204 THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE 



neutral hypotheses in general, how can we be expected 

 to see any similarity in these two revolutions? The 

 two, on the contrary, are diametrically opposed to 

 each other. Does Poincare really mean that it is to be 

 the function of science to resolve matter, which he 

 said we must always assume to be an objective reality 

 whether we can prove it or not, into electrons, an 

 hypothetical component of the hypothetical atom, the 

 assumption of whose reality should be a mere fugitive 

 matter of convenience ? And does he believe the boast 

 of science, that it shall rest on the objective experi- 

 ence of our sensations rather than on the subjective 

 proof of our imaginations, can be maintained, if we 

 admit for an axiom, that henceforth it shall be the 

 aim of science to explain the known by the unknown ? 

 He might have pursued this revolution further; the 

 dissolution of matter into the electron is but the first 

 step in the confusion of ideas, those who are promoting 

 it are further transforming the electron into a strain 

 in the ether of a type unknown to experience, and the 

 most advanced are dissolving the ether into nothing. 

 The process of explaining the known by the unknown 

 is complete; matter to atoms; atoms to electrons; elec- 

 trons to ether; ether to nothing. Truly, philosophy 

 and theology are gross materialism compared with 

 such a science. Can he so quickly and completely for- 

 get his wholesome, skeptical, and critical attitude, 

 merely because he also is tempted to indulge in specu- 



