DISCUSSION 137 



question of the origin of man stands upon exactly the 

 same level.' Here too it is not a matter of proofs, 

 which are to convince any chance person, but of 

 indications, which may be of assistance to any one 

 who studies these questions, for the subjective 

 evidence would be so irresistible that the questions 

 would vanish. 



In reply to these statements, I should like 

 to suggest the following considerations. 



First of all, in order to avoid sources of error 

 in dealing with the natural sciences, it is of 

 great importance to keep hi view, not only 

 the evidence which the specialist has himself 

 collected, but also the historic development of 

 his particular department of research, and the 

 assured results attained in other departments. 

 Secondly, the province of conceptions is not 

 co-extensive with that of ideals. The former, 

 like that of the natural sciences, is subject to 

 strict logical laws of thought, whereas in the 

 latter, the ultimate decision, as to which ideals 

 are worthy of man, rests with the reason. 

 After Friedenthal had just declared that, in 

 the case of the natural sciences, irrefutable 

 evidence was always a necessary preliminary 

 to the attainment of results, it was certainly 

 interesting to be told that logical proofs 

 altogether broke down in dealing urith questions 

 of descent. 



