GENERAL MEETING. 67 
school, of deeming that probable, or in any way connected with 
fact, which merely seems conceivable. I have shown that while 
thesimplest truths have generally proved inconceivable until found 
out and established by genius, the greatest absurdities have had 
ready currency without a doubt of their conceivability. This all 
mythology shows. Such rubbish as “a thing cannot act where it 
is not,’ and “a body cannot move where it is not,” or “a cause 
cannot precede its effect” —mere metaphysical assertions or subtle- 
ties in face of everyday fact—were stumbling blocks for ages. 
Such assumptions formed the basis of deduction in lieu of observa- 
tion, and blocked the possibility of advance. And even yet, rigid 
deduction from the most hare-brained premiss, if the chain of de- 
duction is sufficiently intricate, seems to possess fascinations over a 
verifiable induction, with many minds. 
And now, if any ask, “cui bono” to the scientist, these philosophical 
inquiries and intricacies when he has the vast field of unexplored data 
still before him to occupy him, I answer, the queries of Philosophy 
are not only the main-spring and final cause of science (her first 
fruitful daughter and handmaid), but they, consciously or uncon- 
sciously, dominate the methods and results of science herself. 
Each investigator, even though in the domain of the most abstract of 
the sciences, postulates more philosophy than he is aware of; and with 
so much the more danger to final accomplishment if he assumes his 
philosophical basis without examination. It is the errors of giant 
minds that are dangerous, by their ponderosity. The infallibility 
of the master, Aristotle, seemed to make investigation useless, 
until the rise of parallel giants, like Galileo and Copernicus, stim- 
ulated a new conflict of opinion. And Descartes, though harm- 
less from all his productions within the metaphysical domain, is 
dangerous by his very eminence and originality in science, 
which gives vogue and currency to his monumental errors. 
Although acquainted with the true law of motion, his scheme 
of matter evolved from consciousness would forbid all exhibi- 
tion thereof. A grand geometer, he erected a scaffold for 
scaling immensity, and with unparalleled penetration perceived 
how a purely ideal logic, if general, would represent truth in a 
wholly dissimilar realm of deduction, if equally general. Sirange 
to say, this grand and useful discovery has become the engine, in 
nihilistic hands, for overthrowing all the positive knowledge we 
