that the fossils of our rocks were once living animals occupies 
avery different position from the theory of evolution. One js 
_ almost included in the observed facts, while the other .implies 
much more of inference. But too often our writers and teachers 
hil to separate them, giving equal credence to such theories as 
the undulatory theory of light and the law of gravitation. This 
3 is all very well when scientist is addressing scientist; any amount 
Of imagination and speculation is then admissible. Hypothesis 
; itive, the probable, and the ‘possible. He should offer as positive 
_ only such conclusions as have placed themselves beyond dispute, 
| and regard all others as more or less probable, according as they 
_ teachers, and an even greater number of our writers, fail to do 
“us, They are ready to accept before the public more than is 
he necessary belief in the truthfulness of nature, and 
lity of indefinite repetition of experiments and obser- 
z isa But when we go beyond the facts and draw inferences, 
there is Primarily no more reason for believing in the truth of 
Fence from science than in any non-scientific inference. 
ap conclusions can, by a long and successful verification from 
~ ol nature, be rendered very certain—more certain, in- 
(Cd, than any other factor of knowledge. We, then, frequently 
em facts, though they are really nothing more than strong 
the infe 
tif +r, © other conclusions. The fact that a theory is a scien- 
theory 
Pad the test of fact, and has shown itself so in harmony 
claimed e as to be universally accepted, that there can be 
f: gene T it any of that superior weight of authority which is 
~ ~ ™ Consent given to scientific truths. 
1887] x a Scientific Fact and Scientific Inference. 799 
fave been verified by observation. Unfortunately, many of our. 
A scientific fact, then, claims superiority to all else for two 
But this does not in the least give any greater prob- 
It is only after a conclusion has ~ 
k 
