38 
' him, estimate the relation and agreement between his results and 
those which they are working out, and not merely try to estimate 
how it is as between him and his nearest neighbor in the depart- 
ments of science, but how it is between him and them all. 
Who is going to do this? No individual science can do it; no 
mere coming together of all the sciences can accomplish it. An 
arbiter is needed, an arbiter that can stand on a hilltop and survey 
all; and that arbiter of all the sciences—the one that stands on the 
hilltop and corrects blunders and utters notes of warning, and 
knows how, from hypotheses, to sift out certitudes and from mis- 
takes to sift out truths, and to take all the little bits that each sup- 
plies and weave them in the harmony of truth—is philosophy; and 
the fact that her point of view is so much higher and so much 
more comprehensive than that of any science in particular, enables 
her to direct the sciences in their work and to point out any part 
of the great horizon in which the light is seen to be breaking forth. 
Such is the natural relation between science and philosophy, the 
relation that they must have in the nature of things. How is it de 
facto in the age in which we live? "It is a noteworthy fact that, in 
our age, so many scientific men are developing into philosophic 
thinkers. Wundt, after writing on physics, physiology and experi- 
mental psychology, gives us his system of philosophy. Mivart, 
while plying his scalpel, learns for himself and publishes to the 
world the deeper lessons from nature and the higher meaning of 
truth and the value and method of reasoning. From the phys- 
iological laboratory Du Bois Raymond surveys the Seven World 
Riddles, and Lewes launches out into the problems of life and 
mind. 
These facts, simple indications of multitudes that might be enu- 
merated, show that the most accurate scientific research is compati- 
ble with the profoundest philosophic thinking. Nay, more, it 
shows that science—when it is loyal to truth, when it is logical, 
when it is consistent, when it is human—must lead up to philo- 
sophic thinking. The same appears when we institute a compari- 
son between the methods of science and of philosophy. First of 
all, let us observe that every science has its own specialties of 
method which no other science may share with it. The physicist 
has one method, the chemist has another, so have the biologist and 
the astronomer. 
But these differences of detail in the methods of the individual 
