HEBER D. CURTIS 55 



material universe, combined with a personal effort to 

 put one's self in tune with the subjective picture of 

 what is conceived to be the plan, wish, or will of this 

 super-cosmic entity. 



It would be possible (and easy) to state at this 

 point that science needs no definition, yet, strangely 

 enough, our definition of science is by no means so 

 ready and instant as it was half a century ago. We 

 recall the older and somewhat limited view-point of 

 the orthodox scientist; — his was the lore of things 

 heard, seen, and felt. He refused to admit into his 

 data anything which could not be tested by his meas- 

 uring rods. These measuring rods were, and still are, 

 of many kinds; — the scales, thermometers, and elec- 

 trical conductors of the physicist, the reagents and 

 combinations of the chemist, the astronomer's tele- 

 scope, the biologist's classifications and laws of in- 

 heritance, his microscopes and stains, the reaction ma- 

 chines and mouse-mazes of the psychologist, the statis- 

 tical laws used by the investigator in political science 

 or anthropology, and many others. 



It is my contention that such a definition of science 

 is faulty; that modern science must have a more 

 prominent place for relationships. It may be that 

 relations between things are the only real and certain 

 facts of the universe. The ultimate analysis of what 

 we term number, say the number 2, is full of philo- 

 sophical difficulties; we may, however, define a cer- 

 tain process called multiplication, and multiply this 

 thing called 2 by another thing of the same sort. We 

 have made some laws of our own to do this, yet these 

 laws, if we observe them, are very real things. 



Science has always permitted itself, nay, demanded, 



