44 THE UNFATHOMED UNIVERSE 



as simply as possible, as completely as possible, and as consistently 

 as possible. But this view of Laws of Nature as merely descriptive 

 formulse must not be exaggerated; the formulae often imply a great 

 deal of preliminary analysis and reduction, which is ' explanation ' 

 of a sort; they must be verifiable by all noinnally constituted minds; 

 and that they bear close correspondence to the actualities of Nature 

 is show^n by the way in which we use them safely in prediction. 

 Moreover, the descriptive formulations of science must, in relevant 

 cases, be followed by a historical or genetic account of the sub- 

 jects of study — especially, of course, when we are working within 

 the boundaries of the realm of organisms. 



The limitations of natural knowledge are great. We know Nature 

 only in the mirror of our minds; we are limited by our senses; we 

 cannot make scientific progress without taking partial or abstract 

 views, and the correlation of these is difficult; our fundamental con- 

 cepts (like 'matter,' 'energy,' 'organism') are not self-explanatory, 

 but big with mystery; they are not final, but in process of develop- 

 ment; the law of gravitation is perhaps the finest example of a 

 far-reaching descriptive formula, but it does not tell us why the 

 apple falls to the ground; in some departments of science we try 

 to give historical descriptions or to trace genetic series, but we know 

 little of any beginnings; the world is full of unsolved concrete 

 problems — thus such a common phenomenon as cell-division remains 

 in great part an enigma; there are hints of facts beyond our present 

 horizon; and so on. In an age of extraordinarily rapid scientific 

 discovery, we stand wondering before an unfathomed universe. 



The world without has played an important part in the evolution 

 of the human spirit. Its enigmas have educated our intelligence; 

 its practical problems have trained our will ; and in Animate Nature 

 in particular Man has found a school of feeling. In her varied 

 opportunities Nature has helped in polishing the mirror of our 

 minds in which we see her, and there is no reason to believe that 

 the polishing is finished. As regards feeling for Nature, however, 

 the scientific mood, now so dominant, is antipodal, and the scientific 

 sj^stematisations may be actively hostile. Nature-poetry, symbolism, 

 Natural Theology, philosophical idealisations, and religious spiritual- 

 isations — valuable as they may be to attuned minds — fail in many 

 cases to find any satisfactory organic response, and the life of 

 feeling has been impoverished. Yet to try to leave feeling out in our 

 view of Nature is to try to close one of the right-of-way paths to 



