EDITOR'S TABLE. 



411 



%CiiUx's galcrl^. 



SCIEXCE AND ITS CRITICS. 



IT is somewhat difficult to account 

 for the attitude which a number 

 of able men take toward science, an 

 attitude of grudging recognition, of 

 carping criticism, and too often of 

 sarcastic misrepresentation. In Eng- 

 land Carlyle aud Euskin have been 

 the leading representatives of this 

 phase of thought, if such it can be 

 called; in France we have M. Bruue- 

 tiere and his school ; in Russia, Tol- 

 stoi. The latter has lately republished 

 in a Russian periodical a hrochure by 

 Edward Carpenter, the English title 

 of which we at this moment forget, 

 but the object of which is to show the 

 abstract and unpractical nature of 

 science; and to this he has prefixed 

 a preface in which, following the 

 English author, he gives science a 

 very severe hauling over the coals. 



What is it all about ? What has 

 science done to these gentlemen that 

 they look upon it with so evil an eye ? 

 Do they dine less agreeably because 

 science has discovered some of the 

 laws which underlie good cookery ? 

 Are they angry with science because 

 it has diminished disease and appre- 

 ciably improved the expectation of 

 life of each of them ? Are they out 

 of humor with it because it has done 

 so much by anaesthetics and antisep- 

 tics to relieve human suffering ? Is 

 their grievance that a certain rational 

 order has been introduced into our 

 conceptions of the universe, so that, 

 while we are still profoundly igno- 

 rant of many things, our ideas, so far 

 as they go, have a certain harmony 

 and coherence ? If one only knew 

 just how and where science had tiod- 

 den on the corns of these very able 

 writers, it would perhaps be possible 

 to understand their attitude ; but, as 



it is, in their deadly determination to 

 find fault with science, they remind 

 us very much of the wolf that had 

 so heavy a bill of indictment against 

 the lamb. The parallel stops here; 

 the grumblings of the wolf were the 

 necessary diplomatic prelude to the 

 devouring of the lamb ; but these 

 gentlemen can not devour science. 

 They grumble, and they grumble, but 

 science goes on its way: nulla ves- 

 tigia retrorsum. 



Let us, however, examine the 

 terms in which the great Russian au- 

 thor formulates his complaint: 



" The strong, sensible laborer sup- 

 poses that men who study, and are 

 supported by his labor, shall be able 

 to tell him where to find hapjiiness. 

 Science should teach him how to live, 

 how to act toward friends and rela- 

 tives, how to control instincts and de- 

 sires that arise within him, how and 

 what to believe. Instead of telling 

 him these things, science talks about 

 distances in the heavens, microbes, 

 vibrations of ether, and X rays. The 

 laborer is dissatisfied. He insists on 

 knowing how to live. . . . The essen- 

 tial thing is the total view of life, its 

 meaning and aims. Science can not 

 rise to that view, religion alone can 

 do so. . . . Science is constantly 

 pointing to its victories over the 

 forces of Nature, to electricity, ma- 

 chinery, and the like; but sensible 

 men see not those things, they see 

 only the misery, suffering, degrada- 

 tion, and hardships to which so many 

 are subjected, and the little prospect 

 of relief that is in sight. Were our 

 men of science to teach men more 

 about religious, moral, and social 

 truths, we should not see the hun- 

 dredth part of suffering and hardship 

 which are now seen on every side." 



