PRESIDENT NEWCOMB. < 



light. In reading those discussions with scientific men on certain 

 theories recently advanced by the more advanced students of phi- 

 losophic biology into which the representatives of theology some- 

 times enter, I have often noticed, that if the representative of 

 science propounds, discovers, or brings forward any fact or princi- 

 ple which seems to tell against his side of the question, the Other 

 calls it an "admission," or "concession," just as if his opponent 

 had first selected his side for the love of it, and was then unwilling 

 to concede or admit anything which might militate against it. 

 Now, to go into the philosophy of the subject a little deeper than 

 heretofore, allow me to say that the man of science professes no 

 ability to recognize truth on sight, as he would recognize a house 

 or an animal. The question whether any given proposition is or is 

 not true, is necessarily to be decided by the human judgment, co- 

 ordinating all the facts which bear upon it. There is no such 

 thing as a revelation of scientific truths, and even if one should 

 claim that there was, the admission or rejection of the claim would 

 be an act of the judgment, which thus becomes the 1 ultimate ar- 

 biter in any case. Hence a proposition is to be proved probable or 

 true, not by anything in itself, but by a more or less long and 

 painful examination of the evidence for and against it. Every- 

 thing that can be found to militate in favor of it is put into one 

 scale, and everything that can be found to militate against it is 

 put into the other. If the investigator is imbued with the true 

 spirit of science, his search is equally vigorous for arguments to 

 go into the two scales. When he says that the proposition is 

 worthy of being received as true, he means, not that it bears any 

 recognized seal of truth, but that the evidence in favor of it en- 

 tirely preponderates over all that can be brought to bear against 

 it. 



You will not understand me as maintaining that every individual 

 man of science constantly maintains this spirit of impartiality 

 any more than that every Christian constantly lives up to the 

 highest standard of his profession. Hot conflicts have sometimes 

 raged, and there is no reason to suppose that they have entirely 

 Ceased, even now, in which each combatant could only see one 

 scale. But the spirit I have described is that in which science 

 exhorts her votaries to approach every question, and in which they 

 will constantly endeavor to approach it if they are worthy of their 

 profession. 



