The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-15
Professor rrootor's Second Letter TO
tho Herald-His Theory OF Evois-
ton Not Demonstrsble.

tion Not Dem0nstrsble.
We publish to-day another letter from Pro-
lessor Proctor, which the pressure on our
columns has, We regret. slightly Delayed. We
trust the eminent astronomer has not misun-
derstood the spirit and scope Of our remarks
upon his hypothesis, and that he will appre-
ciate the deep interest we have manifested IN
it by the discussion of his subject ''The
ability of fearlessly doubling is not the mean
est attribute of genuine philosophy. said an
eminent French savant and we are sure Pro-
fessor Proctor is too profound and Goo ripe
scientist to think hard of ouE. temority In
questioning some of bis conclusions.
In his letter of the 2Sth ult the distin-
guished lecturer wrote of Laplace' theory and
his own: "Both theories are based on evi-
dence indicating, think We may say demon
stratng Gtalics ours) the evolution Of the
solar system" He also said:-s:Taking our
earth, zoe know that millions Of years have
passed since she began to be peopled." 1t
was principally against such positive views
and the seeming claim Of certainty that we
dissented, showing, as we did, that such
strong expressions far outstripped the cautious
language of the great astronomers of the past
and present Now Professor Proctor writes: -
Il have not at any !, time. spoken OF
my theory Of the ( evolution Of the
solar system as demonstrated, and, again, 81
have nowhere spoken of it as demonstrated or
demonstrabh," and 81 only claim for my
theory it is more probable (than that of La
place.) We ara sure that the learned Pro-
fessor will do us the justice to acknowledge
the irreconcilability in the tone of the two
letters. But we aye perfectly satisfied with
lhis last statement that his theoryis t..more
probable" than that Of Laplace. Only, We
would ask him to remember that, when the '
bold author of the 'Systeme du Monde" put
forth the hypothesis in question, he avowedly
did so ',oiM di1idence.' When Professor
Proctor, who stands in the foreground of
modern astronomers, confeSses, as he now
does, that the evolution hypothesis is, rs yet,
neither demonstrated" nor ''demonstrable,
we most cordially agree to his confession, and
all solid science which prompts the acknowl-
edgment But henceforth, now that one of the
most advanced of living scientists SO candidly
disavows even the ''demonstrability' of evOlu-
ton, let those to VIII ON it has ever been such
a bugbear breathe freely, and cease to fight
the grim shadow. Here, then, but for one or
two interesting points upon which Professor
Proctor catechises us, we might properly
leave the subject.
A newspaper is not, perhaps, the best place
for discussing the many phases of solar as
tronomy; but it is not beyond its sphere to
which most deeply concern mankind. Tray
elers relate how, in certain conditions of the
air, spectator standing on the shore at Reggie
and looking out upon the Straits of Messina
sees rising before him spectral city, with its
domes and turrets, and even describes the mov-
ing forms of animated life. The illusion is so
complete that he thinks he has seen some
magical hand suddenly erect the illusory
structure on the waters before him. The his
tory of science is replete with instances in
which just such unreal and imaginary phe-
nomena have deceived the most eminent phi
as if they had been the most determined of re-
alities. Nowhere more than in the domain Of
stellar research has the process Of uncon-
sciously creating and peopling new worlds
been more seductive AMI more fatal. The
spectral forms which retreat before the lens
of severe analysis have ever thronged the vast
interplanetary straits, and when speculation,
like Hamlet, cries out, ''Methinks I see my
father" it cannot be complained if, with
Horatio, we demand, ''Where, my lord? ?"
In his essays Professor Proctor himself
truly tells us that the elder Herschels whole
treatment of the nebular and sidereal systems
indicated that the views he advanced ''were
intended, for the most part rather as sugges-
tons than as theories" This is just what we
claimed in our review of the Professors lee
lures that astronomy ought now to be content
to do. When men began to interrogate nature,
as the great Humboldt argued, the philosophy
of nature cast aside the poetic garb, and
''now weighs the value of observations and
substitutes induction and reasoning for con-
lecture and assumption" Hypothesis do
not frame" was a motto which the immortal
Newton bequeathed to the world, and must
forever stand as q warning to science-a motto,
too which has left its impress on such minds
as Tyndall, who asserts: $50 far from hay
ing theory of the universe, 1 have not even
q theory of magnetism.
When we come to that misty, interstellar
sphere of spectroscopic inquiry, in which
Professor Proctor delights to dwell, the words
of Newton have still deeper emphasis. The
ever-changing want of uniformity of the
earth's atmosphere through which the stellar
light comes to US, and the numerous fine lines
Of stellar spectra have greatly retarded such
investigations. Nay, as has often been
pointed out, many of the lines are quenched
in cosmical space before they reach our
planet-a fact strongly suggested and sup