February 7, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



Q5 



of nature. As there is an endless variety of mental processes 

 and combinations and an indefinite number of orders of pro- 

 cedure, the advantage of different methods under different 

 conditions is almost axiomatic. This being granted, there is 

 presented to the teacher the problem of selection and of adaptation 

 to meet the needs of any speciiic issue that may present itself. 

 It is important, therefore, that the teacher shall have in mind 

 a full array of possible conditions and states of mind which 

 may be presented, in order that, when any one of these shall 

 become an actual case, he may recognize it, and be ready for 

 the emergency. 



Just as the investigator armed with many working hypotheses 

 is more likely to see the true nature and significance of 

 phenomena when they present themselves, so the instructor 

 equipped with a full panoply of hypotheses ready for application 

 more readily recognizes the actuality of the situation, more 

 accurately measures its significance, and more appropriately 

 applies the methods which the case calls for. 



The application of the method of multiple hypotheses to the 

 varied affairs of life is almost as protean as the phases of that 

 life itself, but certain general aspects may be taken as typical of 

 the whole. What I have just said respecting the application of 

 the method to instruction may apply, with a simple change of 

 terms, to almost any other endeavor which we are called upon 

 to undertake. "We enter upon an enterprise in most cases 

 without full knowledge of all the factors that will enter into 

 it, or all of the possible phases which it may develop. It is 

 therefore of the utmost importance to be prepared to rightly 

 comprehend the nature, bearings, and influence of such unfore- 

 seen elements \vhen they shall definitely present themselves as 

 actualities. If our vision is narrowed by a preconceived theory 

 as to what will happen, we are almost certain to misinterpret 

 the facts and to misjudge the issue. If, on the other hand, 

 we have in mind hypothetical forecasts of the various contin- 

 gencies that may arise, we shall be the more likely to recognize 

 the true facts when they do present themselves. Instead of 

 being biased by the anticipation of a given phase, the mind is 

 rendered open and alert by the anticipation of any one of many 

 phases, and is free not only, but is predisposed, to recognize 

 correctly the one which dees appear. The method has a further 

 good effect. The mind, having anticipated the possible phases 

 which may arise, has prepared itself for action under any one 

 that may come up, and it is therefore ready-armed, and is pre- 

 disposed to act in the line appropriate to the event. It has not 

 set itself rigidly in a fixed purpose, which it is predisposed to 

 follow without regard to contingencies. It has not nailed 

 down the helm and predetermined to run a specific course, 

 whether rocks lie in the path or not; but, with the helm in 

 hand, it is ready to veerthe ship according as danger or advan- 

 tage discovers itself. 



It is true, there are often advantages in pursuing a fixed 

 predetermined course without regard to obstacles or adverse 

 conditions. Simple dogged resolution is sometimes the salva- 

 tion of an enterprise ; ' ut, while glorious successes have been thus 

 snatched from the v&u y brink of disaster, overwhelming calamity 

 has in other cases followed upon this course, when a reasonable 

 regard for the unanticipated elements would have led to suc- 

 cess. So there is to be set over against the great achievements 

 that follow on dogged adherence great disasters which are 

 equally its result. 



The tendency of the mind, accustomed to work through mul- 

 tiple hypotheses, is to sway to one line of policy or another, 

 according as the balance of evidence shall incline. This is the 

 soul and essence of the method. It is in general the true 

 method. Nevertheless there is a danger that this yielding to 

 evidence may degenerate into unwarranted vacillation. It is 

 not always possible for the mind to balance evidence with 

 exact equipoise, and to determine, in the midst of the execu- 

 tion of an enterprise, what is the measure of probability on the 

 one side or the other; and as difHculties present themselves, 

 there is a danger of being biased by them and ol swerving from 

 the course that was really the true one. Certain limitations 

 are therefore to be placed upon the application of the method, for 



it must be remembered that a poorer line of policy consistently 

 adhered to may bring better results than a vacillation betweeni 

 better policies. 



There is another and closely allied danger in the application 

 of the method. In its highest development it presumes a mind: 

 supremely sensitive to every grain of evidence. Like a pair of 

 delicately poised scales, every added particle on the one side 

 or the other produces its effect in oscillation. But such a pair 

 of scales may be altogether too sensitive to be of practical 

 value in the rough affairs of life. The balances of the exact 

 chemist are too delicate for the weighing-out of coai'se commod- 

 ities. Despatch may be more important than accuracy. So it 

 is possible for the mind to be too much concerned with the nice 

 balancings of evidence, and to oscillate too much and too long 

 in the endeavor to reach exact results. It may be better, in, 

 the gross affairs of life, to be less precise and more prompt. 

 Quick decisions, chough they may contain a grain of error, are 

 oftentimes better than precise decisions at the expense of time. 



The method has a special beneficent application to our sociall 

 and civic relations. Into these relations there enter, as great 

 factors, our judgment of others, our discernment of the nature of 

 their acts, and our interpretation of their motives and purposes.. 

 The method of multiple hypotheses, in its application here, 

 stands in decided contrast to the method of the ruling theory 

 or of the simple working hypothesis. The primitive habit is to 

 interpret the acts of others on the basis of a theory. Child- 

 hood's unconscious theory is that the good are good, and the 

 bad are bad. From the good the child expects nothing but 

 good; from the bad, nothing but bad. To expect a good act 

 from the bad, or a bad act from the good, is radically at vari- 

 ance with childhood's mental methods. Unfortunately in our 

 social and civic affairs too many of our fellow-citizens have 

 never outgrown the ruling theory of their childhood. 



Many have advanced a step farther, and employ a method 

 analogous to that of the working hypothesis. A certain, 

 presumption is made to attach to the acts of their fellow- 

 beings, and that which they see is seen in the light of that 

 presumption, and that which they construe is construed in the- 

 light of that presumption. They do not go to the lengths of 

 childhood's method by assuming positively that the good are 

 wholly good, and the bad wholly bad ; but there is a strong 

 presumption in their minds that he concerning whom they 

 have an ill opinion will act from corresjDonding motives. It 

 requires positive evidence to overthrow the influence of the 

 working hypothesis. 



The method of multiple hypotheses assumes broadly that the 

 acts of a fellow-being may be diverse in their nature, their 

 motives, their purposes, and hence in their whole moral char- 

 acter; that they may be good though the dominant character be 

 bad; that they may be bad though the dominant character be 

 good ; that they may be partly good and partly bad, as is the fact 

 in the gi-eater number of the complex activities of a human being. 

 Under the method of multiple hypotheses, it is the first effort 

 of the mind to see truly what the act is, unbeclouded by the 

 presumption that this or that has been done because it accords 

 with our ruling theory or our working hypothesis. Assuming 

 that acts of similar general aspect may readily take any one 

 of several different phases, the mind is freer to see accurately 

 what has actually been done. So, again, in our interpretations, 

 of motives and purposes, the method assumes that these may 

 have been any one of many, and the first duty is to ascertaia 

 which of possible motives and purposes actually prompted this 

 individual action. Going with this effort there is a predisposi- 

 tion to balance all evidence fairly, and to accept that interpre- 

 tation to which the weight of evidence inclines, not that which, 

 simply fits our working hypothesis or our dominant theory^ 

 The outcome, therefore, is better and truer observation and 

 juster and more righteous interpretation. 



There is a third result of great importance. The imperfections 

 of our knowledge are more likely to be detected, for there will 

 be less confidence in its completeness in proportion as there ia 

 a broad comprehension of the possibilities of varied action, 

 under similar circumstances and with similar appearances^ 



