EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON:- In the last issue of the Harvard Monthly an article appeared, addressed to the young men of Harvard and advocating the "scientific method" in philosophy.

I am one of those young men and should have been very glad if the author had explained what was meant by the "scientific method" in that connection. He states that the human mind has but one way of learning anything, and that the method which he advocates is the only method in philosophy which can yield a ground of settled convictions. This method would modernize philosophy, he believes. Now, if we young men are taught anything, it is that we should seek as many independent points of view as possible. It is true that one of the ablest philosophers in Boston recently stated that physiological psychology, for example, is impossible. But in a short time a very able work on physiological psychology was published in this country. It would seem that anything can be that is.

We all believe in the scientific method as ordinarily defined: Exact observation, careful experiment, rational hypothesis and verification. I took pains to read Dr. Abbott's pamphlet on "Scientific Philosophy" to ascertain what he means by the method which he advocates; and I find that he is especially desirous that philosophy shall adopt the realistic hypothesis, and believe in the objectivity of relations. In his article in the Monthly he implies that any sort of idealistic philosophy is incompatible with the recognition of objective relations. Now I have no doubt that all of the young men of Harvard whom the author addressed especially, have hitherto had the impression that some of the forms of idealism are as consistent with the scientific method, at least as ordinarily defined, as either realism or dualism can be. Objectivity is not necessarily material. But if we err on this point, we are willing to be corrected, in fact stand in need of correction.

CLARENCE D. GREELEY.