24 The Period from 1871 to 1880 



insects. Then he discussed the difficulties persons have of understanding 

 others of different antecedents and culture, and went on to explanations of 

 reasons why such varied views are held respecting the relations between 

 science and religion. He arrived at the conclusion that "there is no occa- 

 sion for strict Science and pure Religion to be in conflict. . . ." (Vol. 24, 

 pp. 1-18.) 



Julius E. Hilgard (geography), president of the Association at the meet- 

 ing held at Detroit in August, 1875, delivered his address as retiring presi- 

 dent at the meeting held at Buffalo, New York, in August, 1876. Casting 

 aside the temptation to present a general review of a century of science on 

 the centennial of the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies, 

 and refraining from a further discussion of the relations between science and 

 religion, he took for the subject of his address Geodosy and Topography, the 

 measurement of the size and form of the earth and the mapping of its sur- 

 face. He gave a straightforward historical and critical account of these two 

 related fields. In his concluding paragraphs, however, he presented some re- 

 flections on the role "abstract thought and pure mathematics have had 

 ... in the development of human knowledge," and terminated his address 

 rather abruptly with the sentence: "Friends, to my mind this insatiate 

 desire to know the causes of things, and to understand the ways of creation, 

 is the strongest evidence that there is a Divine mind from which the human 

 mind is derived, and that man has been made in the image of God." (Vol. 

 25, pp. 1-16.) 



William B. Rogers (geology), president of the Association at the meeting 

 held at Detroit in August, 1875, was ill at the time of the following meeting 

 held at Nashville, Tenn., in August, 1876, and did not deliver an address as 

 retiring president. 



Simon Newcomb (astronomy) delivered his address as retiring president 

 of the Association at the meeting held at St. Louis, Mo., in August, 1878. 

 In describing the subject and purpose of his address, he said : 



... I have been led to present to you some thoughts on the Course of Nature as 

 seen in the light of modern scientific and philosophic research. . . . 



The key-note of my discourse is found in a proposition which is fundamental in the 

 history of modern science, and without a clear understanding of which everything I 

 say may be entirely misunderstood. This proposition is, that science concerns itself 

 only with phenomena and the relations which connect them, and does not take account 

 of any questions which do not in some way admit of being brought to the test of ob- 

 servation. The only universe it knows is that made known by the telescope, the micro- 

 scope and other appliances of observation. That this is the whole universe we should 

 all be very sorry to suppose, and none more so than he who has the honor to address 

 you. But, should I pretend to a scientific knowledge of what lies behind this visible 

 frame, I should be acting the part of the rash speculator rather than of the cautious 

 thinker. Only into a single field of thought do I dare to venture. 



