invalidates nothing in science; much less does it carry with it any
rival doctrine of its own. Every philosophy, even materialism, may find
a transcendental justification, if experience as it develops will yield
no other terms. What has reason to tremble at a demand for its
credentials is surely not natural science; it is rather those mystical
theologies or romantic philosophies of history which aspire to take its
place. Such lucubrations, even if reputed certain, can scarcely be
really credited or regarded in practice; while scientific tenets are
necessarily respected, even when they are declared to be fictions. This
nemesis is inevitable; for the mind must be inhabited, and the ideas
with which science peoples it are simply its involuntary perceptions
somewhat more clearly arranged.

[Sidenote: Ideal science is self-justified.]

That the relativity of science--its being an emanation of human life--is
nothing against its truth appears best, perhaps, in the case of
dialectic. Dialectic is valid by virtue of an intended meaning and felt
congruity in its terms; but these terms, which intent fixes, are
external and independent in their ideal nature, and the congruity
between them is not created by being felt but, whether incidentally felt
or not, is inherent in their essence. Mathematical thinking is the
closest and most intimate of mental operations, nothing external being
called in to aid; yet mathematical truth is as remote as possible from
being personal or psychic. It is absolutely self-justified and is
necessary before it is discovered to be so. Here, then, is a conspicuous
region of truth, disclosed to the human intellect by its own internal
exercise, which is nevertheless altogether independent, being eternal
and indefeasible, while the thought that utters it is ephemeral.

[Sidenote: Physical science is presupposed in scepticism.]

The validity of material science, not being warranted by pure insight,
cannot be so quickly made out; nevertheless it cannot be denied
systematically, and the misunderstood transcendentalism which belittles
physics contradicts its own basis. For how are we supposed to know that
what call facts are mere appearances and what we call objects mere
creations of thought? We know this by physics. It is physiology, a part
of physics, that assures us that our senses and brains are conditions of
our experience. Were it not for what we know of the outer world and of
our place in it, we should