The Bco;iiini)igs of ,li)icrica/i Scioicr. 435 



were never to expect to go beyond them in real science. This was the real ground 

 of all the attacks on you; those who live by mystery and charlatanerie fearing you 

 would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sub- 

 lime and benevolent but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored 

 to crush vour well-earned and well-deserved fame.' 



xin. 



With th*^ clo.se of the first decade ended the first third of a century 

 since the Declaration of Independence. We have now passed in review 

 a considerable number of illustrious names and have noted the inception 

 of many w'orthy undertakings. 



' ' Still, however, ' ' in the words of vSilliman, ' ' although individuals were 

 enlightened, no .seriotis inipres.sion was produced on the pu1)lic mind; a 

 few lights were indeed held out but they were lights twinkling in an 

 almost imper\'ious gloom." 



This was a state of affairs not peculiar to America. A gloom no less 

 oppressive had long ob.sctired the intellectual atmosphere of the Old 

 World. There were a goodly number of men of science, and many impor- 

 tant discoveries were being made, but no bonds had yet been formed to 

 connect the interests of the men of science and the men of affairs. 



Spectilative science, in the nature of things, can only interest and 

 attract scholarly men, and though its results, concisely and attractively 

 stated, may have a pas.sing interest to a certain portion of every conunu- 

 nity, it is only by its practical applications that it seciu'es the hearty 

 support of the conuniuiity at large. 



Huxley, in his recent discourse upon The Advance of vScience in the 

 last Half Centur}-,'' has touched upon this .subject in a mo.st .suggestive 

 and instructive manner, and has shown that Hacon. with all liis wisdom, 

 exerted little direct beneficial influence upon the advancement of natural 

 knowledge, which has after all l)een chiefly forwarded by men like Galileo 

 and Harvey, Boyle and Newton, " who would have done their work quite 

 as well if neither Bacon nor Descartes had ever propounded their views 

 respecting the manner in which scientific investigation should be 

 pursued." 



I think we should look upon liacon as the projihet of modern scientific 

 thought, rather than its founder. It is no doubt true, as Huxley has 

 .said, that his ' ' scientific in.sight ' ' was not stifficient to enable him to .shape 

 the future course of .scientific philosophy, but it is scarcel}' true that he 

 attached any undue value to the practical advantages which the world 

 as a whole and incidental!},' science it.self were to reap from the applica- 

 tions of .scientific methods to the investigation of nature. 



'Jefferson's Works (edited by T. J. Randolph), 1830, III, p. 461. 

 = American Journal of Science, I, 1S19, 37. 



3T. H. Wood, The Reign of Victoria; a survey of l-'ifty Years of Progress. 

 London, 1887. 



