Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-03-15

says: "I know nothing of 1t, and.
since I can get no hold upon 1t, 1t
does not come within my province"
1t would be we'll for the peace
of mind of many thousands IL they
would talk science at its word and
not persist in suspecting 1t of an
intention or attempt to oppose or
upset any belief lying outside it's
clearly defined domain.
If such beliefs find themselves in
opposition to facts that science, by
it's own tests, regards as established,
it is simply an unavoidable result
of the situation, as II, for instance,
a man should say: 81 have been
divinely told that 1 can step over the
edge of this precipice without fall
ling" and, stepping over, is dashed
to pieces.
The different sciences" are only
the various branches of this one sci
ence whose aim is to ascertain and
Systematically arrange for their bet
ter comprehension the facts and laws
of existence in this world and this
universe, which we consciously in
habit as long as we live, and con-
cerning which we know nothing veri-
fable except what our senses and
what logical reasoning based upon
the revelations of our senses tell
US. 1t may be that when our bodies
die our personal selves escape in an
intangible form and continue ito eX-
ist forever; it may be that in an
other form or body we shall rein
habit this earth or go dwell in some
other world under the light of some
other sun. Science does not know,
because it can get no grip on the
elements OF the problem; but il II
saw any way to get such a grip
you may be sure that 1t would seize
| it with the utmost eagerness. But
anybody who asserts that science
| denies the existence OF something
| imperishable in man or of an in
| telligence greater than mans goes
| a great deal farther than science ac-
companies him.
To decline to discuss what you
| do not know and to deny the exist
ence of what you do not know are
two very different things. The true
| scientist to-day is as modest as wa:
his great proSenitor, Isaac Newton
| who declared that he seemed, in hi.
studies, like a child gathering a few
pebbles on the seashore while the
illimitable ocean lay beyond.
Every branch of science is "exac'
science" If it is worthy of its name
but the term has sometimes beer
| restricted to those branches which
rest largely or entirely upon math'
! ematical basis as distinguished from
! the so called natural history sci
ences," which depend upon observa'
tion only. However, it seems to m'
| there is no good reason for attempt
| ing any general distinction of thi!
kind. 1t is apt to be invidious, ant
it serves no useful purpose.
Here is grouping of the sci
ences taken from the Standard Die
tionary, which embraces, as you will
see, more than has been admitted
under the name of science as I hav,
used it above:
"The sciences are divisible into
| % the mathematical, treating o.
quality; (2) the physical, treating
of matter and it's properties; (3) tn,
biological, treating of the phenomena
of life; a. the anthropological
treating of man, and (5) the theo,
| logical, treating of the Deity"
| The last item in the above shoult
have no place in the list If we con.
fine the term science to the fielC
of the senses. That it ought to b,
SO confined is, 1 think, evident from
| the fact that the methods now uni
versally recognized as characteristic
of what everybody has learned &
regard as science are inapplicabl,
| to theology.
PHYSICAL science rests upon physi.
cal observation and physical expert
mentation; theological Science" Ii
based upon faith. rejecting absolut,
| ly the kind of verification that the
other as absolutely demands. Tt
put them both under the same cate.
CORY. as If they were differen
branches, or aspects, If the same
thing. is not only misleading but mis-.
! chievous.
1t belittles theology. which has tc
| do with God, to link it with a tern
that has come universally to stanC
for mans imperfect knowledge Of
the visible and tangible world IN
which he lives, and it misrepresent.
| science to couple it, in spite of it,
protests, with something outside it,
chosen sphere. 1t is a pity that some
less comprehensive and more defini.
tive term. something that had never
been used with a wider meaning, was
not selected to describe what "sci-
| ence" now means to the vast major