THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE 



615 



THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE 



WAR AND PUBLIC OPINION 



It is difficult to write, speak or think 

 about anything except the war now dev- 

 asting Europe and the earth. Al- 

 though social and economic questions 

 can not be treated with the same ob- 

 jectivity as the natural and exact sci- 

 ences, The Popular Science Monthly 

 has always included them in its scope, 

 the immediate ground of its establish- 

 ment in 1872 having indeed been the 

 need of a journal in which to publish 

 Herbert Spencer 's ' ' Principles of Soci- 

 ology. ' ' That work takes an attitude 

 strongly opposed to militarism and dis- 

 cusses the difficulties of obtaining 

 scientific points of view in sociology 

 owing to national interests and preju- 

 dices. 



The events of forty-two years have 

 enforced the arguments of Herbert 

 Spencer and to-day their truth is con- 

 vincingly exhibited, at least in the sight 

 of most of us. But it must be ad- 

 mitted that the two arguments are not 

 on the same scientific plane. When it 

 is claimed that armaments and war are 

 not only inevitable, but may be desir- 

 able for a nation and for the world, 

 there is no scientific disproof, only con- 

 viction against prejudice or prejudice 

 against conviction, as the case may be. 

 The extent to which belief may be 

 determined by emotion is demonstrated 

 by the fact that the people of each of 

 the nations now involved hold that they 

 are engaged in a war of defense 

 against the selfish and wanton aggres- 

 sion of their opponents. We have been 

 requested to print a manifesto, ad- 

 dressed " To the Civilized World " by 

 ninety-three leading representatives of 

 German science and art, including Pro- 

 fessors von Baer, von Behring, Ehrlich, 

 Fischer, Haeckel, Klein, Nernst, Ost- 

 wald, Rontgen, Waldeyer and Wundt. 

 They say: 



It is not true that Germany is guilty 

 of having caused this war. Neither the 

 people, the government, nor the 

 "Kaiser" wanted war. Germany did 

 her utmost to prevent it; for this as- 

 sertion the world has documental proof. 

 . . . It is not true that we trespassed 

 in neutral Belgium. . . . It is not true 

 that the life and property of a single 

 Belgian citizen was injured by our sol- 

 diers without the bitterest self-defence 

 having made it necessary. . . . It is not 

 true that our troops treated Louvain 

 brutally. . . . We can not wrest the 

 poisonous weapon — the lie— out of the 

 hands of our enemies. All we can do 

 is to proclaim to all the world, that 

 our enemies are giving false witness 

 against us. You^ who know us, who 

 with us have protected the most holy 

 possessions of man, we call to you: 

 Have faith in us! Believe, that we 

 shall carry on this war to the end as a 

 civilized nation, to whom the legacy of 

 a Goethe, a Beethoven and a Kant, is 

 just as sacred as its own hearths and 

 homes. For this we pledge you our 

 names and our honor. 



A reply alleging the exact contrary 

 has been signed by one hundred and 

 thirty leading British professors, au- 

 thors, artists and men of science, in- 

 cluding Lord Rayleigh, Sir William 

 Ramsey, Sir William Crookes, Sir Wil- 

 liam Osier, Sir Ronald Ross, Sir Wil- 

 liam Turner, Professor Sherrington and 

 Professor Schuster. They say: 



We grieve profoundly that under the 

 baleful influence of a military system 

 and its lawless dreams of conquest she 

 whom we once honored now stands re- 

 vealed as the common enemv of Eu- 

 rope and of all peoples which respect 

 the laws of nations. We must carry on 

 the war on which we have entered. 

 For us, as for Belgium, it is a war of 

 defense waged for liberty and peace. 



The workings of the psychology of 

 the crowd may be illustrated by a minor 

 incident. German scientific men have 

 renounced the honorary degrees con- 

 ferred on them by British universities, 

 and German scientific men who had at- 

 tended as invited guests the Australian 



