Science and Tradition 



past situations. The application of scientific methods and points of view 

 is still enormously short of what it might be, yet thanks to Quetelet and 

 many others so much has already been accomplished that the political 

 world in which we are living to-day is as profoundly different from the 

 political world of the eighteenth century, as the material equipment of 

 today is different from that of the earlier one. By the way, this offers 

 another justification for historical research. In order to go forward, we 

 must look not only forward, but also backward. The backward view 

 gives us confidence and helps us to straighten our course. Every man 

 of science knows deep in his heart (and the history of the past is there 

 to confirm his knowledge ) that diseases, superstitions, undeserved privi- 

 leges can only thrive in darkness and ignorance. In order to eradicate 

 them it is necessary to project enough light upon them, but that is not 

 enough. Knowledge remains insufficient and sterile if it be not imple- 

 mented by corrective deeds and those deeds require an abundance of 

 good will, generosity and tenacity. 



Turning our attention now to another aspect of the matter, I would 

 like to point out that in spite of the revolutionary nature of science, or 

 rather because of it, if we wish to live good and noble lives, we should 

 never break with the past. The traditions of evil must be stopped of 

 course, but many of our traditions are not evil; they are good, they are 

 what is best in us, the accumulated goodness of centuries. Having done 

 what we could to destroy the evil traditions we must make certain that 

 the other traditions, the good ones, the noble ones, be safeguarded and 

 strengthened. That is far from easy but it must be done. I felt so 

 deeply the need of it some thirty-five years ago that I dedicated my life 

 to that purpose. 



Why is it so difficult? Simply because the very progress of science 

 has driven the majority of men of science further and further away from 

 their inner citadel, from their city of God, into investigations of greater 

 speciality and technicality, of increasing depth and decreasing field. A 

 good many of our men of science are not men of science any more in 

 the broad sense, but technicians and engineers, or else administrators 

 and manipulators, go-getters and nioney-makers. Those men look for- 

 ward in their own narrow sector; they will not look backward. What is 

 the good of that?, they would say. The past is past and dead. Those 

 hard-boiled technicians would fain reject the whole past as "irrelevant." 

 And if we make the honest attempt to look at the past with their eyes 

 we must admit that they are right, or at least that they have a right to 

 their opinion; that it is not irrational and arbitrary. Looking backward 

 would hardly have helped the Stephensons, the Edisons, the Marconis 

 to solve their particular problems, and to solve them as brilliantly as 

 they did. They were definitely breaking with the past, turning their 

 back to it and welcoming with open arms a future as glamorous as the 

 rising sun. The reading of history could not recommend itself to them 

 except as a diversion, and they perhaps knew simpler ways of relaxing 



