\;5V3^'^'^^ 



X, 



\, 



lit: I LIBRARY ]^ 



MASS. y^/ 



I. SCIENCE AND TRADITION 



The title of this group of lectures and particularly of the first one 

 is paradoxical. It would seem natural to twist it a little and instead of 

 saying Science and Tradition, to say Science versus Tradition. Indeed, 

 the two terms are to some extent antithetical. The word tradition sug- 

 gests preservation and continuity; on the other hand, science is the most 

 revolutionary force in the world. That is obvious enough on the ma- 

 terial plane. Why are our domestic and industrial aflFairs, the rhythms of 

 our life, essentially different, say, from those of the Napoleonic times, 

 or even from those of the Victorian age? The fundamental cause of 

 those differences is the fantastic increase of our mechanical power and 

 that increase is due to the development of science. The main "cuts" in 

 social history are due to inventions and discoveries — such as the compass, 

 typography, improvements in mining and navigation, the discovery of 

 the new world, steam engines, locomotives and steamships, dynamos and 

 motors, telephones and telegraphs, moving and speaking pictures, broad- 

 casting, airplanes. These things are too well known to require descrip- 

 tion. Moreover, those of us who were fortunate or unfortunate enough 

 to be born in the last century, the members of this audience who were 

 "fin de siecle" children, need not undertake special investigations to be 

 aware of the almost incredible changes which have taken place under 

 their own eyes. These changes can be symbolized by a series of revolu- 

 tionary discoveries, all of which were the fruits of science. 



If we turn our attention from the material world to the spiritual one, 

 the changes are equally revolutionary; they may be less obvious, but they 

 are deeper. Think of the "Weltanschauung" or scientific outlook before 

 and after Copernicus, before and after Galileo, before and after New- 

 ton, before and after Darwin. Each of those great men made a new 

 gigantic "cut" in our fundamental conceptions. They did not change the 

 world, but they changed so profoundly our viewing of it, that it was as 

 if they had moved us into another one. The change might be one of 

 size, or structure, or meaning. The Ptolemaic world was much larger 

 than that of Anaxagoras, the world of Kepler was much larger still, that 

 of Herschel immeasurably larger; this last one, which seemed to chal- 

 lenge human imagination beyond the limit, is hopelessly dwarfed by the 

 astronomical theories of today. All these changes be it noted are purely 

 spiritual ones, not material. The world wherein we actually live has not 

 changed its dimensions, or rather it has changed them in the opposite 

 way, becoming smaller and smaller as our means of communication were 

 accelerated. 



The changes of structure were equally upsetting. Our distant an- 

 cestors conceived the possibility of gradual transformation of one kind 

 of substance into another, yet their world was relatively stable and con- 



