THE STABILITY OF TRUTH. 353 
firmly convinced, by at least nine tenths of the men of 
science now living; indeed, I believe, by all men of sci- 
ence in whom the following four conditions are realized: 
(1) Sufficient acquaintance with the various departments 
of natural science, and in particular with the modern 
doctrine of evolution; (2) sufficient acuteness and 
clearness of judgment to draw, by induction and deduc- 
tion, the necessary logical consequences that flow from 
such empirical knowledge; (3) sufficient moral courage 
to maintain the monistic knowledge so gained against 
the attacks of hostile dualistic and pluralistic systems; 
and (4) sufficient strength of mind to free himself, by 
sound, independent reasoning, from dominant religious 
prejudices, and especially from those irrational dogmas 
which have been firmly lodged in our minds from earli- 
est youth as indisputable revelations.” 
Against such assumption I must protest. I have 
nothing against the doctrines save that they are not yet 
proved true. In themselves, as I have said, they are 
attractive. One may naturally feel a hopeful interest 
in wide-reaching theories which seem plausible, but are 
still unproved or unworkable. This is, however, not 
“belief.” It is rather open-mindedness, open to nega- 
tive evidence as well as to positive. 
As science goes wherever the facts lead, so “ science 
must stop where the facts stop.” It can not add to its 
methods the running high jump, nor 
place the divining rod with the micro- 
scope, crucible, and calculus among its 
instruments of precision. Beyond the range of scientific 
knowledge extend the working and the unworkable 
hypotheses. Beyond the confines of all these extend 
the universe of the mind, the boundless realm which is 
the abode of philosophy, None should better realize 
these distinctions than men of science. 
Science stops 
where facts stop. 
