BIOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY 425 



roneous assumption that ours is the Age of Science, or the very limited 

 sense in which this is true, has led many people to charge to science some 

 of the follies and failures, some of the violence, the brutalities, the suffering, 

 the confusion throughout the world in recent years. Some of these people 

 tell us that "science has failed," that we should declare "a moratorium on 

 science." People who talk thus, who advise thus, cannot understand either 

 the spirit or the method of science. We cannot afford to declare a mora- 

 torium on honesty, on integrity, on objectivity, on experimentation, for 

 that would take us straight back to the jungle. The way of science is away 

 from the jungle, away from its violence and fears. If the way of science at 

 times, such as the present, seems obscure and even dangerous that is due to 

 too little, not too much, understanding of the nature of man and our uni- 

 verse, and to the further fact that we do not or are not permitted to follow 

 the light of reason based on facts. 



If our age is "The Age of Science," our rulers, our legislators, our busi- 

 nessmen, our educators, our farmers, our factory workers should give 

 evidence of comprehending, using, and following the scientific method. In 

 a recent book the Dean of Canterbury writes: "Our social and economic 

 order is neither scientific nor Christian. When I read, as a headline in the 

 Observer that Poland's good harvest was a severe blov: to recovery, I re- 

 called the words of an American professor of agriculture after seeing ten 

 million acres of cotton ploughed under and five million pigs slaughtered: 

 'If this will bring national prosperity, then I have wasted my life.' The 

 thing is monstrous, an age when science is frustrated." In the broader field 

 of human relations, what do we see on the horizon? Conspicuous, certainly, 

 are: greed, force, faith, and war. These are certainly more conspicuous 

 than the ways of reason based on scientific understanding. In the last 

 analysis, ivar is murder and steali?ig ofi the part of somebody. War is the ex- 

 tension of the practices of the jungle into modern life. The technique of 

 modern warfare is modified by scientific discoveries, but the elements that 

 make for war are certainly not scientific. Hence the persistence of war can- 

 not be laid at the door of science. It is due rather to the failure of science 

 and conscience to as yet essentially modify human conduct. For we must 

 assume that sooner or later reason based on understanding will modify 

 human behavior. Even animals with no cerebrum can be conditioned. 



The scientific method demands that we suspend judgment until we know 

 the facts. It demands honesty, integrity and industry in ascertaining the 

 facts. The scientific 7Jiethod and dishonesty are i?7C07npatible. But scientists 

 are but human beings, and they frequently make mistakes both in facts and 

 interpretations. Now, is our age conspicuous for honesty and integrity? Is 

 there less lying and deceit locally, nationally, internationally, today than 

 yesterday? The answer is all about us. Modern propaganda, and a good 

 deal in modern advertising, have the earmarks of lying as a fine art, rather 

 than the character of honesty, objectivity, truthfulness, and accuracy of 



