152 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1932 



unfortunate mistake ; he had misread " Son of Solomon " for " Song 

 of Solomon." The correction was published widely, and it might 

 have been supposed that the Canticles theory would die a natural 

 death. But no ; Greeks and Palestinians continued to believe in their 

 kinship, and the Greek Minister continued to make perorations. 

 Professor Lambda one day ventured to remonstrate with him. The 

 minister turned on him severely, " How do you know that Solomon 

 had not a son called Canticles? You are not omniscient." The 

 professor, having reflected on the rather extensive character of 

 Solomon's matrimonial adventures, wisely made no reply. 



The curious thing is that the determinist who takes this line is 

 under the illusion that he is adopting a more modest attitude in 

 regard to our scientific knowledge than the indeterminist. The 

 indeterminist is accused of claiming omniscience. I will not make 

 quite the same countercharge against the determinist; but surely it 

 is only the man who thinks himself nearly omniscient who Avould 

 have the audacity to start enumerating all the things which (it occurs 

 to him) might exist without his knowing it. I am so far from omnis- 

 cient that my list would contain innumerable entries. If it is any 

 satisfaction to the critic, my list does include deterministic charac- 

 ters — along with Martian irrigation works, ectoplasm, etc. — as things 

 which might exist unknown to me. 



It must be realized that determinism is a positive assertion about 

 the behavior of the universe. It is not sufficient for the determinist 

 to claim that there is no fatal objection to his assertion ; he must 

 produce some reason for making it. I do not say he must prove it, 

 for in science we are ready to believe things on evidence falling 

 short of strict proof. If no reason for asserting it can be given, it 

 collapses as an idle speculation. It is astonishing that even scientific 

 writers on determinism advocate it without thinking it necessary 

 to say anything in its favor, merely pointing out that the new 

 physical theories do not actually disprove determinism. If that 

 really represents the status of determinism no reputable scientific 

 journal would waste space over it. Conjectures put forward on 

 slender evidence are the curse of science; a conjecture for which 

 there is no evidence at all is an outrage. So far as the physical 

 universe is concerned determinism appears to explain nothing; for 

 in the modern books which go farthest into the theory of the phe- 

 nomena no use is made of it. 



Indeterminism is not a positive assertion. I am an indeterminist 

 in the same way that I am an anti-moon-is-made-of-green-cheese-ist. 

 That does not mean that I especially identify myself with the doc- 

 trine that the moon is not made of green cheese. Whether or not 

 this lunar theory can be reconciled with modern astronomy is scarcely 



