of an explanatory law in functional form, is found in the solution of cryptograms.1 (a) Solve the cryptogram and state its key in the form of a functional law, such as: "Substitute for each letter the third following letter in the English alphabet," "Read for each vowel the following vowel, for each consonant the letter equally distant from the letter m," etc. Some of the keys will be very simple, some rather complex, but all can be stated in functional terms. (b) Analyze the thinking by which the solution was reached in terms of Dewey's five steps, showing precisely what parts belong in each step. (c) State how the more general scientific principles of empiricism and parsimony, and the assumptions of agreement and difference, are revealed in your procedure. (The principle of parsimony will usually be revealed in such a form as this: "If I follow this key I can make sense out of all the words but two, and those two will have to be regarded as following another key, or as being accidental mistakes. But if I follow that, sense can be made out of the entire sentence. Hence the latter is the true explanatory key.") The first seven cryptograms are separated into words, each of which represents an English word. In the last three the interpretative units themselves must be ferreted out by the student. In dealing with them he is thus in a situation fairly comparable to that of the archeologist attacking an inscription in an unknown tongue, or a Newton first disentangling the conception of mass, in terms of whose units he proposes to reduce the material world. 1. WLUH GSU NLIGZI SLOW GSU YIRXPH GLTUGSUI LI 2. KE FKO QOYREQ DKIQ QOYREQ MUHK. OX 4. NVUROKONVE UPHORHYK JUY CNNRUASJUOP 5. ARCSJ M AAABZ YKNZUQRDJHIBM RF QBA BIYEG PTJ 'My friend and former student, Professor C. M. Perry, of the University of Texas, first called my attention to the possibilities of cryptograms. He has used them to great advantage in the teaching of scientific method. DTRG XX OYBHECFVIQ CVIAJRFD, QA PUYZRQ, UW HHR 6. 3-11-10 3-11-15-13 22-11-6 4-24-10-14-7-6-10 26-16-16. 7. CHABHJQZAH QFZVXZYBG XN MYB QORDBNN XSCLUZHI ZV KM LBB WHV UA FSH XSMPUUXZBSDB. 8. VIXVIXVIIIVIIIXIVXXXXVIIIXXIVXXIVXVIIIXXVIIIXXX XVIIIXXXVIII 9. ZOOCBVCDLIPHCLUCGSVCOLIWCKIZRHVCBVCGSVCOLIW. 10. UVCLXCHNBYBUNXCMQILNBNQICHNBYVOMB. BIBLIOGRAPHY BERRY, A., A Short History of Astronomy. An admirable outline for the reader with little scientific background. LIBBY, W., An Introduction to the History of Science. A very elementary introduction to the entire field. LODGE, O., Pioneers of Science. A readable description of some of the discoveries of the most famous early modern scientists, showing the cumulative character of their work. MACH, E., The Science of Mechanics. A historico-critical portrayal of the development of the science through the work of its greatest representatives. MERZ, J. T., A History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century, vols. I, II. A systematic description of the development through the century of the recognized branches of science. SEDGWICK, W. T. and TYLER, H. W., A Short History of Science. The best general manual of the subject, in brief compass, available in WHEWELL, W., History of the Inductive Sciences, 3 vols. A still standard exposition of the history of empirical science down to the middle of the last century. WER CHAPTER FOURTEEN FACT VS. VALUE not lim ited to knowl edge WERE it desirable to terminate our analysis with matters Our which when thus systematically stated are fairly obvious thinking and in the main beyond dispute, we should end the volume without embarking on anything further. But the student has a right the realm to know that in discussions about right thinking, as about every- of objecthing else of especial importance in life, there is a wide realm tive in which accepted norms of reflective method are decidedly not yet established, where logic, in short, has not yet gained many inches of ground that it can confidently call its own. The realm of science is not coextensive, that is, with the total realm with which we endeavor to deal in our thinking. We think, and indeed find it the highest importance to think as best we can, about matters of morals, religion, social policy as expressed in law, aesthetic objects, where it is perfectly evident that objectively demonstrable standards of right thinking are not present. People who could be quickly brought to entire agreement about a matter that could be subjected to scientific experiment, differ widely in their opinions about these matters and as soon as general agreement is reached on some questions in these fields new divergences appear on others. Is there a God? Ought we to recognize the Russian Republic? Is the prohibition amendment a good thing? Is Drew a greater actor than Sothern? It is clear that one does not need to go far to find questions through which we try to think our way, but in which it is difficult to discover any objective standard for our thinking comparable to that which the procedure of scientific verification offers. What shall be our policy in dealing with this extra-scientific realm? To neglect it would be to fail in frankness and candor, to give the 431 |