An Introduction to a Biology 



Venice that reached him through his eyes ; Venice 

 to him was less than it was to the old man. Is not 

 the growth of life more manifold even than Venice ? 

 Yet the man of science thinks that he has explained 

 evolution. 



Look at the matter from the point of view of the 

 maker of the theory. Suppose he has a theory which 

 fits a set of facts at some points. Man is in a hurry 

 to explain what he sees. Will he not, rather than 

 spend years in gathering new facts, impatiently, but 

 unconsciously, round off the theory to cover the 

 facts already before him ? 



Then there is a question whether a theory which 

 fitted the facts closely would be acceptable to the 

 mind. Is it not possible that all that the mind can 

 understand, is mind ? I mean, it seems likely that a 

 mind is incapable of recognising (a necessary prelim- 

 inary to understanding) anything but the workings 

 of another mind not very widely different from itself. 

 That is to say, it can only recognise the usual, fairly 

 rigidly fixed features, the deeply ingrained habits of 

 thought the eyes, nose, mouth and ears, so to speak, 

 which are common to all minds. 



When it is remembered that two minds can be so 

 different as to be as unintelligible to one another as 

 is that of the poet to that of the stockbroker, or that 

 of Beethoven to that of Weber, who, when he heard 

 the Seventh Symphony thought that Beethoven was 

 mad ; when we see how one mind can be so utterly 

 unintelligible to another, is it conceivable that such 

 a thing as a theory which has no mind (human mind, 

 I mean) in it at all would be even recognisable, much 

 less intelligible, to the mind ? Suppose that the 



35 



