New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-06-17
ARE NATURES LAWS IMMUTABLEp

Professor S. ?. Langley, in a paper read be-
fore the Philosophical Society OF Washington
and published in the latest number OF Science
questions the propriety OF speaking of natures
laws as if they were immutable, He enforces
his point by a reference 70 the changes Whlch
have occurred in the creed Of chemistry in
single century. Equally good Illustrations are
afforded by biology, geology, astronomy, cleo
tricitv theology and all other branches OF
human knowledge. Within the memory OF llv-
ing men and women these sciences have been
appreciably revolutionized. Nor has the end
come vet How many doctrines Of our own
day will stand the light of the next century
what will they be saying Of our doctrine or
evolution them asks the professor.
A careless reading Of some parts of this paper
might lead one to suspect that the secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution denies the principle
that like causes produce like effects. He admits
that some things like gravitation, might exist
whether man was here to notice them or not,
"but" he adds. "as part Of the laws Of nature,
nor' Apparently he does not here shut out the
possibility that the formula for a mOlecule of
water may call for two atoms of hydrogen to
one of oxygen to-day, but demand three to one
tomorrow The door seems TO be left open for
the inference that heat radiation from our sun
might possibly take place al a different rate
than from another body of the same size,
density. composition and temperature. 1t is
common experience 10 see the force of gravt-
tation overcome by magnet. but in such
case the unlearned would say that different
and more powerful law that of magnetic at
traction for iron. supplanted the law of gravf-
4ation. Moreover. even the expert in such mat
tiers would declare that the magnet acted in
accordance with unalterable rules which could
- In v1rapfi-
cally all of human industry agriculture, manu-
facture and transportation--s based upon the
assumption that uniform results of harvest,
chemical and textile output and train velocity
NAV be expected from a given investment of
seed material, machinery, fuel and labor.
Human experience satisfies most people that il
there is any disappointment of this expectation
it may be explained by the fact that some new
and unknown factor entered into the cOmbina-
ton. Man feels that his daily bread is de-
pendent on natures invariability. If Professor
Langley had meant seriously to question such
stability, therefore, his utterances would evoke
an emphatic protest.
His objection, however, is chiefly or entirely
to a phrase and to its in such way as to
imply that present knowledge is final. There
are people, perhaps. who employ the term
natures laws in a different sense but no
CONDEMNATION Cdu De 700 vigorous loT tue H0tlOu
that mans imperfect and purely provisional
understanding of the operations of the universe
leaves nothing more to be desired. ITO deco
rate our own guesses at natures meaning
says Professor Langley, with the name laws
'of nature is a presumption due to our own
feeble human nature, which we can forgive for
demanding something more permanent than
Itself, but which also leads us TO have such an
exalted concet of our own opinions as to hide
from ourselves that it is these very opinions
which call natures laws" This is sound
gospel. SO, too, is the doctrine that man
must forever keep himself ready for new de-
velopments. Professor Langley truly says that
the most progress in science is not made by
reasoning, but by observing. No advance In all
these centuries is so great as the discovery OF