes of the guest of the evening, on ac- 

 count of his irreligious science. His state- 

 ment below was called out by a leading 

 article in the Christian Intellif/encer of Feb- 

 ruary 13th, entitled " The Tyndall Banquet," 



