774 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



moot point in science. Thus we read,* " It is demonstrated that 

 the Ice age was prolonged and complex." Perhaps it was so. 

 We express no opinion. But the distinguished glacialist who 

 wrote it is well aware that not a few among his brother-geolo- 

 gists — men of experience, ability, and reputation perhaps equal to 

 his own — totally disagree with him here, and believe that the evi- 

 dence does not warrant so great an extension of the era. No 

 doubt the question is settled in the mind of the writer and to his 

 entire satisfaction, but he is guilty of misleading the public by 

 thus baldly stating the proposition. Thus printed, it implies 

 either that no one differs from him, or that those who do so differ 

 are unworthy of mention or consideration. Logically, it is beg- 

 ging the question, for the whole controversy hinges on this point. 

 It is more than this, it is committing the very error which he has 

 charged on Prof. Wright. He says,f "Instead of pointing out 

 clearly and fairly differences of opinion on vital points, Prof. 

 Wright turns aside," etc. We can not find in the volume any 

 assertion that the Ice age was a unit, though this is the view 

 entertained by its author. On the contrary, fourteen pages are 

 filled with the arguments on both sides, enabling a reader to 

 form his own opinion. It is fair to expect the critic to shun 

 the fault which he condemns. Yet here he has himself com- 

 mitted it. 



Again, our distinguished critic boldly asserts,! " No geological 

 expert of unquestioned competence has ever yet, so far as we can 

 learn, found a single implement or stone flaked by man in a gla- 

 cial formation in America which was clearly deposited contem- 

 poraneously with it." Possibly so. We here express no opinion 

 on this or on any other moot point. But we may ask, By what 

 right does he set himself up as a judge of the competence of all 

 other workers who think that they have found such stones ? 

 Who, in his opinion, are experts ? Where shall such men be 

 found, and by what touchstone shall they be tried ? Is official 

 connection the grand sine qua non ? The outsider is almost driven 

 to this conclusion by the tone of the criticism. Are there no 

 other men as competent as he who are of a different opinion ? Is 

 the mature judgment of long-standing workers who have earned 

 by time and labor a right to speak to be waived aside in favor of 

 the opinion of some single expert ? And who shall testify to this 

 expert's expertness ? It would be ungenerous to assume that a lit- 

 tle band of scientists seriously desire to extol themselves and each 

 other by attempting to " sit down " on every one outside. Yet let 

 us assure them that this is the conclusion to which their language 

 leads. The air of dogmatic assumption and superiority that per- 



* Dial, Chicago, November 16, 1892, p. 306. \ Ibid. \ Ibid., p. 304. 



