62 The Scientific Method. 



criterion of knowledge above it or beyond it, no authority 

 to appeal to, no tribunal to decide betwixt you and me. 

 The right of private judgment is absolute, and there exists 

 no objective standard of truth to limit or control it. If 

 there does exist any such standard, tell me, if you can, what 

 it is. But you can not. When two individuals differ, it is 

 simply absurd for either to claim for his own thought any 

 higher authority than itself. It is simply absurd for any 

 one to say ' I know ' in any higher sense than ' I think,' or 

 to assert that his neighbor is ignorant merely because they 

 two think differently. Now, I think that the sun revolves 

 around the earth ; you think that the earth revolves around 

 the sun. Very well, we think differently ; that is all. Who 

 has any right to decide between us ? Nobody. You have 

 no more right tc call me ignorant because I think different- 

 ly from you than I have to call you ignorant because you 

 think differently from me. There is and can be no igno- 

 rance at all unless there is a standard of knowledge over and 

 above all individual thought. Yet what standard of knowl- 

 edge do you confess to be superior to your own thought? 

 None whatevei ! Then you can not prove me to be igno- 

 rant; you can only assert it without a shadow of proof. 

 The plain truth is that, except as mere individual opinion, 

 mere assertion by the individual on the sole warrant of his 

 own individual thought, there is no such thing as either 

 ignorance or knowledge. So long as you have no standard 

 of knowledge higher than yourselves, you have no right to 

 call me ignorant, I deny the jurisdiction of the court 

 which has rashly undertaken to try me. I, too, am an in- 

 dividual, and all individuals are equal before the laws of 

 thought." 



If Mr. Jasper had defended himself at the time in this 

 fashion, he might not have convinced his critics, but he 

 would certainly have puzzled them and abated their compla- 

 cent merriment. How many of them could have refuted 

 his idealistic individualism ? Suppose that they had tried 

 to reply to him as follows : 



"You declare that all individuals are equal before the 

 laws of thought. Granted. But no individual is equal to 

 all individuals. You are in a minority of one against the 

 civilized world. Therefore we laugh at you as ignorant just 

 because you fancy yourself wiser than all mankind." 



Would this reply have silenced our imaginary philosoph- 

 icalJasper? Not at all. 



