But it was not the basic idea that was faulty. It was the presentation which suffered because the author lacked formal training in certain fields that figure prominently in the thesis. This, I believe, has now been corrected and a fresh attempt to communicate the central idea seems justified. One of the main stumbling blocks to early acceptance has been thoroughly swept away by subsequent research. The thesis contains a simple concept, the kind of concept which is either beautifully true and correspondingly useful, or is bound to become self-evidently false and will simply die a natural death.
Every year supplies new evidence for the essential truthfulness of it.
Yet even if it should, after all, prove to be mistaken, it can still be of real value as a working hypothesis. It is not so much false theory as mistaken observation of fact that is dangerous. Now, it is obvious that in such a wide ranging thesis as this turns out to be, there are bound to be some errors in basic information, and personal bias is almost certain to have coloured the selection of data, as well as their interpretation. Nevertheless, while personal factors are unavoidable, a very serious effort has been made to keep close to the facts. Yet certain problems presented themselves from the start, especially in the matter of terminology.