e well named social, have this peculiarity:
that for the very reason that they are of a general application, no
one confesses himself ignorant of them. Do we wish to decide a
question in chemistry or geometry? No one pretends to have the
knowledge instinctively; we are not ashamed to consult Draper; we make
no difficulty about referring to Euclid.
But in social science authority is but little recognized. As such a
one has to do daily with morals, good or bad, with hygiene, with
economy, with politics reasonable or absurd, each one considers
himself skilled to comment, discuss, decide, and dogmatize in these
matters.
Are you ill? There is no good nurse who does not tell you, at the
first moment, the cause and cure of your malady.
"They are humors," affirms she; "you must be purged."
But what are humors? and are these humors?
She does not trouble herself about that. I involuntarily think of this
good nurse when I hear all social evils explained by these common
phrases: "It is the superabundance of products, the tyranny of
capital, industrial plethora," and other idle stories of which we
cannot even say: _verba et voces praetereaque nihil_: for they are also
fatal mistakes.
From what precedes, two things result--
1st. That the social sciences must abound in sophistry much more than
the other sciences, because in them each one consults his own judgment
or instinct alone.
2d. That in these sciences sophistry is especially injurious, because
it misleads public opinion where opinion is a power--that is, law.
Two sorts of books, then, are required by these sciences; those which
expound them, and those which propagate them; those which show the
truth, and those which combat error.
It appears to us that the inherent defect in the form of this little
Essay--_repetition_--is that which constitutes its principal value.
In the question we have treated, each sophism has, doubtless, its own
set form, and its own range, but all have one common root, which is,
"_forgetfulness of the interests of man, insomuch as they forget the
interests of consumers_." To show that the thousand roads of error
conduct to this generating sophism, is to teach the public to
recognize it, to appreciate it--to distrust it under all
circumstances.
After all, we do not aspire to arouse convictions, but doubts.
We have no expectation that in laying down the book, the reader shall
exclaim: "_I know_." Please Heaven he may be induced
|