Science and Citizenship
established beliefs, like Judaism, Mohammedanism, Romanism, that influence conduct and determine the mode of life, then we must say of science that it is an incipient rather than an actual spiritual power. In this sense there are sciences but no science. If we look round us amongst our contemporaries, we should most of us have to search far before finding an individual whose life and conduct are unified by science. Notable examples are, to be sure, numerous in history—such as Lavoisier and Condorcet, Helmholtz and Pasteur, Darwin and Clifford, and, if it is permissible to cite living scientists, Berthelot and Haeckel, Francis Galton and Karl Pearson. Similar though less notable contemporary instances are not common, though in all probability they are more numerous in the obscure annals of University and Academy, Museum and Library, than most of us imagine. There are many whose lives are unified by religion, still more by marriage, and not a few by Monte Carlo. But the truth is that as yet science has afforded no rounded doctrine of Humanity sufficiently simple and facile for the comprehension of the artisan, the rustic, and the cabinet minister. The difficulty of that achievement lies mainly in the natural history fact, that the scientific habit of mind in the observation of social phenomena, though it is universal amongst children, yet persists in few adults. It survives adolescence in a certain number of social investigators, like anthropologists, folklorists^ economists, historians, psychologists, &c., most of whom are so highly specialised as to have
8
