366 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



late Mr. George Busk, was not to be converted ; while, long before 

 the Challenger work, Ehrenberg wrote to me very skeptically, and 

 I fully expected that that eminent man w'ould favor me with pretty 

 sharp criticism. Unfortunately, he died shortly afterward, and nothing 

 fi-om him, that I know of, appeared. When Sir Wyville Thomson 

 wrote to me a brief account of the results obtained on board the 

 Challenger, I sent his statement to " Nature," in which journal it 

 appeared the following week, without any further note or comment 

 than was needful to explain the circumstances. In thus allowing judg- 

 ment to go by default, I am afraid I showed a reckless and ungracious 

 disregard for the feelings of the believers in my infallibility. No 

 doubt I ought to have hedged and fenced and attenuated the effect of 

 Sir Wyville Thomson's brief note in every possible way. Or perhaps 

 I ought to have suppressed the note altogether, on the ground that it 

 was a mere ex parte statement. My excuse is that, notwithstanding a 

 large and abiding faith in human folly, I did not know then, any more 

 than I know now, that there was anybody foolish enough to be una- 

 ware that the only people, scientific or other, who never make mis- 

 takes are those who do nothing ; or that anybody, for whose opinion 

 I cared, would not rather see me commit ten blunders than trv to 

 hide one. 



Pending the production of further evidence, I hold that the exist- 

 ence of people who believe in the infallibility of men of science is as 

 purely mythical as that of the evil counselor who advised the with- 

 holding of the truth lest it should conflict with that belief. 



I venture to think, then, that the Duke of Argyll might have spared 

 his "Little Lesson" as well as his "Great Lesson" with advantage. 

 The paternal authority who Avhips the child for sins he has not com- 

 mitted does not strengthen his moral influence — rather excites con- 

 tempt and repugnance. And if, as would seem from this and former 

 monitory allocutions which have been addressed to us, the duke 

 aspires to the position of censor, or spiritual director, in relation to 

 the men who are doing the work of physical science, he really must 

 get up his facts better. There will be an end to all chance of our 

 kissing the rod if his Grace goes wrong a third time. He must not 

 say again that " no serious reply has been attempted " to a view which 

 was discussed and repudiated two years before by one of the highest 

 extant authorities on the subject ; he must not say that Darwin 

 accepted that which it can be proved he did not accept ; he must not 

 say that a doctrine has dropped into the abyss w^hen it is quite 

 obviously alive and kicking at the surface ; he must not assimilate a 

 man like Professor Dana to the components of an " ignorant mob " ; 

 he must not say that things are beginning to be known which are not 

 known at all ; he must not say that "slow and sulky acquiescence" 

 has been given to that which can not yet boast of general acquiescence 

 of any kind ; he must not suggest that a view which has been publicly 



