SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




16                                  I. PRELIMINARIES
This book is intended as a handbook, and I have avoided referring the reader to other books, but have given as much of structural data as I deemed useful for a general orientation. In a work of such wide scope and novelty, it seemed desirable to give a general outline rather than to elaborate in detail on some particular points, so that this work is not exhaustive in any field; nor, at present, can it be.
The notes at the end of the book are given for the purposes (among others) of indicating sources of information, as an acknowledgement, and to facilitate the work of the future student. As much as I could, I have avoided direct quotations from other authors, because usually it has seemed more expedient to change the wording slightly. In many instances, I have followed the original wordings very closely, always giving the proper credit.
I have not avoided repetitions, because I have found, through sad experience, that many times, when I was reproached for a repetition, the hearer or reader was disregarding quite happily and unconsciously the said 'repetition', as if he had never heard it before. For such a work as the present one, the standard literary habits - 'avoid repetitions', 'let the reader discover it for himself., are extremely detrimental to the understanding of a few fundamental issues and to the acquiring of A habits and new s.r. To facilitate the student's task, I had no other choice than to write as I did.
In 1933, scientific opinion is divided as to whether -we need more science or less science. Some prominent men even suggest that scientists should take a vacation and let the rest of mankind catch up with their achievements. There seems no doubt that the discrepancy between human adjustments and the advances of science is becoming alarming. Is, then, such a suggestion justified?
The answer depends on the assumptions underlying such opinions. If humans, as such, have reached the limit of their nervous development, and if the scientific study of man, as man, should positively disclose these limitations, then such a conclusion would be justified. But is this the case ?