384 THE DISCOVERY OF THE FUTURE. 



know liny personal future to correspond with our personal past, or 

 any traditional future to correspond with our traditional past; but the 

 possibility of an inductive future to correspond with that great induct- 

 ive past of geology and archaeology is an altogether different thing. 



I must confess that I believe quite firmly that an inductive knowl- 

 edge of a great number of things in the future is becoming a human 

 possiliility. I believe that the time is drawing near when it will be 

 possible to suggest a systematic exploration of the future. And you 

 must not judge the practicabilit}^ of this enterprise by the failures of 

 the past. So far nothing has been attempted, so far no first-class 

 mind has ever focused itself upon these issues; but suppose the laws of 

 social and political development, for example, were giv^en as many 

 brains, were given as much attention, criticism, and discussion as we 

 have given to the laws of chemical combination during the last fifty 

 years, what might we not expect? 



To the popular mind of to-day there is something very difficult in 

 such a suggestion, soberly made. But here, in this Institution which 

 has watched for a whole century over the splendid adolescence of 

 science, and where the spirit of science is surely understood, you will 

 know that as a matter of fact prophecy has always been inseparably 

 associated with the idea of scientific research. The popular idea of 

 scientific investigation is a vehement, aimless collection of little facts, 

 collected as the bower bird collects shells and pebbles, in methodical 

 little rows, and out of this process, in some manner unknown to the 

 popular mind, certain conjuring tricks — the celebrated wonders of 

 science — in a sort of accidental way emerge. The popular conception 

 of all discovery is accident. But you will know that the essential 

 thing in the scientific process is not the collection of facts, but the 

 anal3'sis of facts. Facts are the raw material and not the substance of 

 science. It is analysis that has given us all ordered knowledge, and 

 you know that the aim and the test and the justification of the scientific 

 process ts not a marketable conjuring trick, but prophecy. I'util a 

 scientific theory yields confident forecasts you know it is unsound and 

 tentati^■e; it is mere theorizing, as evanescent as art talk or the phan- 

 toms politicians talk about. The splendid body of gravitational 

 astronomy, for example, establishes itself upon the certain forecast of 

 stellar movements, and 3'ou would absolutely refuse to believe its 

 amazing assertions if it were not for these same unerring forecasts. 

 The whole body of medical science aims, and cltums the ability, to 

 diagnose. Meteorology constantl}' and persistently aims at prophecy, 

 and it will never stand in a place of honor until it can certainly fore- 

 tell. The chemist forecasts elements l)efore he meets them — it is very 

 properly his boast — and the splendid manner in which the mind of 

 CU^'k Maxwell reached in front of all experiment and foretold those 

 chings that Marconi has materialized is familiar to us all. 



