What then remains of M. LeRoy's thesis? This remains: the scientist intervenes actively in choosing the facts worth observing. An isolated fact has by itself no interest; it becomes interesting if one has reason to think that it may aid in the prediction of other facts; or better, if, having been predicted, its verification is the confirmation of a law. Who shall choose the facts which, corresponding to these conditions, are worthy the freedom of the city in science? This is the free activity of the scientist. And that is not all. I have said that the scientific fact is the translation of a crude fact into a certain language; I should add that every scientific fact is formed of many crude facts. This is sufficiently shown by the examples cited above. For instance, for the hour of the eclipse my clock marked the hour [alpha] at the instant of the eclipse; it marked the hour [beta] at the moment of the last transit of the meridian of a certain star that we take as origin of right ascensions; it marked the hour [gamma] at the moment of the preceding transit of this same star. There are three distinct facts (still it will be noticed that each of them results itself from two simultaneous facts in the rough; but let us pass this over). In place of that I say: The eclipse happened at the hour 24 ([alpha]-[beta])/([beta]-[gamma]), and the three facts are combined in a single scientific fact. I have concluded that the three readings, [alpha], [beta], [gamma] made on my clock at three different moments lacked interest and that the only thing interesting was the combination ([alpha]-[beta])/([beta]-[gamma]) of the three. In this conclusion is found the free activity of my mind. But I have thus used up my power; I can not make this combination ([alpha]-[beta])/([beta]-[gamma]) have such a value and not such another, since I can not influence either the value of [alpha], or that of [beta], or that of [gamma], which are imposed upon me as crude facts. In sum, facts are facts, and _if it happens that they satisfy a prediction, this is not an effect of our free activity_. There is no precise frontier between the fact in the rough and the scientific fact; it can only be said that such an enunciation of fact is _more crude_ or, on the contrary, _more scientific_ than such another. 4. _'Nominalism' and 'the Universal Invariant'_ If from facts we pass to laws, it is clear that the part of the free activity of the scientist will become much greater. But did not M. LeRoy make it still too great? This is what we are about to examine. Recall first the examples he has given. When I say: Phosphorus melts at 44°, I think I am enunciating a law; in reality it is just the definition of phosphorus; if one should discover a body which, possessing otherwise all the properties of phosphorus, did not melt at 44°, we should give it another name, that is all, and the law would remain true.