HI SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE 117 



favouring me with his opinions about my own 

 business ; he also answers for mine ; and, at that 

 point, really the worm must turn. I am told 

 that " no one knows better than Professor 

 Huxley " a variety of things which I really do not 

 know; and I am said to be a disciple of that 

 " Positive Philosophy " which I have, over and 

 over again, publicly repudiated in language which 

 is certainly not lacking in intelligibility, whatever 

 may be its other defects. 



I am told that I have been amusing myself 

 with a " metaphysical exercitation or logomachy " 

 (may I remark incidentally that these are not 

 quite convertible terms ?), when, to the best of my 

 belief, I have been trying to expose a process 

 of mystification, based upon the use of scientific 

 language by writers who exhibit no sign of 

 scientific training, of accurate scientific knowledge, 

 or of clear ideas respecting the philosophy of 

 science, which is doing very serious harm to the 

 public. Naturally enough, they take the lion's 

 skin of scientific phraseology for evidence that the 

 voice which issues from beneath it is the voice of 

 science, and I desire to relieve them from the 

 consequences of their error. 



The Duke of Argyll asks, apparently with 

 sorrow that it should be his duty to subject me to 

 reproof 



"What shall we say of a philosophy which confounds the organic 

 with the inorganic, and, refusing to take note of a difference so 



