April 1, 1887.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



123 



Browning, and Tennyson 1 Conceive sucli self-convicted 

 imbeciles as the acrostic-solvers pi-etending to decide between 

 Scott and Thackeray, George EHot and Georges Sand, 

 Charles Reade, Bulwer Lytton, and Dickens. If they 

 spoke their real minds we know they would pronounce for 

 Ouida, or for the novelists of the Family Herald and the 

 London Journal. Ask some draper's assistant or grocer's 

 lad, whose real taste is for tales of highwaymen, what he 

 thinks of Christie Murray's "Aunt Eachel"as compared 

 with '• Eedhand the Eover " ; ask 'Arrv or 'Arriet whether 

 a study of street life by Murillo or a brilliant chromo of 

 '•Lancer and Yivandiere" is most to be admired. You 

 would certainly get a reply saying little in favour of Mur- 

 ray's charming idyll or Murillo's masterpiece oi genri'. But 

 such a decision would be wisdom itself compared with the 

 real opinion of acrostic-solvers, if only they would give it on 

 questions of philosophy or statesmanship, poetry or fiction, 

 art or music, science or religion. 



It is worthy of remark, not to notice further the self- 

 proclaimed imbecility of acrostic-solvers et id genus omn- . 

 that the opinions of majorities on all questions of difficulty 

 are almost certain to be wrong, if really independent — nay, 

 absolutely certain to be wrong. Such opinions never are 

 independent, so that it can do no harm to indicate the cer- 

 tainty of the wrong decision of most men when really judg- 

 ing for themselves. The world at large accepts its great 

 men (generally after death) on trust, and adopts their ideiis 

 on the a.ssumption that they are probably right. If we had 

 to wait till the majority independently adopted coiTect ideas 

 we should have to wait long enough. In science we should 

 still regard the earth as flat and the moon as ruling the 

 weather ; the elements as four only ; the sun, moon, and 

 stars as meant chiefly for signs, and comets for portents. In 

 politics and religion I know not what follies men would 

 believe in, other than those at present in vogue ; for men 

 do not accept political and i-eligious ideas on trust from the 

 wiser, but form their own opinions, and so illustrate my 

 thesis more eflectively than satisfactorily. In poetry and 

 fiction, in music and in painting, the prevalent idea.s would 

 be semi-savage indeed did not the majority take their 

 opinions chiefly from those who know. 



Putting the matter as one of probabilities, we see that it 

 cannot be otherwise. Let a hundred average members of 

 even the most cultured community give their independent 

 opinions on some question of difficulty — not of such extreme 

 difficulty as, for example, the nature of Deity, or a future 

 life, but of moderate difficulty, as the principle of hereditaiy 

 legislation, the value of colonies and conquered countries, or 

 the like. The chance that any one of the hundred gives a 

 just opinion, independently, on such a question is much 

 exaggerated when it is set as one in ten (one in a million 

 would be an exaggerated estimate for the extremely difficult 

 questions first mentioned). Assuming, however, even so 

 unlikely a chance of a right opinion as this, what chance 

 would there be that a majority of the hundred would decide 

 rightly ? The same chance that there would be of drawing 

 more than fifty white balls at random from a hundred vases, 

 each containing ten balls, one only of which is white — one 

 drawing only being made from each vase. Calculating this 

 chance, we find the odds against the majority deciding 

 rightly (unless trusting in the judgment of their best 

 teachers) to be millions of millions of millions to one. 



The value of the much- vaunted argument from common 

 consent can thus be imagined. L^nless a question is one so 

 simple that every one is almost sure to judge rightly, com- 

 mon consent, if it means anything at all, means the practical 

 certainty of common eri'or. Fortunately, it means generally 

 nothing more than the common agreement of most men to 

 accept the opinion which they suppose to be approved by 



the wiser sort. Yet, even as thus modified, or practically 

 nullified, the opinion of the majority will be wrong ninety 

 and nine times before, on the hundredth trial, it gets right 

 by force of sheer compulsion — and hitherto in the world's 

 history common consent has never reached the truth in any 

 matter of difficulty. 



THE JUNIORITY OF BEASTS: 



FURTHER REMARKS ON THIS AND KINDRED OF THE 

 CONTENTIOXS OF MR. GLADSTONE. 



Br Oswald Dawsox. 



MUST thank Mr. Edward Clodd for his kindly 

 mention of my previous note on this subject. 

 .l/7?r forwarding it* to Knowledge I read the 

 footnote to which he refers, running thus : 

 " The discovery of the lowest mammalian 

 forms in earlier strata than those containing 

 birds seems opposed to the accepted order of 

 succession, but there is considerable uncertainty as to the 

 exact period of the first appearance of birds." Hereupon 

 Mr. Clodd founds an agreement with me. Having to 

 thank Mr. Clodd for a series of really entertaining articles 

 on " The Story of Creation," it would indeed be ungracious 

 to find fault if a well-intentioned footnote of three lines 

 happen to be ill- expressed. Excu.se for renewing the sub- 

 ject is to be sought in the circumstance that Mr. Gladstone 

 has contributed to the current issue of the Nineteenth 

 Century (August) a brief reply -i- to Professor Huxley's 

 valedictory surrejoinder. 



The succession of organic groups was the chief topic of 

 discussion between these gentlemen, and as the issue of this 

 " tournament, which, whether one regards the dignity of the 

 combatants or the gi-avity and delicacy of the cause, it is 

 not possible to await without the keenest interest," has not 

 anywhere been concisely stated, an article, in some measure 

 a resume, may be acceptable. 



T/ie Juniority of Animals as against Plants. — According 

 to Genesis, plants were formed a day before the dawn of 

 animal life ; if, as according to ilr. Gladstone, the creation 

 of what are translated whales did really hei-ald that dawn. 

 If cetaceans were in question there would be no discrepancy, 

 as whales probably do not ante-date tertiary times ; j but 

 when we read " fishes " in lieu of " whales," as Mr. Glad- 

 stone bids us, the evidence from fossils compels us to regard 

 it as very far from a " demonstrated conclusion and established 

 fact " that these animals were created subsequently to the 

 evolution of the higher flora, inasmuch as indubitable remains 

 of fishes of a high order § are found in upper silurian rocks — 



* Before March 26. On that date I sent a note requesting the 

 deletion of the words "authority, or at any rate author," as applied 

 to the late Professor Oscar Schmidt. The editor was perhaps on the 

 Continent at this date. 



t In the shape of a letter affirming Professor James D. Dana's 

 agreement with Mr. Gladstone on essential points. In the treatise 

 under discussion {Jlaiiual of Oeologij, p. 847) Professor Dana em- 

 phasises by italics the two following axioms : " This document, if 

 true, is of divine origin." " If divine, the account must bear marks 

 of human imperfection, since it was communicated through man." 

 The former view is answered in the Westminster Itetien (January 

 1S86). The latter— applicable, perhaps, when adapted by spiritual- 

 ists to account for any hybrid character conspicuous in trance- 

 orations — is not self-e\"ident in the case of divine writings. 



{ The occurrence of Pahrocetui: Setlgniciii in strata of Jurassic 

 age (r. Seeley, Gcol. Mag., Feb. '65) is accountable otherwise than 

 by assuming" that tlie creature lived at that date (c. Owen, £nY. 

 Foss. JIfam. and liirds, pp. xv. and 520, and Pal. p. 321). 



§ The Ganoidei. In Onchiis and the " Conodonts" it may te we 

 have representatives of two other orders. 



