Pxi/r/io/ofjiai/ fni'fMtHjdtioux 250 



to show that there is only one mode of theocratic interference, which could up- 

 set the statistical comparison of the relative intensities of nature and nurture. 

 He illustrates his point by su[)po8int; a caretaker tending a large ininii)er 

 of silkworms of various hrt-eds and fed in diff^^rent ways, and that an oljserver 

 watched his procee<ling8 as well as he could, hut only during the day-time 

 and through a telescope. Now the caretaker might have a custom, of which 

 the observer was ignorant, of feeding the silkwurnis in various ways during 

 the night, and Galton asks how this would affect the statistical conclusions. 

 He stiggests four jiossihilities and considei-s in each c^use that the caretaker's 

 unobserved interference would not att'ect the statistical conclusions bjised 

 upon classifications by nature and by nurture. But, I think, the reason of 

 this is that Galton supposes the careUiker to pay attention in his secret 

 proceedings only to race (i.e. nature) and to the day feetlings of these races 

 (i.e. nurture). What if he thought nothing alx)ut race or day feedings, but 

 classified his worms by some characteristic of the individuals? Supjx>8e he 

 fed them ditVereiitially so as to bring all worms up to practically the same 

 size and colour, which might be the very characteristics by which the observer 

 had cla.ssified respectively for nurtuie and breed? Clearly no comparison of 

 the effects of nurture and nature would be possible, and by Icks complete 

 changes the observer might be led to very false conclusions. Further, this 

 would be done without the caretakei- knowing, as Galton suppo.ses in his fifth 

 alternative, that he was watched and, because he objected to being watched, 

 devising plans to deceive the observer. There is no necessity to suppose 



"the hotnologuo would be a gml with the attributes of a devil, who misled humble and earnest 

 iiujuirers after truth by malicious artifice." (p. 275.) 



There is in fact no need to appeal to Milton's God, who could be moved to 

 laughter by man's quaint attempts to understand his works'. 



Stu'ely the problem is of a different kind. Either theocratic interference 

 is perpetual and consistent, in which ca.se it is as definite as any law of 

 nature, and cannot be distinguished from it, and will not alter statistical 

 results; or, it is occasional and capricious, in which ca.se statistical samples 

 taken under apparent sameness of physical environment will give divergent 

 results. The general stability of statistical ratios, like the general fulfilment 

 of prediction from so-called physical laws of nature, is the best ai'gument 

 against occasional and capricious theocratic interference. On pp. 277-94 

 Galton repeats his statistical arguments (see our pp. 115-17) against the 

 "Objective Efficacy of Prayer." He expands to some extent his earlier 

 arguments : 



"The cogency of all theso arguments is materially increased by the recollection that many 

 items of ancient faith have been successively abandoned by the Christian world to the domain 



' Pnrndue Lost, Bk vni, 11. 70 el seq.: 



"Or if they list to try 

 Conjecture, he his fabric of the Heavens 

 Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move 

 His laugliter at their quaint opinions wide 

 Hereafter, when they come to mwli-l Ht-aven, 

 And calculate the stars." 



