286 
ity. On the whole, I do not think that we 
should try to argue still further, and really 
try to give a full explanation of the causes 
of the explosion. 
The difference in the mode of thought of 
primitive man and of civilized man seems 
to consist largely in the difference of char- 
acter of the traditional material with which 
the new perception associates itself. The 
instruction given to the child of primitive 
man is not based on centuries of experi- 
mentation, but consists of the crude ex- 
perience of generations. When a new ex- 
perience enters the mind of primitive man, 
the same process which we observe among 
civilized man brings about an entirely 
different series of associations, and there- 
fore results in a different type of explana- 
tion. A sudden explosion will associate 
itself in his mind, perhaps, with tales which 
he has heard in regard to the mythical his- 
tory of the world, and consequently will be 
accompanied by superstitious fear. When 
we recognize that, neither among civilized 
man nor among primitive man, the average 
individual carries to completion the at- 
tempt at causal explanation of phenomena, 
but carries it only so far as to amal- 
gamate it with other previously known 
facts, we recognize that the result of the 
whole process depends entirely upon the 
character of the traditional material: herein 
lies the immense importance of folk-lore in 
determining the mode of thought. Herein 
lies particularly the enormous influence of 
current philosophic opinion upon the masses 
of the people, and herein lies the influence 
of the dominant scientific theory upon the 
character of scientific work. 
It would be in vain to try to understand 
the development of modern science without 
an intelligent understanding of modern 
philosophy; it would be in vain to try to 
understand the history of medieval science 
without an intelligent knowledge of medi- 
eval theology ; and so it isin vain to try to 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8. Von. XIIL No. 321. 
understand primitive science without an 
intelligent knowledge of primitive mythol- 
ogy. Mythology, theology and philosophy 
are different terms for the same influences 
which shape the current of human thought, 
and which determine the character of the 
attempts of man to explain the phenomena 
of nature. To primitive man—who has 
been taught to consider the heavenly orbs 
as animate beings, who sees in every ani- 
mal a being more powerful than man, to 
whom the mountains, trees and stones are 
endowed with life—explanations of phe- 
nomena will suggest themselves entirely 
different from those to which we are accus- 
tomed, since we base our conclusions upon 
the existence of matter and force as bring- 
ing about the observed results. If we do 
not consider it possible to explain the whole 
range of phenomena as the result of matter 
and force alone, all our explanations of 
natural phenomena must take a different 
aspect. 
In scientific inquiries we should always 
be clear in our own minds of the fact that 
we do not carry the analysis of any given 
phenomenon to completion; but that we 
always embody a number of hypotheses 
and theories in our explanations. In 
fact, if we were to do so, progress would 
hardly become possible, because every phe- 
nomenon would require an endless amount 
of time for thorough treatment. We are 
only too apt, however, to forget entirely 
the general, and, for most of us, purely 
traditional, theoretical basis which is the 
foundation of our reasoning, and to assume 
that the result of our reasoning is absolute 
truth. In this we commit the same error 
that is committed, and has been committed, 
by all the less civilized people. They are 
more easily satisfied than we are at the 
present time, but they also assume as true 
the traditional element which enters into 
their explanations, and therefore accept 
as absolute truth the conclusions based on 
