254 THE NEW KNOWLEDGE. 



compare it with the theoretical interpretation. We know 

 "reality" Only as it is expressed in our thought and con- 

 sequently this "correspondence" can have no meaning. 



Again, truth is conceived as " systematic coherence." A 

 system is "true " if it is entirely consistent and coherent, if 

 it is completely inter-explanatory. The system we have 

 presented is beautifully consistent with the observed facts 

 of the universe as we see them. It is not complete, far 

 from it, but incompleteness does not necessarily mean 

 error. Is it therefore " true "? 



Let us go farther. Suppose that we had actually re- 

 solved the whole physical scheme of things into modes, or 

 manifestations, of a single simple ether, so that every action 

 of every thing was a necessary consequence of the postu- 

 lated properties of this fundamental substance and that all 

 phenomena on this basis were perfectly coherent and con- 

 sistent. Would we then have attained to the actual abso- 

 lute truth ? The answer to this question raises another. 

 Is it not possible that there may be a perfectly consistent 

 and coherent falsehood or error, and, if so, should we be 

 able to recognize it and to know it from truth? Probably 

 not, but is a system of falsehood or of error ever perfectly 

 coherent and consistent? Is there not always discovered, 

 sooner or later, a rift in the lute and a false note in the 

 harmony? Still, this does not extricate us from our diffi- 

 culty. Even if we had a perfectly inter-explanatory sys- 

 tem we should not be able to know beyond peradventure 

 that it was an expression of "reality." There is no cri- 

 terion of absolute truth, there is no way of attaining to 

 absolute truth, and we may as well acknowledge it. Should 

 we therefore abandon the world-riddle? Assuredly not. 

 If we may never know a system to be true, we may believe 

 it to be true. We may not have a knowledge of truth but 

 we may have a recognition of it. 



