January 4, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



21 



strength, etc., are all identified with the 

 average. 



In this way all question of possible im- 

 provement is begged. We are stopped at 

 the outset from asking, for instance, 

 whether men in general are too stout, for 

 the average weight of mankind is assumed 

 as 'normal.' The absurdity of such pro- 

 cedure becomes apparent as soon as we 

 consider eases in which, by common con- 

 sent, the average and the normal are held 

 to be distinct. For instance, the average 

 adult man certainly does not have normal 

 teeth, for they are usually half decayed; 

 nor normal hair, for he is usually half 

 bald ; nor normal posture, for he is usually 

 round-shouldered. Average health is be- 

 low normal health, average morality below 

 normal morality. In the absence of evi- 

 dence we have no right to assume that the 

 average and the normal are identical, even 

 when we lack the data on which to base an 

 opinion. It is only recently, and in conse- 

 q^^ence of the movement against tubercu- 

 losis, that experts have come to realize how 

 widely different is the average air we 

 breathe from air which is normal for hu- 

 man respiration, and that investigation has 

 shown the average diet, in America at least, 

 to be abnormally nitrogenous. In view of 

 such revelations we should be open-minded 

 enough to accept evidence— should it be 

 offered — that the average span of life is 

 less than half the normal span, and the 

 average efficiency less than half the normal 

 efficiency. 



Those who habitually confuse the normal 

 and the average are prevented from seeing 

 the possibility of progress. They take the 

 position, as unscientific as it is obstructive 

 of progress, that 'whatever is is right,' 

 presumptively at least, and brand every 

 one who deviates from the average as an 

 eccentric or a crank. The confusion be- 

 tween the normal and the average thus 

 leads to the confusion between the eccentric 



and the pioneer. An eccentric or a crank 

 is properly a person who deviates from the 

 normal, and is almost the opposite of the 

 pioneer, who deviates from the average, 

 but toward the normal. 



Discrepancies between the average and 

 the normal may apply — in fact, do apply 

 — to the economic side as well as to other 

 sides of life. But this the laissez faire 

 doctrine denied. The world as it is was 

 thought to be nearly, if not absolutely, 

 the best world possible. One example 

 of this complaisant assumption was in 

 the use of the term 'utility' to signify 

 the intensity of desire that men have 

 for things. So far as I know, the only 

 writer who has attempted systematically 

 to distinguish between the desires of men 

 as they are and as they should be, is 

 Pareto, who for this purpose suggested a 

 new term— ophelimity— to replace 'utility' 

 as applied to man's actual desires, reserv- 

 ing for the term 'utility' its original sense 

 of what is intrinsically desirable. Thus, to 

 an opium fiend opium has a high degree of 

 ophelimity, but no utility. Economists 

 have not yet laid sufiicient emphasis on the 

 distinction between true utility and what 

 Pareto calls ophelimity. A whole range of 

 problems of social betterment is opened up 

 through the distinction. Economists have 

 received with derision the suggestions of 

 reform of Ruskin. But, however imprac- 

 ticable his specific proposals, his point of 

 view is certainly saner than that of most 

 economists ; for, as Ruskin has pointed out, 

 it is absurd to regard as equivalent a mil- 

 lion dollars of capital invested in opium 

 culture, and a million dollars invested in 

 schools. 



But there remains to be considered a 

 second fallacy in laissez faire. Not only 

 is it false that men, when let alone, will 

 always follow their best interests, but it is 

 false that when they do, they will always 

 thereby best serve society. To Adam 



