Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 2.djvu/464

450 Society" in the last number of this this explanation was unnecessary. It certainly will be rendered so by the concluding paper of this series (No. 12, on "Collective Telesis"), but it can have done no harm to disabuse in advance the minds of any who may think that I have abandoned the position originally taken, however little sanguine I may have been and still am of rapid progress toward such an ideal.

It may seem absurd to ask what is the purpose of any science. No one would claim that the purpose of astronomy is to assist navigation, or that the purpose of biology is to facilitate the cultivation of plants and the domestication of animals. Science is supposed to be pursued for its own sake, to increase the sum of knowledge. There is a vague idea that it is somehow a good thing to have knowledge increased, while poets and philosophers have perceived that "knowledge is power," but no one has pointed out specifically in what way knowledge operates as a power. A general comparison of peoples without science with peoples that possess science shows that science must have something to do with what we call civilization, and yet it is insisted that science is not to be pursued for any practical purpose. Indeed, the practical view of science is generally condemned, and numerous illustrations are adduced of the most important practical results flowing from studies that seemed to be perfectly useless. These cases are calculated to inspire faith in the general utility of all knowledge and have thus accomplished great good. It is of course clear to all that mathematics, physics, and chemistry have an immediate practical value in the affairs of life, but most of the other sciences—geology, botany, zoology, ethnology, psychology, etc.—are looked upon mainly in the light of culture, like history, literature, fine art, etc. Anatomy and physiology constitute exceptions, as having a direct bearing upon health.

In general it may be said that as long as, and in proportion as nature is regarded as anthropocentric the knowledge of nature will not be looked upon as of any special practical use to man. The truth that is gradually taking the place of this two-