Every scientist worthy of the name has at one time or another said something like the following: “The only thing we positively know about a hypothesis is that it is to a certain extent wrong. Progress is made by gradually substituting the less erroneous for the more erroneous, until the hypothesis is finally established in a modified form as a fact, or becomes so untenable that it must be abandoned altogether. In either case, it has served its turn.” Thus Darwin, true scientist that he was, characterized his theories as to the descent of man as “highly speculative,” adding, “Some will no doubt prove erroneous.”[98] The ideal scientist, therefore, never becomes dogmatic, never cocksure. He knows that though Truth be not relative, Knowledge is. He forever deals with conclusions which are highly tentative, and constantly waits for that appeal to experience which will reveal his mistakes. Unfortunately, scientists are but men, and the ideal scientist no more exists than does the ideal Christian. Only those whose specialties keep them constantly close to experience remain truly scientific for any length of time--which is one of the reasons why most of our progress has been made in physics and chemistry. Francis Bacon, who is generally credited with having first put science upon the firm ground of inductive reasoning, or generalizing from observed particulars, says in his _Novum Organum_:[99] “Having first determined the question according to his will, man then resorts to experience; and bending her into conformity ... leads her about like a captive in a procession.” How well Bacon understood our human nature’s proneness to determine questions according to its will, and then to bend experience to fit the occasion! But he did not call this method the scientific method. On the contrary, he described it as one of those “Idols of the Tribe,” or habits leading to error, to which everybody is subject. And he only _hoped_ that science would avoid it as much as possible. True science has avoided it--as much as possible. But how little true science we have! The experimental method is so limited in its application that there are few matters important to human life which can be put to the test of immediate experience. We must wait long years for experience in general to tell its tale, and even then its conclusions are not always convincing. To be convincing, experience must take place under conditions of our own contriving, every unknown influence eliminated. And the experience must be repeated time and again. The field of true science is, therefore, one of the narrowest in the world. Much that goes by the name of science is but semi-science, pseudo-science, false science, or no science at all.