Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-21
Science and Civilization
Continued from Third Page)

Continued from Third Page)
has upset so much of the popular sci
ence Of our youth.
It is enough to say that the new
science which has disturbed the atom
has certainly disturbed the anthropoid.
NV meaning will be entirely missed II
it be supposed that I have any ethical
or philosophical bias against the new
science as such, any more than against
the old as such. My moral and religious
views are unaffected by old or new
hypothesis about the processes OF
nature. I was not at all afraid OF the
large anthropoid ape. and I am not
likely to flee for my life pursued by the
little lemur.
Christianity was not affected by OAR
vinism and is not affected by Mendel-
ianism. But Darwinism Is affected by
Mendelianism. And the poiAt here is
that on the plane Of the purely scien-
tific these scientific hypothesis are per-
petually chasing each other. The
moral is not that there is no ethical or
practical permanence and reliability in
them, and that any ethical or practical
support must be found elsewhere. 1t Is
the same, of course, with the new
theories In astronomy, physics and
cerned, the disciple of Einstein is quite
at liberty to prove that the world is
limited, or to proceed on the same
progressive path and prove that the
world Is fiat. I do not object to space
and all material being curved. so long
as moral things remain straight. And
though the proposition that parallel
straight lines always meet may be
something of a strain upon reason, 1t
has no particular effect on religion.
Different 50 Years Ago.
There Is only one contingency in
normal people into controversy. That is
when science ceases to be science and
becomes sociology. For sociology is not
a science, bad or good; but it Is a
morality. and one that Is mostly bad
II we are to rebuild our cities or re-
establish our citizens according to the
curves OF relatively or the pedigrees of
Mendelianism. then it does become
relevant to remind the scientists Of
today that something totally different
was taught by the scientists Of SO years
ago. and something totally different
will probably be taught by the scientists
Of so years hence.
Then, indeed, we have a right to
explain to them that we decline to have
a new morality every so years. It is
obvious that we cannot perpetually dig
up the foundations of society to suit
the fashions of science. And it Is
equally obvious that most of these
hypotheses are as fugitive as the fash
ions in hats or whiskers; that the furry
lemur may last no longer than a par
ticular sort OF furry muff; that the
curve OF space may vanish like the cut
of coat.
In this connection I can mention a
parable which was also a real event
Some years ago, when hobble skirts
were In fashion, it was gravely proposed
In the newspapers that the platforms of
certain railway stations should be re-
punt at a higher level, to make 1t easier
Tor fashionable ladies to get out of first
class carriages. I do not say that the
idea was caught up with the enthusiasm
OF crusade, least Of all by the railway
companies. But 1T was suggested by
nected on the strong probability that
mobile skirts would have vanished be-
lore higher platforms were built.
81. PancraS Station is not the most
anclent or historic Of our sacred build
lngs. But its architecture Is probably of
q larger and more lasting description
IMAM the architecture of a lady's skirt
it Is the very meaning of a station that
~ Is standing thing; and 1t is more
tnan nlppancy to say of skirts, even
Wnen 'Aey are hobble skirts, that they
manage to be walking skirts.
Cannot Sacrifice Living.
The same is true of the station or
status that We call society and any one
trying to snatch at the flying skirts of
science. Relativists may recently have
narrowed the cosmos more with the
hobble skirt of Einstein: but we have no
proof that we shall not see again the
cosnic crinoline of Tyndall. These sci
entinc fashions have their fair place as
the new skirts and fringes of life: but
we cannot continually sacrifice to them
the whole solid structure of living. And
there are many progressive sociologists
now prepared. at intervals of a month
or so. to build what they would certain
ly describe as higher platforms, or pos
sibly as higher planes. And as the
others would alter st. Pancras, these
would certainly alter st. Paul's.
A critic may indeed answer that none
of the examples of the fickleness of
science are especially connected with
any fickleness in politics or ethics. He
may point out that relativism is not
very relative to the national railways or
the municipal parks; that the curvature
of space has nothing to do with open
spaces or the electrons with electric
light. And this is true, at any rate in
the main, about sciences like astronomy
or physics; but it is by no means true
of sciences like psychology or hygiene.
Nor is it by any means true even OF
all the examples have given. 1t is by
no means impossible that we may see
legislation based on all the guesswork
that lie called euCenicS.
It may be disputed whether drunken
parents hand on love of drink to their
children. But it is certain that par
ents hand on something to their chill
aysr ecs,ne nhara cteristics of some