April 22, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



669 



Tiest hangs above my table now, the reward of a 

 twenty- five years' search ; but not one in ten of 

 those who see it and wonder can believe that it 

 is the work of birds, until in the mouths of two 

 or three witnesses who saw the matter every 

 word has been established (p. 692). 



Let the description be compared with the 

 sketch; let it be observed that Mr. Long does 

 not affirm that he himself ' saw the matter ' 

 (i. e.j the fabrication of the nest by the 

 birds?); let it be remembered, however, that 

 Mr. Long accepts this remarkable structure 

 as the work of orioles — there are the usual 

 ' two or three witnesses ' (one can not help 

 wondering if they are the same ' friends ' who 

 have played so many practical jokes on Mr. 

 Long), and, above all, from Mr. Long's point 

 of view, there is the nest itself^ which hangs 

 above his table now, unless some ill fate has 

 befallen it since last May, when the article 

 appeared. This episode of the nest reveals a 

 general incapacity for the estimation of evi- 

 dence which must vitiate everything else that 

 Mr. Long reports. Falsus in uno, falsus in 

 omnihus. 



The article in question is such a remarkable 

 production throughout that, perhaps, we should 

 not take leave of it without quoting a few 

 characteristic passages, which may serve to 

 set forth Mr. Long's curious creed. 



" The study of Nature," we are told, " is 

 a vastly different thing from the study of 

 Science ; they are no more alike than Psychol- 

 ogy and History. Above and beyond the world 

 of facts and law, with which alone Science 

 concerns itself, is an immense and almost 

 unknown world of suggestion and freedom 

 and inspiration, in which the individual, 

 whether animal or man, must struggle against 

 fact and law to develop or heep his own indi- 

 viduality. It is a world of ' appreciation,' 

 to express it in terms of the philosophy of 

 Professor Eoyce, rather than a world of ' de- 

 scription.'* It is a world that must be in- 

 terpreted rather than catalogued, for you can 

 not catalogue or classify the individuality for 

 which all things are struggling. * * * This 



*Mr. Long evidently believes in hitching his 

 chariot to a star! 



upper world of appreciation and suggestion, 

 of individuality interpreted by individuality, 

 is the world of Nature, the Nature of the 

 poets and prophets and thinkers. Though less 

 exact, it is not less but rather more true and 

 real than Science, as emotions are more real 

 than facts [^sic~\, and love is more true than 

 Economics — * * * 'I study facts and law; 

 they are enough,' says the scientist. ' We 

 know the tyranny of facts and law too well,' 

 answer the nature-students. ' Give us now 

 the liberty and truth of the spirit.' * * * In 

 a word, the difference between Nature and 

 Science [sic'] is the difference between a man 

 who loves animals, and so understands them, 

 and the man who studies Zoology " (pp. 688- 

 689. — Italics mine here and throughout). 



Scarcely could the ' miraculous ' vocaliza- 

 tions common among the earlier Christians 

 have been more unintelligible than this. Such 

 crude misapprehension of contemporary philo- 

 sophic discussions, such hopeless confusion of 

 categories, such aimless emission of words — 

 mere words, — such pitiful cries of an indi- 

 vidual struggling against every fact and law, 

 both of thought and of lang-uage, ' to develop 

 or keep his own individuality' (which?), it 

 would not be easy to match outside the litera- 

 ture of Christian Science. Specific comments 

 upon our subject's phraseology would spoil the 

 flavor of the original.* 



Men of science should perhaps pause to re- 

 flect, in the presence of such crass misrepre- 

 sentations of the nature and scope of science, 

 whether they may not be responsible, in some 

 measure, for the state of affairs which has 

 made it possible for a confessed intellec- 

 tual anarchist like Mr. Long to obtain a 

 hearing in the schools. If ' nature-study ' 

 is what it is above represented to be, let 

 us return without delay to the respectable, 

 if meager, modicum of knowledge compre- 

 hended under the one-time useful trinity of 

 R's; but if 'nature-study' has for its object 

 the observation of fact and the recognition 

 of law, without sacrifice of inspiration — ^if it 



* What a fine ease of mixed categories for Pro- 

 fessor Miinsterberg! — but Pi'ofessor Munsterberg 

 apparently thinks it unnecessary to dredge in 

 such deep waters of sciolism for his specimens. 



