I7« SCIENCE AND METHOD. 



has done some very fine things (for instance, his curve 

 which fills a whole area) ; but, after all, he has not 

 gone any farther, or higher, or faster than the majority 

 of wingless mathematicians, and he could have done 

 everything just as well on his feet. 



On the contrary, I find nothing in logistic for the 

 discoverer but shackles. It does not help us at all 

 in the direction of conciseness, far from it ; and it it 

 requires 27 equations to establish that i is a num- 

 ber, how many will it require to demonstrate a real 

 theorem ? If we distinguish, as Mr. Whitehead does, 

 the individual x, the class whose only member is x, 

 which we call lx, then the class whose only member 

 is the class whose only member is x, which we call 

 ux, do we imagine that these distinctions, however 

 useful they may be, will greatly expedite our progress ? 



Logistic forces us to say all that we commonly 

 assume, it forces us to advance step by step ; it is 

 perhaps surer, but it is not more expeditious. 



It is not wings you have given us, but leading- 

 strings. But we have the right to demand that these 

 leading-strings should keep us from falling ; this is 

 their only excuse. When an investment does not pay 

 a high rate of interest, it must at least be a gilt-edged 

 security. 



Must we follow your rules blindly ? Certainly, for 

 otherwise it would be intuition alone that would enable 

 us to distinguish between them. But in that case they 

 must be infallible, for it is only in an infallible author- 

 ity that we can have blind confidence. Accordingly, 

 this is a necessity for you : you must be infallible or 

 cease to exist. 



You have no right to say to us: " We make mistakes, 



