THE SCIENTIFIC LAW in 



thesis to be true, because science has not yet by positive 

 knowledge demonstrated its falsehood. Here, in the 

 untilled part of the heritage of science, lies the playground 

 of the undisciplined imagination. Mine, says Science, is 

 the hinderland of the sensuous, and she hastens so soon as 

 possible to make her occupation effective. She does not 

 claim the supersensuous, for that sphere is excluded by 

 her definition of knowledge. 



Science, we are told, does not explain the origin of 

 life ; science does not explain the development of man's 

 higher faculties ; science does not explain the history of 

 nations. If by explain^ is meant "describe in a brief 

 formula," let us admit that science has yet far from fully 

 analysed these phenomena. What, then, must follow the 

 admission ? Why, an honest confession of our ignorance 

 and not mistrust in our fundamental principles — no 

 meaningless hunt after unknown origins in the super- 

 sensuous, until the known field of perceptions has been 

 shown incapable of yielding the needful basis. To-day 

 our churches still offer up prayers for the weather, and the 

 mystery of Saturn's rings is hardly fully solved ; fifty 

 years ago we could give no plausible account of the 

 origin of species. The mystery of the latter was used as 

 striking evidence of the insufficiency of science and as a 

 valid argument for an anomy, a separate creation of each 

 type of life. Driven from one stronghold of ignorance, 

 those who delight in the undisciplined imagination rather 

 than in positive knowledge, only seek refuge in another. 

 The part played years ago by our ignorance as to the 

 origin of species is now played by our supposed ignorance 

 as to the origin of the higher faculties in man. As well 

 take refuge in the weather or in the mystery of Saturn's 

 rings, for they also belong to the world of sense-impressions 

 and therefore are material with which the scientific method 

 can and will ultimately cope. 



Does science leave no mystery ? On the contrary, 



1 No objection can be raised to the words explain and explanation if they 

 be used in the sense of the descriptive how, and not the determinative why. 

 The former interpretation is the sole one given to them in this worlc. 



