SCIENTIFIC METHOD 41 



selected three. First, the ridicule excited by the fact 

 that detailed inquiry^ should be made into the truth of 

 current beliefs and vulgar errors associated with natural 

 phenomena. Secondly, the contemptuous feeling aroused 

 by laborious work upon the minute characters of natural 

 objects, work involving observations on materials re- 

 garded often as unpleasant and always as quite unim- 

 portant. Thirdly, the condemnation as ignoble trifling, 

 and sheer waste of time and energy, of all scientific 

 experiments which did not carry on their surface intel- 

 ligible utility and which, being therefore pronounced as 

 of no practical advantage to mankind, were satirized as 

 eccentric folly. 



These lampoons and satirical criticisms did not lan- 

 guish for want of reply, and one of the earliest serious 

 rejoinders was that of the celebrated writer, Joseph 

 Glanville, who matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford, 

 in 1652. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 

 1 66 5, and had a wonderfully clear view of the range and 

 profundity of the problems of science. In a work, entitled 

 Plus ultra, or the progress and advancement of knowledge 

 since the days of Aristotle, he contrasted the past with the 

 age in which he wrote. This comparison brought out the 

 obvious fact that however useless and absurd many of 

 the investigations may seem to the generation in which 

 they are undertaken, 'posterity has always found things 

 which are at the start but rumours converted into practical 

 realities.' It is, indeed, strange that the objection of 

 inutility should survive, and still survives, in the face of 

 the recurring demonstration that the very investigations 

 once scoffed at as useless can, in the course of a few years, 

 become highly honoured for their great value. Plus ultra 

 was greatly appreciated by the Royal Society ; Evelyn 

 thought the argument conclusive, and exultingly exclaimed: 



