THE 
JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
MAY, 1881. 
I. SCIENTIFIC ARROGANCE. 
By Robert Ward. 
S HEOLOGIANS and their followers not unfrequently 
complain of the arrogance of men of science ; to 
which it has been replied that “ No class of men, 
however highly instructed, is wholly free from faults of 
judgment and taste, and there is no reason for expecting 
men of science to be more than human in this respedt.” 
And it may be at once conceded that the arrogance of men 
of science is quite equalled by the dogmatism of professors 
of religion ; but I would respectfully suggest that the one is 
more excusable than the other. The scientist prides himself 
upon being guided by reason as exercised by observation of 
Nature; the religionist confessedly relies upon authority as 
represented by the Church of his Fathers, to which he turns 
for guidance on all difficult questions. The one may be said 
to believe in himself or his own powers of discernment ; the 
other humbly, though it may be blindly, follows what he 
believes to be the wisdom of his ancestors. Positiveness of 
opinion is therefore excusable in the religionist, because 
founded in modesty ; but when the scientist, abandoning 
reason, appeals to prejudice, he certainly indulges in an 
arrogance which may be described as wholly indefensible, 
because founded in conceit. I can best illustrate my argu- 
ment by reference to an example. I happen to be the 
unfortunate author of a book entitled “ The Constitution of 
the Earth,” of which the following is a criticism : — 
“ Mr. Robert Ward’s book is one of those odd argument- 
ative works which the late Professor De Morgan would 
vol. hi. (third series). s 
