788 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVIII. Xo. 4G8. 



strictly in view, he shall strive, days in ad- 

 vance, to put his matter into the most intel- 

 ligible and attractive form. It should be re- 

 membered, too, that in the oral presentation 

 of a subject before a friendly audience, it is 

 better to give the hearers a chance to ask for 

 more information, if they want it, or for fuller 

 proof of statements made, if they think it 

 needed, than to overwhelm and deaden them 

 from the outset with a mass of details and an 

 elaboration of argument. 



Edwin H. Hall, 

 Vice-president of Section B. 



THE ST. LOUIS CONGRESS OF ARTS AND SCIENCE. 



To THE Editor of Science: By chance, I 

 had at first overlooked Professor Dewey's re- 

 ply (Science, November 20) to my letter con- 

 cerning the St. Louis Congress (Science, Oc- 

 tober 30). My answer thus comes late, but 

 fortunately, the matter itself needs no further 

 word, since all the questions involved, as far 

 as they are of scientific import, were fully 

 disposed of in my long letter. But Professor 

 Dewey, in spite of the friendly tone of my 

 answer, has now introduced in a most sur- 

 prising manner a personal element, and that 

 forces me to send a word of reply after all. 

 He does not discuss the statements of my 

 letter, by which practically all of his previous 

 objections are proved futile, but he now turns 

 the question so as to make it appear that I 

 have made claims in my May article in the 

 Atlantic Monthly which I had no right to 

 make; he even ends with the climax that ex- 

 cuses are due from me to the editor and the 

 readers of the Atlantic. 



I had claimed in the Atlantic that the pro- 

 gram of the congress adopted by the proper 

 authorities involved a certain philosophical 

 standpoint and a certain logical view of the 

 sciences. When Professor Dewey expressed 

 in his first remarks the idea that the program 

 might exclude those who hold other views, I 

 used the chief part of my. reply to show that 

 such a fear is unjustified. I showed that a 

 man may have any views as to the logical 

 relations of the sciences, and yet contribute 

 in his special section with full freedom in 

 spite of the framework of our program. It is 



evident that my article and my letter har- 

 monize perfectly. But Professor Dewey con- 

 siders the fact that I did not speak of the 

 philosophical bearing once more in my letter 

 as a kind of confession that such bearing does 

 not and probably never did exist. 



I did not repeat my assertion because I had 

 stated the case very fully in the Atlantic; 

 but there was not the slightest reason to with- 

 draw a single word. No one who understands 

 anything of methodology can see the program 

 without observing that it has a meaning as a 

 whole only when certain philosophical views 

 are accepted. In the meetings of the boards 

 for final decision I explained the logical reasons 

 for this specific classification fully, and, accus- 

 tomed to the rhythmical attacks of Professor 

 Dewey on my philosophy, I pointed out why a 

 philosophy like his would appear to me an 

 unsatisfactory basis for the work of the con- 

 gress and why an idealistic program was es- 

 sential. Perhaps I may add an external proof 

 of the correctness of my assertions. When 

 my exposition of the situation had appeared 

 in the Atlantic Monthly, the director of the 

 congresses asked me to allow it to be reprinted 

 as a pamphlet for official distribution — in 

 short, if Professor Dewey insists that apolo- 

 gies are due in connection with my Atlantic 

 Monthly essay, it seems clear that they are 

 not due to the editor and to the readers, but 

 to the contributor. Hugo Mijnsterberg. 



Harvard Uxiversitt, 

 December 3, 1903. 



right-handedness: a primith-e Australian 

 theory. 



The attempts of primitive peoples to ex- 

 plain biological or physiological facts are not 

 always of a purely mythic order. The blacks 

 of the Tully River, North Queensland, Dr. 

 Eoth {N. Queensl. Ethnogr. Bull., No. 5, 1903, 

 p. 25) informs us, ' say, that at actual birth, 

 according as the child presents its face to the 

 left or to the right, so will it be left- or right- 

 handed throughout life.' This seems a clear 

 instance of aboriginal ' scientific ' reasoning, 

 and the theory deserves record at least in the 

 history of the discussion of the question. 



The blacks of the Pennefather River account 



