560 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVIII. No. 461. 



a logical point of view. " While we may 

 not go out of our way," he says, " to oppose 

 philosophers and literary folk who indulge 

 in such extravagances, it is our duty to 

 repudiate them when they appear in the public 

 press in the guise of science; for they tend 

 only to make science and scientific men ridic- 

 ulous." It may appear surprising if my chief 

 aim was to make science ridiculous for the 

 amusement of literary folk, that I took my 

 medical degrees and have since been conduct- 

 ing scientific laboratories. But the worst of it 

 is that those ' philosophers and literary folk ' 

 who have indulged in the acceptance of a pro- 

 gram ' which bordered on absurdity ' are the 

 president of the congress. Professor Simon 

 ISTewcomb, Mr. Pritchett, the president of the 

 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and 

 others who were up to this time believed to 

 have a certain interest in ' science ' — for Pro- 

 fessor Woodward is mistaken if he doubts that 

 the program and classification which he saw 

 has the endorsement of the entire committee. 

 But the kind criticism of Professor Wood- 

 ward requires the less discussion as he is also 

 mistaken in his second presupposition. He 

 thinks that the classification of sciences 

 •which has been accepted for the International 

 Congress was sketched in my article for the 

 purpose of inviting criticism of the scheme. 

 That was not the case. It was merely a com- 

 munication concerning a settled arrangement, 

 fully discussed and definitely voted by the 

 proper authorities. If I had been longing 

 for criticism, I should hardly have published 

 it in a form which offers merely results and 

 not reasons ; and however ' absurd and ridic- 

 ulous ' my system may be, I have at least 

 never evaded the duty to give the reasons and 

 arguments for my positions. A ' scientific 

 man' can not of course read what philos- 

 ophers and literary folk are writing; other- 

 wise, I might refer him to the first volume of 

 my ' Grundzuege der Psychologie,' in which 

 about 500 pages are devoted to just this dis- 

 cussion; perhaps also to a short essay in the 

 first volume of the ' Harvard Psychological 

 Studies' (Macmillans), where he might find 

 a large map with a tabular view of such classi- 

 fication. There is no doubt that it is more 



comfortable to ' repudiate ' such ' extrav- 

 agances ' than to argue about them; but is it 

 really more ' scientific ' ? 



It is quite different with the very interest- 

 ing letter from Professor Dewey of Chicago. 

 His letter is full of important arguments 

 worthy of serious consideration. He points 

 clearly to certain dangers in the scheme, and 

 the question is only whether those disadvan- 

 tages ought not to be accepted in order to 

 gain certain advantages which strongly out- 

 weigh them. Every one of the points he 

 raises has been indeed matter for long dis- 

 cussion in the committees, and only after con- 

 scientious deliberation have we come to the 

 decisions which he regrets. 



As I tried to bring out in my Atlantic 

 Monthly article, our real aim is to have a 

 congress which has a definite task and which 

 does not simply do the same kind of work 

 that men of science are attempting every day 

 and everywhere. We do not want, therefore, 

 a bunch of disconnected congresses and in 

 each one a bundle of disconnected papers which 

 could just as well have appeared in the next 

 number of the scientific magazines. We 

 want to use this one great opportunity to 

 work, in a time of scattered specialization, to- 

 wards the unity of thought. We want to 

 bring out the interrelations of all knowledge 

 and to consider the fundamental principles 

 which bind the sciences together. We want 

 to create thus a holiday hour for science, with 

 a purpose different from that of its workaday 

 functions, an hour of reposeful self-reflection. 

 Therefore, not everybody who would like to be 

 heard could be admitted to the platform, but 

 only those who are leaders in their field, 

 and even these may not speak on their 

 chance researches of the last week, but on 

 definite subjects which all together form one 

 systematic whole. Such a monumental work 

 could be created only under the exceptional 

 conditions of a congress embracing all sciences 

 and all countries, and important enough to 

 attract those who are masters in their work 

 with a wide perspective. This was our aim 

 and this alone our chief claim, as I tried to 

 bring out in my essay, and I see with great 

 satisfaction that Professor Dewey feels in full 



