r , 



[ 29 ] 



express statement of the propounders of the theories 

 that they were put forward for the sake of sim- 

 plicity, or else because it was " difficult to form any 

 distinct idea " of a different connecticn among the 

 reminiscences involved ; while in the remaining 

 instance the grounds upon which the one theory 

 was preferred at one period, and the alternative 

 theory at a later period, are known from historical 

 records to have been of the same kind. Moreover, 

 throughout the whole history of science no instance 

 will be found in which a syntax which is admitted 

 to present the clearest and most direct picture of- 

 relationships among all the reminiscences involved 

 therein has failed to gain acceptance as a scientific 

 truth. 



Now, if this be the single characteristic which 

 determines the acceptance of a scientific theory the 

 sole criterion of its truth there can be no ground 

 for supposing that any such theory, after it has been 

 accepted as true, acquires the validity of a pre- 

 existing decree, or becomes anything else than what 

 it was in its inception, namely, a clear, direct, and 

 intelligible syntax or manner of arranging remin- 

 iscences. When a syntax is to be translated from 

 thought into action it seems to be advantageous 

 perhaps it may be even a necessary part of the 

 translation that the reminiscences should be pro- 

 jected into that world of the not-self -which is called 

 by metaphysicians objective. But the reminiscences 



