t which is
practically unlimited; the second, that our volition counts for something
as a condition of the course of events.

Each of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we like
to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon which
any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths. If we find that
the ascertainment of the order of nature is facilitated by using one
terminology, or one set of symbols, rather than another, it is our clear
duty to use the former; and no harm can accrue, so long as we bear in
mind that we are dealing merely with terms and symbols.

In itself it is of little moment whether we express the phenomena of
matter in terms of spirit, or the phenomena of spirit in terms of matter:
matter may be regarded as a form of thought, thought may be regarded as a
property of matter--each statement has a certain relative truth. But with
a view to the progress of science, the materialistic terminology is in
every way to be preferred. For it connects thought with the other
phenomena of the universe, and suggests inquiry into the nature of those
physical conditions, or concomitants of thought, which are more or less
accessible to us, and a knowledge of which may, in future, help us to
exercise the same kind of control over the world of thought that we
already possess in respect of the material world; whereas, the
alternative, or spiritualistic, terminology is utterly barren, and leads
to nothing but obscurity and confusion of ideas.

Thus there can be little doubt that the further science advances, the more
extensively and consistently will all the phenomena of nature be
represented by materialistic formulae and symbols.

But the man of science who, forgetting the limits of philosophical
inquiry, slides from these formulae and symbols into what is commonly
understood by materialism, seems to me to place himself on a level with
the mathematician who should mistake the _x_'s and _y_'s with which he
works his problems for real entities--and with this further disadvantage,
as compared with the mathematician, that the blunders of the latter are of
no practical consequence, while the errors of systematic materialism may
paralyze the energies and destroy the beauty of a life.

JOHN TYNDALL

SCOPE AND LIMIT OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM

Partly through mathematical and partly through experimental research,
physical science has of late years assumed a momentous po