82 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



In considering each of the previous channels of infection I have 

 pointed to some remedy. That which promises most in dealing with 

 infection conveyed in the manner just indicated is the early isolation 

 of persons suffering from the several infectious fevers. 



KEMARKS ON THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE.* 



By LESLIE STEPHEN. 



" TF it were a qualification for his office," Mr. Stephen remarked, " to 

 -L be impartial in the sense of not having an opinion on the matter, 

 it would have been hardly possible to select a less qualified chairman 

 in all London than himself. He believed that the spread of scientific 

 influence had not only not been bad, but that the thing of which we 

 stand most in need is a great deal more scientific thought and method 

 in every direction. He felt, however, that his case was so strong that 

 he could afford to give points to the opposite side ; and for this rea- 

 son, and because to a certain extent he was prepared to go with the 

 opener in his remarks, he hoped to be able to point out fairly where 

 the various arguments which had been used found their proper place. 

 The only definition, or rather description, of science which ever ap- 

 peared satisfactory to him was, that Science is that body of truths 

 which may be held to be definitely established, so that no reasonable 

 person doubts them. To speak of mischievous science is, therefore, to 

 assert that truth is mischievous, an assertion to which no one would 

 be likely to seriously agree, especially in such a place as University 

 College. If it is to be supposed that science is mischievous, it must 

 either be meant that certain false theories which call themselves sci- 

 ence are wrongful, which may well be the case, or that the scientific 

 progress at the present time happens to be exercising a mischievous 

 influence. 



" No one denies that science may accidentally lead to a large num- 

 ber of our particular mischiefs, as in the case of the invention of 

 dynamite ; but it can not in any way be admitted on that account that 

 science is mischievous. For the question arises, If science is bad, what 

 can be substituted for it ? and in what way will these mischiefs be 

 remedied if we are not scientific ? It is impossible to say that erro- 

 neous impressions will make us better off than correct ones. For 

 instance, the old belief in medicine subjected people to years of tor- 



* Remarks by Mr. Leslie Stephen in summing up a debate at University College, Lon- 

 don, on the motion by Mr. B. Paul Newman : " That the spread of scientific thought and 

 method has, on the whole, exercised an injurious influence on English society." The mo- 

 tion was supported by Mr. N. Mickleman, and opposed by the Rev. A. Capes Tarbolton 

 and Mr. J. G. Pease. 



