As to there being true scientists whose tenets include belief in the possibilities of attaining knowledge through some mysterious insight which differs from all ordinary percepts and their rational consideration, I simply deny the allegation. It is a mistake to assume that when Milli-kan, K. T. Compton, and Pupin issue preachments in terms of theology and metaphysics, they are speaking as scientists. They are merely demonstrating how difficult it is to divest one's mind completely of the whams and whimseys learned in early childhood. These men are competent physicists who have done admirable work in their own bailiwick by using the objective methods of science. This procedure has worked well in the solution of the problems in which they have been interested. Through it they have been successful. By its means they have attained fame. Do they give honor where honor is due? Oddly enough, they do not. In their leisure hours they endeavor to show that the perplexing questions which concern man most intimately - problems of emotion, of conduct, of thought - are unassailable by these time-tried methods. They speak vaguely of man's higher nature, something above the rational, which may attain to truth by mysterious inspiration. And they are speaking of man, you understand, of that animal of the family Hominidae, whose corporeal make-up is better known than that of any other organism; whose functional activities have been the subject of experimentation for a century and a half; whose hopes, whose desires, whose emotions, whose mental peculiarities are objective problems about which the psychologist knows almost as much as the physicist knows about the atom; and all through the application of scientific methodology. In other words, these men who have become distinguished by using scientific methods in a given field, turn to a department in which they have no accurate knowledge and maintain seriously that here the primitive folklore of the race, unsupported by the type of evidence they would demand in their own researches, is preferable to the inductive conclusions reached by scholars working objectively on the subjects involved. In doing so they merely show that a man may do excellent work in science without being a scientist at heart.

These statements - or any others I may make in an insistence that the scientific attitude of mind is the only position worthy of the species, if it is to be known as Homo sapiens - will convince no adult who has reached different conclusions previously. If a man of mature mind has become assured that science is materialistic and interferes with the spiritual life, it is useless to try to change his views. But this fact by no means releases the scientist from the duty of propagating his beliefs. The impact of his arguments upon younger minds, still incompletely hypnotized by the imagery of metaphysics, will eventually yield results. These more elastic individuals will come to realize that man is to be distinguished from the other animals on the footstool chiefly by his greater intelligence, and that only by the exercise of this intelligence can he have a higher life. They will see that the mystical pother over man's apartness from the rest of creation is merely a formal expression of the hopes and desires arising from his superbly egocentric imagination. And as such disciples grow in numbers, so will the momentum of intellectual progress increase in strength.

One has the feeling that science is advancing and bigotry retreating at a more rapid pace to-day than was the case a short while ago. Anti-evolution resolutions are still presented to the Solons of the various states, and Billy Sunday is still greeted with applause; but science is in distinctly better odor than of old. Even the newspapers, as always the rear guard of public opinion, speak of the current era as the Age of Science. The present generation has almost forgotten the battles by which the cohorts of mysticism formerly tried to prevent the acceptance of every discovery in biology, geography, astronomy, geology, philology, anthropology, and medicine, which appeared to run contrary to dogmas of primitive faith. I invite its members to read the history of the campaign in the two ample volumes compiled by Andrew D. White.x The struggle is described there in all its gory detail.

I am not convinced, however, that science has sustained these attacks because truth has an inherent survival value. Science was retained on sufferance for the same reason that a fine old peach tree is retained - people enjoyed its fruits. The scientist need have no fear, therefore, that his freedom of action will again be curtailed as it was in earlier days: the products of his labors are too eagerly welcomed. Nor am I convinced that the spirit of science, the scientific attitude of mind, is any more acceptable to the defenders of dogma than it ever was. Yet open warfare against science has been abandoned by all except the most ignorant minority of the clerical party; the leaders have found it advantageous to take a more dignified position and to leave acrimonious debate to others.

The current fashion is to put the case against science into the hands of the philosophers, who habitually issue verdicts with as much solemn formality as if they were presiding at the Last Judgment. Statements constantly appear to the effect that Bergson or Boutroux or Whitehead or 1 White, Andrew D.,"A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," Appleton, New York, 1896.

some other metaphysician has signed a death certificate for Scientific Naturalism or Neo-mechanism, as the philosophers so kindly label the collective efforts of the humble workers who have solved some small portion of the problems confronting mankind. These announcements, like similar announcements of the past, are premature. The patients, despite their treatment by these Borgian physicians, remain sufficiently robust to continue recording the collapse of metaphysical hypotheses.