162 



THE LIFE OF SCIENCE 



measure its objectivity and its degree of approximation. Above 

 all it has taught men to be impartial (or at least to try to be) , to 

 want the whole truth, and not only the part of it which may be 

 convenient or agreeable. Such impartiality was obviously impos- 

 sible, and almost inconceivable, so long as the objectivity of truth 

 could not be appreciated. 



The experimental method is in appearance the most revolution- 

 ary of all methods. Does it not lead to astounding discoveries and 

 inventions? Does it not change the face of the world so deeply 

 and so often that superficial people think of it as the very spirit 

 of change? And yet it is essentially conservative, for it hesitates 

 to draw conclusions until their validity has been established and 

 verified in many ways; it is so cautious that it often gives an im- 

 pression of timidity. It seems revolutionary because it is so effi- 

 cient; its conclusions, because of their restraint, cannot be op- 

 posed; because of their strength they cannot be frustrated. When 

 thought is as severely disciplined as scientific thought, it is irre- 

 sistible, and yet it is the greatest element of stability in the world. 

 How shall we account for that paradox? Progress implies sta- 

 bility; it implies the respect of traditions. Scientific thought is, or 

 seems, revolutionary because the consequences it leads to are so 

 great and often unexpected, but it leads to them in a steady way. 

 The history of science describes an evolution of incomparable 

 magnitude which gives us a very high idea of man's intellectual 

 power, but this evolution is as steady as that which is caused by 

 natural forces. 



You have heard the story of the cowboy who, coming suddenly 

 upon the rim of the Grand Canon, exclaimed: "Good Lord, some- 

 thing has happened here!" Now, as you know, the cowboy was 

 wrong if he meant that something had happened at a definite time, 

 and had been rapidly completed. In that sense nothing ever hap- 

 pened in the Grand Canon. In the same way the development of 

 science, though incomparably swifter than the cutting of a canon, 

 is a steady process; it seems revolutionary, because we do not 

 really see the process, but only the gigantic results. 



