28 



DISCOVERY 



consequently ignores the very important part played by 

 business capacity in the successful conduct of a business 

 undertaking. However efficient a firm may be on the 

 technical side, it will be unsuccessful unless it is able to 

 buy its raw materials at satisfactory prices, and to sell 

 its output on favourable terms. 



As small " one-man " undertakings would be unable to 

 avail themselves of the economies of large-scale produc- 

 tion — use of machinery, specialisation of labour, etc. — 

 their prospects of becoming firmly established would be 

 very small, even if times were good. When times are 

 bad, their chances of success, even with adequate capital, 

 would be negligible. In almost every case the capital 

 would be lost. The proposal does not strike me as one 

 which either the State, or a bank, would be wise to finance. 



With reference to Mr. Ellis Barker's letter, I do not 

 think that the differences between us are really funda- 

 mental ; he stresses certain aspects of the problem, 

 whereas I attempted to examine it in a more general way. 



Absence of unemployment in Germany is to be ac- 

 counted for by the inflation of the currency adopted there 

 leading to temporary, but highly artificial, trade prosperity. 

 I referred in my article, with disapproval, to this method 

 of stimulating trade. With regard to Belgium, I do not 

 understand Mr. Barker's statement that there is "no 

 unemployment " ; according to the official figures in the 

 Labour Gazette, 21 per cent, of the members of the Belgian 

 unemployment funds are out of work at the present 

 time. Mr. Barker attributes unemployment in this coun- 

 try principally to our high costs of production, which, in 

 turn, he accounts for by " the unreasonableness of 

 organised labour." I mentioned high cost of production 

 as one of several causes of unemployment, without 

 attempting, however, to express an opinion as to which 

 cause was most important. I am quite prepared to admit 

 that high cost of production is a very important factor 

 in the present situation, though I should hesitate to say 

 that it is the principal cause of unemployment. Nor 

 should I like to attribute high cost of production entirely 

 to " the unreasonableness of organised labour." 



Yours, etc., 

 Douglas Knoop. 



The University of Sheffield. 

 December 5, 192 1. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, AND SUGGESTION AND 

 AUTOSUGGESTION 



To the Editor of Discovery 



Sir, 



In your November issue there appears an article 

 entitled " Suggestion and Autosuggestion," by Robert 

 H. Thouless, M.A., in which he makes a misleading refer- 

 ence to Christian Science. 



Christian Science is not a process of suggestion or auto- 

 suggestion ; formulas are not used in its teaching or 

 practice. Mrs. Eddy, its Discoverer and Founder, cer- 

 tainly makes the statement on p. 421 of Science and 

 Health with Key to the Scriptures, " There is no disease," 



because she also declares that " God, Spirit, is all, and 

 there is none beside Him." Christian Science practice is 

 the demonstration of immortal truth over mortal error, 

 which can only be accomplished through having the Mind 

 of Christ, the divine Mind. The human mind is not a 

 factor in Christian Science healing. 



Yours, etc., 

 Charles W. J. Tennant. 



Christian Science Committee on Publication, 

 Talbot House, 

 Arundel Street, 

 Strand, W.C.2. 

 December i, 1921. 



To the Editor of Discovery 



Sir, 



My reference to Christian Science in my article was 

 concerned with it in its aspect as a therapeutic system, 

 and not with the metaphysical background of that system. 

 I made the assumption that such success as it had in 

 healing was due to its effectiveness as a process of sug- 

 gestion to persons with a certain type of mind. A 

 Christian Scientist will probably not agree with me in 

 believing that Christian Science healing is purely an effect 

 of suggestion, but that does not justify him in character- 

 ising my reference to it as misleading. 



I am not one of those who hold that positive science 

 certainly has the last word to say on such subjects, so I 

 am willing to admit the theoretical possibility that the 

 Christian Scientist may be right in supposing that there 

 is an element in Christian Science healing which is not 

 suggestion. . . . On the other hand, there is no scientific 

 evidence that this is the case. What we do know is that 

 there is a curative process of suggestion which is sufficient 

 to account for Christian Science cures, that the deliberate 

 use of this process (as at the New Nancy clinic) results 

 in the cure of bodily ailments, and that the theory and 

 practice of Christian Science are such as to put that 

 process into operation amongst persons who accept the 

 initial creed of Christian Science, including the formula 

 (or dogma), " There is no disease." An elementary 

 principle of science and of common sense forbids us to 

 make the unnecessary hypothesis of a supernatural 

 explanation for facts which have a sufficient explanation 

 in known and natural causes. 



Mr. Tennant's statement that " the human mind is not 

 a factor in Christian Science healing " is sheer dogmatism. 

 It is natural that Christian Scientists should suppose that 

 it is not the only factor. But even that much less absolute 

 statement cannot be accepted by those of us who are not 

 Christian Scientists unless much more cogent evidence 

 is brought forward than the mere unsupported assertion 

 of believers in Christian Science. 



Yours, etc., 

 R. H. Thouless. 



Manchester. 

 December 6, 1921. 



