DEMOCRATIC SCIENCE.

There is a good deal of significance and of material for speculation in a "movement" which has, we are told, begun in the United States, and which may possibly extend and produce very singular results. An English paper, in referring to the incident, gives the facts in the following way:—

"The Rev. John Jasper, pastor of the largest coloured Baptist Church at Richmond, Virginia, in a sermon which he preached on the evening of Sunday, March 17, and which has attracted attention throughout the United States, proved to his own satisfaction, and apparently to that of his congregation, that the philosophers are entirely mistaken in their theory that the earth revolves round the sun. ' If,' said the rev. gentleman, ' he did not prove by Bible authority that the sun moves, he would never preach again.' The earth, he maintained, is motionless ; for, as he pointed out, if the earth turned round, 'the ocean would be spilled over the land.' His chief argument in favour of the motion of the sun is the fact that Joshua told the sun to stand still, which would have been a ridiculous superfluity if the sun had really never moved. At the close of his eloquent discourse he called on those of his audience who believed that the sun moved round the earth to hold up their right hand and, in answer to the invitation, every hand in the church was uplifted."

Therefore, on the vox populi principle, and in accordance with the democratic idea of the infallibility of majorities, we may consider that our hitherto received astronomy is repealed, and that henceforth we must be prepared to take a different view of the matters involved. But this is not all. What has been done with regard to astronomy may be done in reference to many other sciences. The New York Nation, humourously commenting on the sermon and its effects, observes that—

" It is impossible not to regard it as part of the great movement now spreading over the United States to give the poor and ignorant a fair chance in the solution of the leading problems of the day. A good many branches of knowledge have been kept until now in the hands of persons who have had leisure and money enough to study them until the arrogance of this class has become in tolerable. The people are, however, going to take the astronomy question into their own hands, as they have taken the money question, and the word of the honest working man, no matter of what colour, will soon go as far with regard to the motions of the planets as that of the bloated astronomer in his luxurious observatory, with his costly instruments, which would never have existed but for the toil of the industrious mechanic."

There is no reason whatever to suppose that such a movement, if once begun, would be confined to the United States. What chance, we may ask would the Newtonian theory have in this colony if Mr. BERRY or our Minister of Education, the " iron major," were to get up and address a meeting of Collingwood or Geelong or Ballarat liberals on the other side ? Mr. BERRY would say, " We stand before you as ignorant, uneducated men—men like yourselves. We have no connexion with any scientific institutions, but take up our position on the evidence of our eyesight and common sense. When this privileged and self assuming class of scientific persons tells us that the earth revolves round the sun, I reply, ' Am I not to believe my own eyes ?' (Loud applause.) I ask you, gentlemen (loud cheering)—is it not a fact of daily experience, which no state supported astronomer—(cheers)—wallowing in salary paid by the sweat of the brows of the honest, industrious working man of this colony—(applause)—can in any degree alter, that the sun rose in the east this morning ? (Tumultuous cheering.)" What chance would HERSCHEL'S Principles of Astronomy have against such an appeal ? Or imagine Mr. WOODS haranguing a mob against the doctrines of geology, or Professor PEARSON refuting DARWIN before an audience of Castlemaniacs. Does not every one see what the issue would be? Is it to be supposed that any assemblage of free-born Victorians would admit the possibility that their ancestors stood in any closer connexion with the simian type than themselves? The least consideration will show that should the movement above referred to prove a spreading one, and should every scientific theory have to abide the test of a vote in a public meeting harangued by an inflammatory stump orator, there are worse times ahead for the scientific person than any he has yet experienced at the hands of priest or inquisitor. The ablest argument, the profoundest reasoning, the most overwhelming array of demonstration, would be as nothing against the inflammatory platitudes of some BERRY or LONGMORE, and science would very speedily have to be reconstructed on democratic principles.

This aspect of affairs is not a very cheerful one. Yet, after all, it is not as forbidding as it at first appears. Granted that the most assured principles of science would be as chaff before the wind should they be taken by a frothy orator before the tribunal of the uninstructed mob, and admitted that there is absolutely nothing to prevent them being so taken by popular certiorari, Mr. BERRY, with the help of the Liberal Reform League, could upset the Newtonian astronomy, or the law of correlation of forces, or the undulatory theory of light, to-morrow, with immense popular rejoicing, if he chose to do so. The vote would be passed triumphantly, and the Ministerial journal would have an article beginning—"Another Triumph for Liberalism." Nothing could save science if it pleased Mr. BERRY and his colleagues to turn their attention in that direction. And yet it is certain that they will not seek to win any Liberal victories in this field. The security of science is not given by its invulnerability. It arises from the fact that nothing is to be gained by attacking it. If salaries of £2,000 a year, with unlimited pickings and patronage, could be obtained by bringing the theory of development under the heel of authority, Mr. DARWIN would have but a poor chance for existence. If our Legislative Assembly and the Berry Government saw that pay and office depended upon obtaining a great popular vote by means of plebiscite or a general election, in favour of the doctrine that the earth is flat, or in support of the Mosaic cosmogony, it would be the simplest thing in the world to obtain such a decision. And when obtained, it would be hailed by the democratic party in the colony as a great victory won from a privileged class of monopolists. But there is nothing to gain in any such direction. There is no loot, there are no official salaries, no billets to be secured by a crusade against physical science, and so for the present Sir GEORGE AIRY and Professor TYNDALL may remain unmolested, and on similar grounds art and literature may escape being trampled flat under the broad hoof of democracy.

Every thinking man admits that the principles of politics are as much matters of science as the laws of optics or of biology. They are not, indeed, capable of such exact definition or verification ; but that in dealing with them the need is as great to apply considerations of reason, to conform to the laws of scientific method, to accept the proof of evidence and the teaching of experience, and to restrict the influence of personal bias or passion or prejudice, every rational man unreservedly concedes. That they are not so dealt with is not a result of their being unfitted for such treatment, or of their being at all more within the mental range of a mob than those matters which are reserved for the dealings of experts and professors. The difference wholly comes from the fact that it is possible in the one case for unscrupulous charlatans to get a good living by cajoling and deluding the multitude, and it is not possible to do so in the other. To this small difference of circumstances is it due that politics are brought within the jurisdiction of mob law, and are worked in the interests of mere adventurers, while science, with equal liability to similar democratic subjugation, is, up to the present time, spared any such disgrace and humiliation.

The Argus 9 July 1878,

[We wish to substitute the name BERRY, with certain global climate-change sceptics, or perhaps, radio "shock-jock" notables. This action may however have legal recriminations attendant to it. We propose not to name the unscrupulous parties. You may, however.
J. W. 2011]