Update for 76629HEAD main

author: pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org> 2025-08-03 17:22:01 -0700
committer: pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org> 2025-08-03 17:22:01 -0700
commit: 3db690a1511c285d6b471ebb759740e856e799fc (patch)
tree: 72d9f488e2cab192ebc61d339b289c489e103078 /76629-h
4 files changed, 1714 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/76629-h/76629-h.htm b/76629-h/76629-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..232abee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76629-h/76629-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,1714 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+    <meta charset="UTF-8">
+    <title>
+      Gallio | Project Gutenberg
+    </title>
+    <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover">
+    <style>
+
+/* DACSoft styles */
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+
+/* General headers */
+h1 {
+    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+/* Chapter headers */
+h2 {
+    text-align: center;
+    font-weight: bold;
+    margin: .75em 0;
+}
+
+div.chapter {
+    page-break-before: always;
+}
+
+.nobreak {
+    page-break-before: avoid;
+}
+
+/* Indented paragraph */
+p {
+    margin-top: .51em;
+    margin-bottom: .49em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    text-indent: 1em;
+}
+
+/* Unindented paragraph */
+.noi {text-indent: 0em;}
+
+/* Centered unindented paragraph */
+.noic {
+    text-indent: 0em;
+    text-align: center;
+}
+
+/* Drop caps */
+p.cap {text-indent: 0em;}
+
+p.cap:first-letter {
+    float: left;
+    padding-right: 3px;
+    font-size: 250%;
+    line-height: 83%;
+}
+
+.x-ebookmaker p.cap:first-letter {
+    float: left;
+    padding-right: 3px;
+    font-size: 250%;
+    line-height: 83%;
+}
+
+/* Non-standard paragraph margins */
+.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}
+
+.pad2 {
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+}
+
+/* Horizontal rules */
+hr {
+    width: 33%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: 33.5%;
+    margin-right: 33.5%;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.chap {
+    width: 65%;
+    margin-left: 17.5%;
+    margin-right: 17.5%;
+}
+
+@media print {
+    hr.chap {
+        display: none;
+        visibility: hidden;
+    }
+}
+
+/* Physical book page and line numbers */
+.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+    /*  visibility: hidden;  */
+    position: absolute;
+    right: 3%;
+/*    left: 92%;  */
+    font-size: x-small;
+    font-style: normal;
+    font-weight: normal;
+    font-variant: normal;
+    text-align: right;
+    color: gray;
+} /* page numbers */
+
+/* Alignment */
+.right    {text-align: right;}
+
+/* Small fonts and lowercase small-caps */
+.smfont {
+    font-size: .8em;
+}
+
+/* Images */
+img {
+    max-width: 100%; /* no image to be wider than screen or containing div */
+    height:auto;     /* keep height in proportion to width */
+}
+
+.figcenter   {
+    margin: auto;
+    text-align: center;
+    page-break-inside: avoid;
+    max-width: 90%; /* div no wider than screen, even when screen is narrow */
+}
+
+/* Illustration classes */
+.illowe4 {width: 4em;}
+
+/* Footnotes and sidenotes */
+.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+
+.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+
+.fnanchor {
+    vertical-align: super;
+    font-size: .65em;
+    text-decoration: none;
+    white-space: nowrap;
+}
+
+/* Poetry */
+.poetry {
+    display: block;
+    text-align: left;
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+
+.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;}
+
+.poetry .verse {
+    padding-left: 3em;
+    text-indent: -3em;
+}
+
+/* Poetry indents */
+.poetry .indent0 {padding-left: 3em;}
+.poetry .indent1 {padding-left: 3.5em;}
+
+/* Transcriber's notes */
+.tnote {
+    background-color: #E6E6FA;
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+    padding: 0.5em;
+}
+
+.tntitle {
+    font-size: 1.25em;
+    font-weight: bold;
+    text-align: center;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+/* Title page borders and content. */
+.title {
+    font-size: 1.75em;
+    font-weight: bold;
+    text-align: center;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+.subtitle {
+    font-size: 1.5em;
+    text-align: center;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+.halftitle {
+    font-size: 1.25em;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+.author {
+    font-size: 1.25em;
+    text-align: center;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+    </style>
+</head>
+
+<body>
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76629 ***</div>
+
+
+<figure class="figcenter x-ebookmaker-drop" id="cover_sm">
+  <img class="x-ebookmaker-drop" src="images/cover_sm.jpg" alt="book cover" title="book cover">
+</figure>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p class="right halftitle">
+  <span class style="margin-right: 2em;">GALLIO</span><br>
+  <span style="margin-right: 3em;">OR</span><br>
+  THE TYRANNY<br>
+  <span style="margin-right: 3em;">OF</span><br>
+  <span style="margin-right: 1.5em;">SCIENCE</span></p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<h1>GALLIO</h1>
+
+<p class="noic">OR</p>
+
+<p class="noi subtitle">The Tyranny of Science</p>
+
+<p class="p2 noic">BY</p>
+
+<p class="noi author">J. W. N. SULLIVAN</p>
+
+<div class="pad2">
+<figure class="figcenter" id="logo">
+  <img class="illowe4" src="images/logo.jpg" alt="logo" title="logo">
+</figure>
+</div>
+
+<p class="noic">E. P. DUTTON &amp; CO. &#160;&#160; :: &#160;&#160; NEW YORK</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p class="noic">GALLIO, OR THE TYRANNY OF SCIENCE<br>
+COPYRIGHT 1928 BY E. P. DUTTON &amp; COMPANY<br>
+ALL RIGHTS RESERVED :: PRINTED IN U.S.A.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="SECTIONS">LIST OF SECTIONS</h2>
+
+
+<p class="noic"><a href="#1">1</a><br>
+<a href="#2">2</a><br>
+<a href="#3">3</a><br>
+<a href="#4">4</a><br>
+<a href="#5">5</a><br></p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span></p>
+
+<p class="noic halftitle">GALLIO</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span></p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span></p>
+
+<p class="noi title">GALLIO</p>
+<p class="noic">OR</p>
+<p class="noi subtitle">THE TYRANNY OF SCIENCE</p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="1">1</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="cap">There can be no doubt that the prestige
+of science has greatly increased of recent
+times. In the days when Dickens wrote <cite>The
+Mudfog Papers</cite> the man of science, to the
+general reading public, was a purely comic
+figure. After the man of science had knocked
+the bottom out of the Victorian universe
+with his theory of Natural Selection he inspired
+the respect we accord to whatever is
+both powerful and sinister. He was observed,
+warily and acutely, as an enemy. This
+reaction was perfectly justified, for science,
+as expounded to the populace by such men as
+Huxley and Tyndall, deprived life of all that
+had hitherto made it worth living. The
+gravamen of their offence was not that they
+made man an integral part of the animal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span>kingdom, but that they presented him with
+a universe that was entirely purposeless.
+Such a doctrine would probably come as a
+shock even to a disillusioned and emaciated
+Eastern Sage, but to the men of the Victorian
+age, almost every one of them brought up in
+an orthodox Christian household and filled
+with that belief in a wise Providence that
+comes of great material prosperity, it was
+nothing short of an outrage. Even the men
+of science themselves found their great discovery
+more than a little disconcerting. Nobody
+who reads them can fail to detect something
+strained, something occasionally almost
+frenzied, in their insistence on the duty
+of intellectual honesty. These men are, half
+the time, shouting aloud in order to hearten
+themselves. They were quite consciously
+martyrs to the truth. This is true, at any
+rate, of such men as Huxley and Clifford.
+There were many men of science, of course,
+who were not sufficiently alive to live in a
+universe of any description. Outside, their
+laboratories they had no perceptible existence.
+Many of them died simple Christians.
+But to all interested in such matters it became
+evident that the goal of science was the
+detailed explanation of man as the accidental
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span>outcome of “matter and motion”. Since the
+arguments of the man of science could not be
+met (for only science can cast out science)
+the only thing left was to abuse him. This
+was magnificently done by Nietzsche, and
+rather less magnificently by Dostoevsky and
+Tolstoi. Nietzsche pointed out that the man
+of science was not a human being. He was
+merely an instrument, the most costly, the
+most exquisite, the most easily tarnished of
+instruments. He was incapable of love; he
+was incapable of hate. His one purpose was
+to “reflect” such things as he was tuned to
+receive. The philosophy evolved by such a
+creature would be expressive of nothing but
+his own limitations. He would be incapable
+of understanding the problems that concerned
+a man. This was also the line taken, more
+or less, by Dostoevsky and Tolstoi, and it
+became very popular with artists of all kinds.
+Wordsworth’s scorn for the botanist became
+the general attitude towards all men of science.
+It must be admitted that, judging from
+biographies of scientific men, there is much
+to be said for this view. Their favourite
+authors appear to be Shakespeare and Ella
+Wheeler Wilcox: they are kind fathers and
+faithful husbands; in their social relations
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span>they are simple-minded snobs; and they are
+really amused by “lecture-room humour”. It
+seems unlikely that such people know much
+of the fierce vitality that sent Saints to rot
+on pillars and in dungeons, that sent martyrs
+to the stake, or even that weaker form of
+vitality that causes our Divorce Court judges
+to be overworked. That they can understand
+the universe, when it is obvious they
+do not understand Clapham, does not seem
+likely. That, briefly, was the case of the artist
+against the man of science. The artist
+was conscious of more things in heaven and
+earth, staring him in the face, than he believed
+the man of science had ever dreamt of
+in his philosophy.</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that the position to-day is
+rather different. It has become different
+since the War. It is probable, as we shall
+see later, that the War itself is partly responsible
+for the increased attention paid by
+the artist to science. But the influence was
+not direct. The artist was not transported
+with admiration for the men who could make
+poison-gas,&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor_1_1" href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> although he may have been more
+inclined to believe their philosophy that existence
+is meaningless. No, the change was,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span>I believe, due to Einstein: in this respect he
+must be likened to Newton and Darwin. The
+fact that his theory is completely unintelligible
+to the enormous majority of those who
+take an interest in it is not at all to its disadvantage.
+Rather the contrary. The artist
+is attracted by the theory, and respectful
+to it, not in the least because he understands
+it, but because he feels it is the result of a
+most unusual and most powerful <em>imaginative</em>
+effort. It gives him a new conception of the
+power of the human consciousness. This
+theory, he is convinced, has come from the
+heights. It is probable, as a matter of fact,
+he thinks this because he believes the theory
+to be about that mathematical platitude, a
+fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is
+a phrase to which imaginative people respond
+with quite extraordinary intensity. Its popularity
+is like that of giant telescopes, as was
+proved when a thousand pounds was recently
+offered for a simple explanation of it. It
+seems to be the phrase which, to the non-mathematician,
+is most pregnant with the
+vast and liberating unknown. If its meaning
+is ever generally understood, we may anticipate
+that interest in Einstein’s theory will
+decline. This will be a pity, because the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span>popular reaction to Einstein’s theory is perfectly
+justified. It <em>is</em> the most profound and
+original scientific theory that has ever been
+invented, and it displays a kind of imagination
+almost&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor_2_2" href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> unprecedented in the history of
+science. The feeling of the artist about it
+is right—it is vastly important to him.</p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+  <p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_1_1" href="#FNanchor_1_1" class="label">[1]</a> He ought to have been. See <cite>Callinicus</cite>, by J. B. S. Haldane.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Being convinced that the mathematician,
+at any rate, might be a poet, the respect of
+imaginative people for science in general has
+greatly increased. Many of them have decided
+that science is worth looking into. Unfortunately
+mathematical physics, the master
+science of the present day and the one which
+has furnished ideals for the other sciences,
+is hopelessly technical. It is agreed that a
+modern intelligent man, conscious of his responsibilities
+as an inhabitant of the twentieth
+century, should be familiar with “the
+scientific outlook”. But to acquire this outlook
+by brooding over the teachings and implications
+of modern physics is not easy.
+Thus although it is the recent astonishing
+development in physics which is responsible
+for the renewed public interest in science, it
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span>is other sciences that reap the benefit. We
+have poets and painters who study anthropology
+and literary critics who read books on
+the nervous system. The result appears to
+have been disastrous. At a time when the
+physicists are abandoning materialism the
+artists are accepting it. They are accepting,
+as the last word of science, a picture of the
+world that belongs to the early bad manner
+of physics. Again we hear, but this time
+from our literary men, that slightly hysterical
+insistence on the duty of intellectual honesty.
+It must be admitted that they have
+been predisposed to accept this view by the
+War. It is a curious but indisputable psychological
+fact, perhaps first noted by Tolstoi,
+that the sight of a large number of naked
+human bodies makes it difficult to believe
+that they are animated by immortal spirits
+possessing an eternal destiny. The sight of
+the “wastage” that occurred during the War,
+for those who saw any of it, produced the
+same curious effect. Also, a psychological
+fact that cannot be denied, it was difficult to
+preserve belief in the essential nobility of
+man when listening to patriotic non-combatants.
+There can be no doubt that the War,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span>for a large number of those connected with
+it, has made the acceptance of materialism
+easier. Even the creative artists, at one time
+great champions of the spiritual nature of
+man, are now sufficiently dubious about his
+nature to be reduced to impotence.</p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+  <p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_2_2" href="#FNanchor_2_2" class="label">[2]</a> I say “almost” because there was Bernhard Riemann and his
+disciple W. K. Clifford.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="2">2</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="cap">The notion that we live in a purposeless
+universe is so opposed to the mental
+habits we have inherited that it is a matter of
+the greatest difficulty to bear it constantly in
+mind. Most of the people who hold this
+belief to-day would not do so but for three
+reasons: the disillusionment caused by the
+War, their respect for science, and their belief
+that science preaches materialism. As
+for the War, that is an experience to which
+we must accommodate ourselves as best we
+may. It is consistent with the belief that
+man is a developing spirit, but it is certainly
+a proof that he is not very far developed.
+The respect for science is, I believe, on the
+whole rather overdone. The respect is a
+little excessive even when it relates to mathematical
+physics, but it becomes almost absurd
+when it relates to some other branches
+of science. I believe, for instance, that
+Freud’s form of psycho-analysis, some forms
+of behaviourism, and many of the statements
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span>of the eugenists really are as silly as they
+look. All that they have in common with
+such first-class mental activities as physics and
+chemistry is the name “science.” It is this
+name that secures for them such attention as
+they get from intelligent people who are not
+cranks. But even physics is a more provisional
+and more human thing than some romantic
+references to it would lead one to
+suppose. Even the tower of the mathematician,
+which Mr Bernard Shaw imagines to
+have been always unshaken, has been seriously
+disturbed on more than one occasion.
+The student of the history of science will not
+be too confident even of the “indubitable
+certainties” of physics when he reflects on the
+universal passion of belief that attached to
+the notion of a mechanical ether, for whose
+present absence from the universe some men
+of science are still inconsolable, and when he
+reflects on the fate that has overtaken that
+“most perfect and perfectly established law”,
+Newton’s law of gravitation. There are no
+indubitable certainties in science, a fact that
+we who are contemporary with the destruction
+of the Newtonian system are not likely
+to forget. There are only provisional hypotheses.
+It may even be, as Mr J. B. S.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span>Haldane prophesies, that physiology will one
+day invade and destroy mathematical physics,
+by which somewhat dark saying I suppose
+phenomena mathematically may be given up.
+Whether he means that or not, it is a possibility,
+as Professor Eddington has hinted.
+The scientific practitioner usually treats his
+hypotheses as tools, but to the layman they
+become dogmas. One is led to believe this
+by seeing that many of those who accept materialism
+on what they suppose to be scientific
+evidence are rendered acutely unhappy by
+their belief. A truer knowledge of the status
+of scientific theories would render this agony
+unnecessary. There are people with a natural
+leaning towards materialism, and science,
+preferably somewhat old-fashioned science,
+will give them quite sufficient grounds to indulge
+their propensity with complete intellectual
+honesty. But science does not, and
+never has, brought forward sufficient evidence
+to justify a man turning materialist
+against his will. And perhaps no man has
+ever done so. Perhaps one can take the
+agonies of modern poets too seriously. Many
+artists, not only small ones, have no real indwelling
+force such as a man like Beethoven
+obviously possessed. They are merely very
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span>impressionable and <em>adopt</em> an attitude towards
+life, and this attitude is accepted and maintained,
+not because they really think it is
+true, but because they derive strength from
+it. It gives them a centre from which they
+can work; it gives them a feeling of strength
+and completeness. The maintenance of their
+attitude towards life may become the condition
+that they exist and function as artists at
+all. Nevertheless, the attitude is maintained
+only by a constant effort of will, although,
+since the motive is self-preservation, the artist
+will nearly always think himself perfectly
+sincere. But I shall, without going into these
+refinements, take the unhappiness of our modern
+literary men at its face-value, those, that
+is, who believe that the universe is purposeless
+and think this belief is founded on scientific
+evidence.</p>
+
+<p>The point of view has been well put recently
+by Mr I. A. Richards,&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor_3_3" href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> a literary
+critic who thinks it possible that poetry may
+be destroyed by science. He speaks of the
+“neutralization of nature” which has been
+effected by science, and contrasts this with
+the “magical view” of the world that has
+hitherto been accepted by artists. What he
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span>means by this is that science reveals to us a
+universe quite indifferent to all human aspirations,
+whereas artists have hitherto assumed
+that man is of cosmic significance. The poet
+must learn to accept the scientific universe
+and give up believing in things like “inspiration”,
+“a reality deeper than the reality of
+science”, and so on. “Experience”, says Mr
+Richards, “is its own justification”, by which
+he appears to mean that experience just happens
+to be what it is by some kind of accident.
+It points to nothing beyond itself.
+The ground for this belief is not, in Mr
+Richards’ case, old-fashioned materialism.
+“It is not what the universe is made of but
+how it works, the law it follows, which
+makes knowledge of it incapable of spurring
+on our emotional responses.” This reminds
+one of the “iron laws” of the Victorian age,
+which many people found so depressing, although
+the logical connection between existence
+having conditions and existence being
+purposeless is a little hard to follow. But
+although the particular iron laws of the Victorians
+have gone, Mr Richards finds the
+theory of relativity no more cheering. “A
+god voluntarily or involuntarily subject to
+Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span>not make an emotional appeal and physics
+does not find it necessary to mention him.”
+Apparently it is the existence of any law at
+all that is resented: the poet can feel happy
+only in a world of pure miracle. I strongly
+doubt the correctness of Mr Richards’ diagnosis.&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor_4_4" href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>
+I am certain that not all poets
+have been as childish as that. No—the essential
+element in this general outlook is not that
+phenomena occur in an orderly way, but that
+man’s existence is not regarded as forming
+part of some universal purpose. The essential
+element is the same as in old-fashioned
+materialism, the “accidental collocations of
+atoms” theory. The emphasis was on the
+“accidental” not on the “atoms”. This becomes
+clear when Mr Richards describes the
+appropriate emotional reaction to his view.
+“A sense of desolation and uncertainty, of
+futility, of the baselessness of aspirations, of
+the vanity of endeavour, and a thirst for a
+life-giving water which seems suddenly to
+have failed, are the signs in consciousness of
+this necessary reorganization of our lives.”
+It is difficult to believe that this state of mind
+can be produced by the recognition of such
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span>facts as that unsupported stones always fall
+to the ground. But if Mr Richards is right,
+I suggest that the poets who are so depressed
+by law and order should study, besides the
+theory of relativity, Quantum Theory. They
+will find there much that is, at present, agreeably
+miraculous. But one need not fly to
+miracles to get rid of the bug-bear of “unalterable
+law”. It is only necessary to understand
+the true status of the unalterable laws,
+and this is just what relativity theory enables
+us to do.</p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+  <p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_3_3" href="#FNanchor_3_3" class="label">[3]</a> <cite>Science and Poetry</cite>, 1926.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+  <p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_4_4" href="#FNanchor_4_4" class="label">[4]</a> But possibly Mr Richards means that the scientific description
+does not include values. See <a href="#5">Section 5</a> of this essay.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="3">3</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="cap">The idea that there is a conflict between
+science and art, which is at bottom the
+idea that there is a conflict between science
+and mysticism, rests, I have suggested, upon
+an old-fashioned conception of the status of
+physics. The first duty of a man who bases
+his conclusions on science is to make sure
+that his science is up-to-date. The science
+that leads to the depressing conclusions
+I have just sketched is not up-to-date. Until
+a few years ago the physicist thought
+that the material universe he dealt with was
+a real, objectively existing universe in the
+sense that, in the absence of consciousness,
+it would be very much the same as it appeared
+to be. This universe was subject to laws,
+and these laws might conceivably have been
+different. There was no <i lang="fr">a priori</i>
+ reason, for
+instance, why the force of gravitation should
+not vary as the inverse cube of the distance.
+There was no <i lang="fr">a priori</i>
+ reason why matter and
+energy should be conserved. These were
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span>laws of governance of the material universe;
+their discovery had required much effort and
+the rejection of alternatives. Man was in
+no sense responsible for them: he happened
+to live in a universe governed by them. These
+were the iron laws of the Victorians and are
+the laws, apparently, that depress modern
+poets. One of the great discoveries of relativity
+theory is that these laws need be no
+more depressing than the laws of Euclidean
+geometry. No artist has felt his aspirations
+baseless because he cannot draw a circle
+whose circumference is six times its radius.
+He has no more right to despair because
+there is an inexorable law of gravitation.
+This has been made clear by Professor Eddington,
+whose mathematical development of
+relativity theory is of great philosophical importance,
+and would, in a more adequately
+educated community, be given more newspaper
+headlines than Tutankhamen. The
+real universe, according to relativity theory,
+is a four-dimensional world of point-events.
+Of the nature of point-events we know nothing.
+All that we require to know, for the
+purposes of physics, is that it takes four
+numbers to specify a point-event uniquely,
+and that some kind of structure—a minimum
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span>amount of structure—may be postulated of
+the world of point-events. We then find,
+purely by mathematical processes, that certain
+characteristics of this world will have
+the quality of permanence. The mind,
+faced with this world of evanescent point-events,
+selects those characteristics that are
+permanent as being of special interest. This
+is merely because the mind happens to be
+that kind of thing. As a consequence of this
+predilection of the mind there arises space
+and time, matter, and the laws of nature.
+There arises, in fact, the “objective universe”.
+The real world of point-events has
+many other characteristics to which the mind
+pays no attention. A different principle of
+selection, exercised on the same total world
+of point-events, would result in an utterly
+different universe, a universe that is, for us,
+quite unimaginable. And the universe that
+the mind has selected and constructed from
+the world of point-events does not in the least
+depend on what the point-events <em>are</em>. All
+that is necessary is that a certain minimum
+amount of structure should be attributed to
+the world of point-events. It is from the
+relations between the point-events, quite independent
+of their substance, that the mind
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span>has created the material universe and its
+laws. These laws, it must be emphasized,
+are <em>necessary</em> consequences of the mind’s
+selective action. They are necessary in the
+same sense that the sum of the three interior
+angles of a Euclidean triangle must be two
+right angles. Of the underlying reality deduced
+by physics we can say almost nothing.
+It may be what Newton called the “sensorium”
+of God, and the point-events may be
+his thoughts. They do not succeed one another
+in time for, at this stage of analysis,
+space and time are “merged in one”. This
+perfectly gratuitous hypothesis may appeal
+to some mystics, for our thoughts, considered
+as belonging to the world of point-events,
+would be part of the thoughts of God. It
+would be indeed true that in him we lived and
+moved and had our being. We see, then,
+the limitations of physics. All that depends
+on the <em>structure</em> of reality belongs to physics,
+including other universes than ours. All
+that depends upon the <em>substance</em> of reality
+for ever lies outside physics. As to the
+actual universe we live in, why we should
+regard it as actual is a problem for psychology.
+The difference between the actual and
+the non-actual is a distinction conferred by
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span>our minds. It is very probable that the
+whole movement of the universe in time is
+also contributed by our minds. It seems to
+be true that events do not take place—we
+come across them. Why we do not know the
+future is again a question of psychology.
+Ignorance of the future, like the existence of
+the material universe, is a clue to the constitution
+of our minds. This has a bearing on
+the question of “purpose” in the universe.
+The conception of purpose seems to suppose
+a process in time, and therefore may be a
+totally irrelevant idea when applied to
+reality.</p>
+
+<p>The philosophical implications of relativity
+theory will doubtless take a long time to
+work out. The four-dimensional universe
+of point-events is something that can be
+argued about but it is, to use an old-fashioned
+phrase, “inconceivable”. Mankind, excepting
+professional logicians, never remains
+content with the inconceivable. A purely
+logical conclusion is not enough; it has to be
+grasped imaginatively, by which I do not
+necessarily mean that it has to be pictured.
+To become familiar with a theory does not
+merely mean that one is able, as a form of
+mental wire-walking, to slip nimbly back and
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span>forth over the logical connections of the
+structure. It means taking it into oneself in
+some indefinable manner—becoming “intimate”
+with it. Only when a theory is “realized”,
+as we say, do we feel that we truly
+understand it. Ideas, points of view, that we
+were able to see only in flashes, become part
+of our normal intellectual equipment. The
+process may well be called a growth of consciousness.
+There are ideas which our consciousness,
+when it first approaches them is,
+as it were, too flabby to grasp. We first have
+to exercise our mental muscles. Every student
+of a line of thought such as mathematics,
+which is rather outside our normal
+preoccupations, becomes aware of an actual
+change in his mental powers. Notions so
+abstract that at first they seemed almost
+meaningless gradually become perfectly clear
+and permanent additions to one’s mental resources.
+Students of musical composition
+find that their capacity for mentally hearing
+a number of parts rapidly increases. In some
+cases it is almost as if a new faculty of the
+mind were born and developed.</p>
+
+<p>The physics of recent years has made
+heavy demands upon our capacity for realization.
+The electron theory, with its analysis
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span>of matter into “disembodied charges of electricity”
+required, for its understanding, the
+breaking up of old habits of thought. To
+young students the idea was, at first, extremely
+baffling—almost nonsense. To realize
+it one had to make more abstract one’s
+idea of matter until the notion of “substance”
+was replaced by the notion of “behaviour”.
+Anything that behaved in the way characteristic
+of matter was matter. The central idea
+of the restricted principle of relativity, the
+idea of different time-systems, was still more
+difficult to grasp. In this case we had to
+become convinced that our ordinary idea of
+simultaneity, an idea which seemed perfectly
+clear, was really a bogus idea. The attacks
+on the theory of relativity show, for the most
+part, merely that their authors are unable to
+abandon old habits of thought. With the
+complete theory of relativity, as we have it
+now, the task of adjustment has become enormous.
+There cannot be, even now, more than
+very few scientific men who naturally approach
+a problem from the point of view of
+relativity theory. In most cases a conscious
+effort of mental preparation is required, such
+as occurs when a novelist, sitting down to
+continue his work, deliberately thinks himself
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span>into the appropriate frame of mind. Yet
+doubtless the next generation or so will think
+in terms of relativity theory as naturally as
+we thought in terms of the Newtonian system.
+I would not hold it as impossible that
+the human mind may come to realize, imaginatively
+as well as logically, the four-dimensional
+space-time continuum. But it seems
+that the mind of the physicist, at any rate,
+will have to do more than become familiar
+with relativity theory. It will have to accommodate
+itself somehow to the quantum
+theory for, although we can write down the
+laws which govern sub-atomic phenomena
+and make deductions from them, these laws
+are, at present, unintelligible. An electron
+behaves as if it had foreknowledge of what
+it was about to do and could make the mathematical
+calculations necessary to achieve its
+end. We cannot admit this to be possible,
+and we can only suppose that the difficulty
+arises from the way we think about things.
+We must learn to think in a different way,
+and what the consequences of that new way
+of thinking will be no one can say. We
+know very little of the possibilities of the
+development of the human consciousness.</p>
+
+<p>The proper attitude to-day in which the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span>problem of man’s place in nature should be
+approached is one of bewilderment and humility.
+Both the material universe and the
+mind of man are very mysterious things. At
+the present time it is only an inadequate mind
+which is confident that it knows what is impossible.
+There was never a time when
+hearty dogmatism and loud confidence were
+more out of place. We must think as best
+we can, of course. The next step upward
+in the development of the human consciousness
+will not be achieved by either slovenly
+credulity or slovenly scepticism, but only by
+a terrifying mental travail. I see a human
+mind as some multiple plant, here in full
+flower, there still in the bud. Different
+minds have flowered in different ways. Beethoven’s
+<cite lang="de">Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen
+an die Gottheit</cite> points to the complete
+development in him of something which those
+of us who understand him have only in embryo.
+In those who do not understand him
+it is non-existent. And the great mystics
+ought at least to make us doubt whether it
+is we who are not deficient rather than they
+who are mad. It is rash to dismiss our exceptional
+moods, our strange flashes of what
+seems like insight, as mere whimsies without
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span>significance. They may be faint stirrings of
+the next thing that is destined to become fully
+alive. All that we can say is that the mind
+lives in a universe largely of its own creation,
+and that the universe, together with the
+mind, will change in ways we cannot foresee.</p>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="4">4</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="cap">We have seen that the philosophy that
+regards man as a meaningless accident
+in an alien universe receives no support from
+modern physics. The true ground of that
+philosophy is now, as it always has been, the
+apparently meaningless misery that forms
+part of life. It is not by mistaking matter
+for an ultimate reality or by pondering on
+the fact that laws of nature exist that we can
+conclude that man is of no cosmic significance.
+That conclusion can be reached logically
+only on the basis of arbitrary assumptions.
+But the conclusion is not, in fact,
+reached in that way: it is reached through
+feeling. And it cannot be transcended by a
+logical process, but only in virtue of a mystic
+experience.</p>
+
+<p>The old materialistic outlook, although it
+no longer has any scientific justification, is still
+active in many branches of science. It has
+made popular certain types of explanation
+and is the cause of the direction pursued by
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span>certain researches. In particular it has led
+to a great deal of useless or misleading work
+being done in the attempt to reduce qualitative
+to quantitative differences.</p>
+
+<p>A good deal of what passes for scientific
+work amongst eugenists and psychologists
+consists of attempts to match things which
+are qualitatively different. This is the favourite
+procedure of that kind of psycho-analysis
+which reduces everything to sex.
+Discrimination is fatiguing; also, it makes
+appeal to sensibilities which many earnest
+“scientific workers” do not possess. It is
+much easier to make measurements than to
+know exactly what you are measuring.</p>
+
+<p>To give up the ideal of measurability
+would be equivalent, to many people, to
+abandoning “science” altogether. “Science
+is measurement”, we are informed. This
+ideal is borrowed from physics, the science
+whose aim it is to give mathematical descriptions
+of phenomena. But we may have
+branches of knowledge that may fairly be
+called science although they are not mathematical.
+We may find it necessary to use
+concepts that cannot be mathematically defined.
+It may not be mere lack of knowledge
+which prevents biology, for instance, from
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span>being a mathematical science. It may be impossible
+in the nature of things ever to give
+the equation to a chicken. But the bias towards
+measurability is very strong and has
+led to measurements being made, particularly
+in psychology, where we really have no clear
+idea at all as to what is being measured.
+When, for instance, Professor Karl Pearson
+compares fraternal resemblances in such
+things as stature and arm-length with fraternal
+resemblances in intelligence and conscientiousness,
+what exactly is he doing? A
+great deal of what is called experimental psychology
+impresses one as being nothing but
+the application of an inappropriate technique
+by exceptionally innocent and unworldly
+“scientists”. The methods found so successful
+in physics are applied to everything under
+the sun. It is pretty obvious that this is not
+due to some mystic, Pythagorean conviction
+that number is the principle of all things, but
+merely to mental inertia. Many “intelligence
+tests” and many of the statistical results obtained
+by the eugenists impress the ordinary
+person as being laughably superficial. In
+their eagerness to “measure” something our
+researcher seem to lose their ordinary common
+sense, whereas their subject really requires
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span>the subtlety and sympathy of a very
+good novelist. It is amazing the number of
+dull, unimaginative people who find a congenial
+life work in prosecuting researches in
+pseudo-science. The ordinary public, unfortunately,
+does not discriminate between one
+kind of science and another, with the result
+that the contempt they rightly feel for some
+so-called men of science is apt to be extended
+to all scientific men. Thus Mr G. K. Chesterton,
+having heard that some “scientists”
+explain the shape of a church spire as symbolical
+of phallic worship, begins to doubt
+the whole Royal Society. It must be remembered
+that in science real insight and imagination
+are as rare as in any other human activity.
+In the clear-cut sciences, such as physics
+and chemistry, where the right way of attacking
+problems is known and where an elaborate
+technique has been built up, there is
+plenty of room for valuable routine work.
+All the difficult preliminary work of getting
+right conceptions and principles has been
+done. The routine worker can measure the
+electric capacities of different condensers because
+the difficult notion of electric capacity
+has been made clear by his masters. But the
+routine worker in psychology who measures
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span>“intelligence” is not doing anything definite
+at all. His subject is not yet ripe for the application
+of such exact methods. In this way
+the prestige of physics has exerted a harmful
+influence on the study of psychology. It
+is true that some experimental psychologists
+are becoming aware of the fact that they do
+not always know what they are measuring.
+There are controversies as to what a given
+set of measurements has measured, and some
+measurements seem to be undertaken on the
+off-chance that a meaning will some day be
+found for them. It is not suggested that all
+experimental psychology is of this kind, but
+it is certainly true that many psychological
+papers, complete with correlation coefficients
+and “curves” of all kinds, wear an air of precision
+to which they have no real claim.</p>
+
+<p>A more definitely materialistic bias is observable
+in the attempts to explain psychological
+happenings in terms of physiology.
+The result is that learned and acute men,
+caught in the jungle of neurology, painfully
+fight their way out with some such epoch-making
+discovery as that one learns a subject
+more rapidly if one is interested in it. This
+result, which is supposed to be incompatible
+with the purely physiological theory of the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span>mind, owes all its difficulty to that in compatibility.
+Otherwise it is a perfectly obvious
+fact of experience. If it were not for
+the prestige achieved by materialism in the
+Victorian age it is probable that psychology
+would be very much further advanced than
+it is. But the side-tracking influence of that
+philosophy has meant that psychologists have
+had painfully to discover the obvious. But
+if materialism, in small doses, delays the
+recognition of the obvious, it does, when fully
+developed, deny the obvious. This is what
+the behaviourists do. They deny that we
+think or that we can form images in our
+minds. The only possible answer to this theory
+is a satire, as when Voltaire answered
+the theory that in this world everything is
+for the best in the best of all possible worlds
+by writing <cite>Candide</cite>. But in this queer modern
+world behaviourism, instead of being
+greeted with laughter, is answered carefully
+and politely, apparently in the spirit in which
+Monsieur Bergeret shook hands with the
+<i lang="fr">vers libriste</i> poet, “for fear of wronging
+beauty in disguise”. The position of the
+ordinary man in face of these theories is,
+nevertheless, a difficult one. Behaviourism
+may sound to him nonsense, but so does non-Euclidean
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span>geometry. His natural reaction
+would be to class both of them with the theory
+that the English are descended from the
+lost ten tribes of Israel. Nevertheless, non-Euclidean
+geometry is not nonsense. In these
+circumstances it is probably fortunate that
+there are people patient enough to prepare
+careful and reasoned refutations of any
+whimsy that anybody cares to put forth. The
+extraordinary predisposition of the learned
+towards concocting merely silly theories must
+always be borne in mind. Studious persons
+often have a very small range of experience
+of life; they have nothing like so broadly
+based a sense of probability as the ordinary
+man of the world possesses, which is why so
+many of them seem curiously innocent and
+gullible. The beaming and genial professor
+expounding his theory often seems curiously
+like a child playing with toys. The mixture
+of amusement and respect with which the
+world watches him is, on the whole, the correct
+reaction. As long as he is dealing with
+the incomprehensible one may grant him authority.
+Nobody dreams of questioning astronomical
+pronouncements about forthcoming
+eclipses. But when he is talking about the
+very stuff of our ordinary experience, as in
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span>psychology, we do wrong to accept the obviously
+absurd for fear that it cannot be as
+silly as it looks. A great deal of what is
+called psycho-analysis, for instance, is merely
+silly. Only people singularly deficient in
+common-sense and completely lacking in a
+sense of humour could have invented anything
+so preposterous. Undoubtedly some
+pathological states are of sexual origin, but
+the lengths to which the theory has been carried
+and the kind of interpretations that are
+given make the development of psycho-analysis
+one of the greatest psychological curiosities
+of our time. Whole-hearted belief in
+psycho-analysis certainly points to the existence
+of a complex. As with any other complex,
+it is defended by arguments to which
+none except those who are similarly afflicted
+can attach the slightest validity. The complex
+is strongly materialistic, not in the sense
+that everything is reduced to “matter and
+motion”, but in the sense that the lowest
+human activities are made explanatory of all
+the rest. One often finds, associated with a
+belief in materialism, a desire to deny any
+form of spiritual excellence. The ostensible
+motive is simplification, as when material
+substances are reduced to a small number of
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span>chemical elements; but it is usually obvious,
+from the forced explanations that are attempted,
+that the real motive is something
+very different. Much, of course, must be attributed
+to insensitiveness, as we see when
+we turn to psycho-analytic explanations of
+works of art. The extraordinary force of
+the psycho-analysts’ complex is well shown
+by the sort of arguments they find convincing.
+Thus they may profess to show that artistic
+tastes never exist without suppressed sexual
+desires. Their way of establishing this fact,
+which is chiefly by asserting it, is comparatively
+rational. But they then proceed to the
+statement that a taste for art is merely a disguised
+form of sexual desire. They might
+as well say that it is a disguised form of
+hunger, since artists are quite as notorious
+for being hungry as for being erotic, and
+artistic tastes are never found to exist in a
+man who takes no nourishment.</p>
+
+<p>Not only much modern psychology, but
+some other modern sciences such as comparative
+religion, are prone to a certain fallacy
+that may be called the fallacy of “explanation
+by origins”. This kind of explanation
+has been made popular by the theory of evolution,
+and the fallacy consists in supposing
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span>that to give the historical antecedents of a
+thing is to give an analysis of that thing.
+Thus, some authorities suppose that by showing
+that religion has developed from primitive
+magic rites, they have thereby proved
+that religion is nothing but a disguised form
+of magic. One might as well say that an oak-tree
+is a disguised form of an acorn, or that
+a man is a disguised form of an amoeba.
+But this error is too glaring to be committed
+by more than a small percentage of our modern
+“thinkers”. A much more insidious danger
+is that this type of explanation leads one
+to under-estimate the complexity of the thing
+to be explained. There is a tendency to neglect
+those factors in the final product which
+cannot be traced in its historical antecedents.
+This is one form of the widespread error of
+undue simplification. No human mind can
+deal exhaustively with concrete facts. Every
+natural entity, whether it be a flower or a
+nation, contains far too many factors for
+thought to grasp it completely. The art of
+human thinking is to make useful abstractions.
+Any man is a very complicated creature.
+All the artists and scientists of the
+world could not describe him exhaustively.
+But for the purposes of war every man under
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span>a certain military rank was regarded as a
+physical structure supporting weapons and a
+stomach on two legs. This abstraction was
+useful for the purposes for which it was invented.
+A somewhat different abstraction is
+required when a man is considered as a voter.
+When a man is considered as a “hand” or a
+“worker” it is found that slightly more complicated
+abstractions are required. In fact,
+the great fault of economic theory has been
+that its “economic man” was too simple an
+abstraction. The economist left out certain
+factors in his conception of man, with the
+result that his plans, when applied to real
+men, do not work. I am suggesting that the
+sciences which ape physics suffer, amongst
+other things, from inadequate abstractions.
+This is not surprising, for there is every reason
+to suppose that the extraordinary difficulties
+experienced by physics itself, at the
+present day, are due to the same cause. An
+analysis of this position will show us the direction
+of the probable future development
+of science and help us to see in what consists
+the importance of the arts.</p>
+
+
+<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop">
+<div class="chapter">
+
+<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span></p>
+
+<h2 class="nobreak" id="5">5</h2>
+</div>
+
+<p class="cap">Many people, including some scientific
+men, take science too seriously. They
+think that science gives a far more comprehensive
+picture of reality than it really does.
+There have been philosophers who have gone
+so far as to suppose that those factors of
+experience that science does not find it necessary
+to talk about do not really exist. This
+is the basis of the belief that colours, sounds,
+and scents have no “objective” existence;
+they exist only in the mind, whereas such
+qualities as mass and extension are supposed
+to exist independently of the mind. It is true
+that science does not find it necessary to refer
+to colours, sounds, and scents in giving its
+description of nature, whereas it does find it
+necessary to refer to mass and extension. But
+that does not prove that the former qualities
+are not as real as the latter, are not as indubitably
+part of the universe. The scientific
+concepts have by no means proved themselves
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span>adequate to account for the whole of experience.
+Nearly everything of real importance
+to man lies at present outside science. The
+fact is that science was undertaken as an intellectual
+adventure: it was an attempt to
+find out how far nature could be described
+in mathematical terms. Certain primary conceptions—time,
+space, mass, force, and so on—all
+of which can be defined mathematically,
+were adopted, and it became a highly absorbing
+game to find out how much of what
+goes on around us could be described, mathematically,
+in terms of these conceptions. The
+success of this effort has been so astonishing
+that some scientific men have forgotten to be
+astonished. They have come to take it for
+granted that a complete mathematical description
+of the world should be possible.
+This assumption is not a rational one: it is a
+pure act of faith. The great founders of the
+scheme made no such mistake: they were
+quite aware of the precarious nature of their
+enterprise. Thus, Newton, the greatest and
+most successful of them all, says that, if they
+find the mathematical method does not work,
+they must try a different method. The mathematical
+method, which is the very essence of
+modern science, has, however, worked splendidly.
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span>From the time of its origination in
+the seventeenth century until the present day
+it has had no serious rival. The ancient
+æsthetic principle, which led to the conclusion
+that the planets moved in circles because
+the circle is the only perfect figure, is still
+used by theosophists, but not by men of science.
+Similarly the old moralistic principle,
+which explained the fact of water rising in a
+pump by saying that nature abhorred a vacuum,
+possibly lingers on only in such superstitions
+as that sunlight puts the fire out. In
+more modern times the only notorious rival
+of the Newtonian method was the dialectic
+method of Hegel, who evolved the laws of
+the universe from his inner consciousness.
+But the best-known result of this method,
+that there could not be more planets than
+were known to exist, happened to be published
+on the very day that a new planet was
+discovered. The mathematical method, then,
+is at the present day without a rival. But,
+although we cannot at present imagine what
+could replace the mathematical method, we
+must be careful not to exaggerate the significance
+of the results that have been achieved
+by it. For these results depend not only on
+the method, but also on the material the
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span>method has to work with. And there is good
+reason to suppose, in the present state of
+physics, that the material with which science
+has worked hitherto is turning out to be not
+quite satisfactory.</p>
+
+<p>This material is chiefly the Newtonian set
+of abstractions. Newton postulated, as the
+fundamental constituents out of which the
+perceived universe is built up, Space, Time,
+and Matter. Space and time he regarded as
+absolute and as quite independent of matter.
+Matter was an enduring substance that simply
+inhabited space and time. The analysis
+of these conceptions has resulted in the Einstein
+theory, in which neither space, time,
+nor matter are fundamental. The interesting
+thing about this analysis, from our present
+point of view, is that it shows clearly what
+arbitrary elements are present in the scientific
+description of the universe. For we must
+remember that moral and æsthetic elements
+were ruled out of the real universe simply
+because science did not find it necessary to
+mention them. The foundation stones of the
+scientific edifice, namely space, time, and matter,
+were supposed to be the only realities.
+Everything else was a sort of illusion. Men
+who must have been theory-mad soberly
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span>maintained that little particles of matter
+wandering about purposelessly in space and
+time produced our minds, our hopes, and
+fears, the scent of the rose, the colours of
+the sunset, the songs of the birds, and our
+knowledge of the little particles themselves.
+The sole realities were the little wandering
+particles and the space and time they wandered
+in. The existence of everything else
+depended on the mind, and was inconceivable
+without the mind. It is interesting, therefore,
+that science has now reached a position
+where space, time, and matter also depend
+on the mind. In giving a scientific description
+of the universe Einstein does not find it
+necessary to begin with space, time, and matter.
+These entities become “derivative”.
+The universe becomes more spectral than
+ever if we are going to adopt the materialist
+principle that what depends on the mind does
+not really exist. Even the universe of wandering
+particles is comparatively cosy compared
+with this modern universe of undefinable
+“point-events”. But if we do not adopt
+the materialist principle we may assert that
+moral and æsthetic values are as much a part
+of the real universe as anything else, and that
+the reason why science does not find it necessary
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span>to mention them is not because they are
+not there but because science is a game played
+according to certain rules, and those rules
+have excluded these values from the outset.
+The life-insurance actuary may, for his purposes,
+neglect many things about men, and
+yet calculate, quite correctly, what percentage
+of them will die at forty. But he has not
+proved that the qualities he has neglected do
+not exist simply because they do not come in
+to upset his calculations. A politician finds
+that he has to base his calculations on quite
+different aspects of mankind from those
+found satisfactory by the actuary. In the
+same way, a mountain is a different thing to
+a poet from what it is to a man of science.
+For the kind of understanding of the universe
+that the man of science is after, the
+mountain is merely a heap of certain kinds of
+matter weighing so many millions of tons.
+The poet, who is after a different kind of
+vision, finds it necessary to take into account
+quite other factors which enter into his total
+experience of the mountain. The scientist
+may also experience emotions of awe and reverence
+in the presence of the mountain, but
+for the purposes of his science these factors
+of his experience may be neglected. He
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span><em>abstracts</em> from the total concrete fact of his
+experience of the mountain. The mountain,
+as he describes it in the scientific paper he
+proceeds to write, is a mere pale shadow of
+the real mountain; he probably leaves it indistinguishable
+from any other mountain that
+happens to weigh the same, just as to the life-insurance
+actuary all men of forty are exactly
+alike. If we believe that the factors in experience
+that the scientific man neglects are
+quite as real as those he takes into account,
+it becomes a matter for wonder that science
+is possible. How is it that science forms a
+closed system—that nothing from the worlds
+it neglects ever comes in to disturb it?</p>
+
+<p>It is one of the great services of relativity
+theory to philosophy that it provides an answer
+to this question. The answer is that the
+entities discussed by physics are defined in
+terms of one another. The three hundred
+years of building up exact science really
+amounts, in the last analysis, to doing what
+the dictionary compiler did when he defined
+a violin as a small violoncello and a violoncello
+as a large violin. Of course, if this
+statement were literally true, science would
+give us no information about the universe at
+all. Nevertheless, the statement is true
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span>about the actual procedure of science, and it
+is in virtue of this procedure that science
+forms a closed system. But what is left out
+of this description is the scientist himself.
+The mysterious process which is not taken
+into account in this description of the scientific
+method is the process by which the consciousness
+of the scientist makes contact with
+the entities he is talking about. In deducting
+the world from “point-events”, for instance,
+we begin by talking about something
+we have no direct cognisance of, namely
+point-events. From point-events we deduce
+“potentials”—again a mere word. But from
+potentials we deduce “matter”, and here we
+are talking of something of which we have
+direct knowledge. Similarly, the circular definition
+of violin and violoncello tells us nothing
+as it stands. But to a man who can identify
+one of these entities, to a man who has
+ever seen a violin, it gives genuine information.</p>
+
+<p>We need not be surprised, therefore, that
+nothing from the outside ever seems to disturb
+the equanimity that reigns within the
+closed system of physics. The abstractions
+with which it begins are all it ever has to deal
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span>with. There are no subsequent fresh contacts
+with reality. If the region covered by relativity
+theory embraced the whole of physics
+it would seem that, so far as physical science
+is concerned, we knew all that there is to be
+known. But it is notorious that, of recent
+years, an entirely new set of phenomena has
+been discovered in physical science. These
+phenomena arise when we consider, not matter
+in bulk but matter in its smallest particles.
+These phenomena are, at present, strictly incomprehensible.
+The celebrated quantum
+theory provides us with rules for dealing
+with some of them, but does not make them
+intelligible. It seems that science has here
+reached its limits. Professor Eddington has
+even hinted that these phenomena may indicate
+that the universe is finally irrational,
+that is, that the attempt to describe nature
+mathematically will have to be given up.
+This is a possibility that Newton foresaw.
+But it seems more likely that our present
+state of bewilderment has a different cause.
+That cause, we shall probably find, is the insufficiency
+of the abstractions hitherto used
+in science. We have to go back to the concrete
+facts of experience and build up a
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span>richer, fuller set of abstractions. Physics is
+now paying the penalty of inadequate abstraction.
+In particular, it must revise its notions
+of space, time, and substance. This revision
+is quite independent of the Einstein theory,
+and is made necessary, not by that theory
+but by the quantum theory. A first attempt
+at this revision has been made by that great
+mathematical philosopher, Professor Whitehead.&#x2060;<a id="FNanchor_5_5" href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
+We need not deal with his investigation,
+which is at present in a highly technical
+state. The space and time of the new theory
+are interconnected and do not consist of independent
+volumes and instants. Every volume
+of space has reference to the whole of space,
+and every moment of time refers both to the
+past and the future. Hence both memory
+and expectation are given a rational basis.
+On the old view, as Hume pointed out, there
+is no reason whatever to suppose that the
+order of nature should continue. Why do we
+expect that the force of gravity will be in
+existence to-morrow? There was no <em>reason</em>
+at all for this expectation or for any other.
+That is to say, the whole of science itself was
+based on blind faith. The new foundations
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span>of science make science itself a rational activity.
+As for the notion of “substance”, Professor
+Whitehead proposes to replace it by
+the notion of “organism”. We may imagine
+an electron, for instance, as a repeated pattern
+of events. One of the great difficulties
+of the quantum phenomena is that an electron
+seems to pass from one place to another without
+passing through the intervening space.
+On the basis of the new abstractions this difficulty
+can be overcome. We have to imagine
+an electron as requiring a certain time to
+manifest itself—just as a tune does.</p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+  <p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_5_5" href="#FNanchor_5_5" class="label">[5]</a> <cite>Science and the Modern World.</cite></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>From our present point of view, however,
+the chief interest attaching to these new
+foundations for science is the place occupied
+in them by the intuitions of the poets. Mr
+Richards, literary critic, tells us that the poets
+must learn from science; Professor Whitehead,
+mathematician and physicist, tells us
+that science must learn from the poets. Instead
+of the poet having to realize that his
+intuitions are illusory and belong to a childish,
+<i lang="fr">démodé</i>
+ view of the world, it is the scientific
+man who must realize that his abstractions
+are too thin and narrow to be any
+longer useful, and that the poet makes closer
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span>contact with reality. When Wordsworth
+says:</p>
+
+<div class="poetry">
+  <div class="stanza">
+    <div class="verse indent0">“Ye Presences of Nature in the sky</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">And on the earth! Ye Visions of the hills!</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">And Souls of lonely places! can I think</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">A vulgar hope was yours when ye employed</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">Such ministry, when ye through many a year</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">Haunting me thus among my boyish sports,</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">On caves and trees, upon the woods and hills,</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">Impressed upon all forms the characters</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">Of danger or desire; and thus did make</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">The surface of the universal earth</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">With triumph and delight, with hope and fear</div>
+    <div class="verse indent1">Work like a sea?...”</div>
+  </div>
+</div>
+
+<p class="noi">he is not, according to Professor Whitehead,
+expressing fantasies that the strong-minded
+realist can afford to neglect: he is describing
+the actual concrete facts of experience, facts
+which, says Professor Whitehead, “are distorted
+in the scientific analysis”. It is the
+artist not the scientist who deals most adequately
+with reality. It is the man of science,
+taking his pale abstractions for the only
+realities, who dwells in dream-land.</p>
+
+<p>So far as we can see at present, however,
+science cannot abandon its method. It cannot
+deal with the whole concrete fact: it
+must continue to make abstractions. But
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span>the present <em>impasse</em> in scientific theory is an
+indication that it must go back to the beginning
+and include more factors of the concrete
+fact in its abstractions. It seems likely that,
+in doing so, it will have to presuppose a philosophy
+very different from the materialism
+hitherto current amongst scientific men. The
+world will have to be regarded as an evolutionary
+process, where “patterns of value”
+emerge. It will have to be regarded as an
+interconnected whole, and the separation of
+mind from matter, and mind from mind, will
+have to be replaced by a conception which
+regards these distinctions, in their present
+form, as unreal. One very desirable result
+of this transformation will be that the arts
+will be taken seriously. The old outlook did
+not regard values as inherent in reality. They
+were merely expressive of the accidental human
+constitution, but had no cosmic significance.
+Art existed to provide a unique thrill,
+called the “æsthetic emotion”. On the new
+outlook the function of the arts is to communicate
+knowledge and, moreover, the most
+valuable kind of knowledge. Art, much
+more than science, expresses the concrete
+facts of experience in their actuality. Music,
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span>in particular, finds its highest function in revealing
+to us the possibilities of the spirit of
+man himself. The music of such a man as
+Beethoven is a revelation of existence from
+the vantage point of a higher consciousness.
+It is, we may hope, prophetic of the future
+development of the race. Not only art, but
+morals, acquire vastly greater importance on
+the new outlook. Morals are no longer a
+purely private concern, expressive of a particular
+human constitution in an alien, strictly
+non-moral universe. Men are no longer justified
+in believing that their only duty is to
+preserve their self-respect and to make the
+most of their opportunities.</p>
+
+<p>Science, in view of our increased knowledge
+of its aims and powers, can no longer
+be presented to us as a tyrant. Science assumes
+certain fundamental principles and entities,
+and there is an arbitrary element in
+these assumptions. What science does not
+assume does not thereby not exist. It gives,
+and it appears that it must forever give, a
+<em>partial</em> description of the universe. The fact
+that the elements of reality it leaves out do
+not come in to disturb it is no presumption
+against the existence of these elements. For
+<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span>science forms a closed system simply because
+it employs the device of cyclic definition. The
+teachings of science, so far as the spiritual
+problems of men are concerned, need no
+longer be regarded as stultifying: they are
+merely irrelevant.</p>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap">
+<div class="tnote">
+<p class="noi tntitle">Transcriber’s Notes:</p>
+
+<p class="smfont">A List of Sections has been provided for the convenience of the
+   reader, and is granted to the public domain.</p>
+
+<p class="smfont">Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.</p>
+
+<p class="smfont">Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76629 ***</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+
+
diff --git a/76629-h/images/cover.jpg b/76629-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6920d1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76629-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/76629-h/images/cover_sm.jpg b/76629-h/images/cover_sm.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af24341
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76629-h/images/cover_sm.jpg
diff --git a/76629-h/images/logo.jpg b/76629-h/images/logo.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..71d7f87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76629-h/images/logo.jpg
author	pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org>	2025-08-03 17:22:01 -0700
committer	pgww <pgww@lists.pglaf.org>	2025-08-03 17:22:01 -0700
commit	3db690a1511c285d6b471ebb759740e856e799fc (patch)
tree	72d9f488e2cab192ebc61d339b289c489e103078 /76629-h