14 



to acknowledge himself in the wrong when shown that he is in 

 error. To support a theory he will neither close his eyes to 

 obvious facts nor persist in maintaining untenable positions. 

 Those paper philosophers, as they have been called, who spend 

 their lives reviewing other men's work and criticising that which 

 they are unable rightly to comprehend, have no appreciation 

 whatever of the methods of science. Such men abound. We 

 find them on the lecture platform and in the pulpit, and their 

 effusions occupy much space in the magazines and reviews. 

 While the real scientist is often willing to say, " I do not know," 

 " It is out of my line," " I am not an authority," these superfi- 

 cial essayists and shallow critics are ever ready to render de- 

 cisions and pass their judgment upon the weightiest matters. 

 But too often these ingenious partisans, with their specious 

 arguments and fallacious reasonings, their rhetorical vaporings 

 and heated arguments, carry the multitude along with them. 

 As an illustration, we have only to recall the bitter denuncia- 

 tion heaped upon Darwin and the ridicule to which he was sub- 

 jected a few years back, and how often do we hear Huxley and 

 Tyndall and Herbert Spencer disposed of by those who have 

 scarce read their writings, and, if they had, would be quite in- 

 competent to form an opinion upon them. Many of these 

 critics of other men's performances are ever ready to declare to 

 us the intentions of the Almighty, and to denounce as heretical 

 or impious that which, in their view, is inconsistent with what 

 they declare to be His plans. True science is not thus arrogant 

 nor dictatorial. It is honest, even in its doubts. To persist in 

 viewing a subject from one side alone, and to close the eyes 

 to demonstrated truths is as dishonest as it is illogical and 

 absurd. 



And another characteristic of real scientific work is that it 

 is not inspired by a desire for gain ; it does not seek pecuniary 

 reward. I anticipate your probable criticism. All honorable 

 work deserves compensation, you will say ; surely the laborer 

 is worthy of his hire ; wealth honestly amassed, and worthily 

 employed is not to be despised. Very true, and yet the fact re 

 mains that the best work is not undertaken solely for the pur- 

 pose of securing a direct pecuniary return. At all events, the 

 best scientific work is not so entered upon. There lies at the 

 root of it all the desire to discover facts, to advance knowl- 

 edge, and in the search for verities the earnest worker is indif- 



