236 SCIENTIFIC METHOD AS 



question : I now wish to consider shortly our mental 

 attitudes towards historical statements. Let us consider 

 the question first in connexion with some very obvious 

 and ordinary conditions. As we pass through the London 

 streets we see placards with notices of the following sort : 

 Great Colliery Disaster : Return of the King to London : 

 Triumphant Government Majority : or in papers of a 

 slightly different complexion Latest Tory Shuffle. Being 

 accustomed to these placards we are often contented 

 with the headlines, and do not buy the papers : if, 

 however, our interest is strongly excited, we wish to know 

 more fully about the events ; we pay our money, and get 

 the paper. Then we find that these headlines are the 

 titles of a number of short historical works, which we can 

 read at length in the paper. We find that the two last 

 describe the same division in the House of Commons : 

 under the head of the king's return to London we shall 

 probably read of red cloth and General Managers, kindly 

 and pleasant words from His Majesty, perhaps an escort 

 of soldiers, a rapid drive to Buckingham Palace. The 

 account of the colliery disaster will tell of sorrow 

 and heroism, and public sympathy, in the order which we 

 all know so well. Now I have not been present at any 

 one of the events described ; in their relation to my 

 mind they are as truly fragments of history as the Battle 

 of Marathon. I read the accounts, however, in the 

 papers, and I have no hesitation in believing them im- 

 mediately : I assume that they have been truly reported : 

 I talk about them, if so moved, to others, assuming that 

 they have read and believed them like myself. I am 

 haunted by no qualms of doubt : I do not attempt to 

 verify the statements : I simply take them as they are. 

 Supposing, however, I find all these statements, or some 

 of them, contradicted in the next morning's issue, I retain 



