{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-1-cosmogenesis/34-ii-modern-physicists-are-playing-at-blind-mans-buff-482.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-1-cosmogenesis",
    "name": "Volume I — Cosmogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 32,
    "slug": "34-ii-modern-physicists-are-playing-at-blind-mans-buff-482",
    "title": "II. MODERN PHYSICISTS ARE PLAYING AT BLIND MAN'S BUFF ... 482",
    "of": 48,
    "words": 895,
    "text": "## II. MODERN PHYSICISTS ARE PLAYING AT BLIND MAN'S BUFF ... 482\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, bk 3, ch 2\n\n###### The\nSecret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 1\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 482 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n##### II.\nMODERN PHYSICISTS ARE PLAYING AT BLIND MAN'S BUFF.\n\n**A**ND now Occultism puts to Science the question:\n\"Is light a body, or is it not?\" Whatever the answer\nof the latter, the former is prepared to show that, to this day,\nthe most eminent physicists know neither one way nor the other.\nTo know what is light, and whether it is an actual substance or\na mere undulation of the \"ethereal medium,\" Science\nhas first to learn what are in reality Matter, Atom, Ether, Force.\nNow, the truth is, that *it knows nothing of any of these*,*\n*and admits it. It has not even agreed what to believe in,\nas dozens of hypotheses emanating from various and very eminent\nScientists on the same subject, are antagonistic to each other\nand often self-contradictory. Thus their learned speculations\nmay, with a stretch of good-will, be accepted as \"working\nhypotheses\" in a secondary sense, as Stallo puts it. But\nbeing radically inconsistent with each other, they must finally\nend by mutually destroying themselves. As declared by the author\nof \"Concepts of Modern Physics\": --\n\n\"It must not be forgotten that the several departments of\nScience are simply *arbitrary divisions of labour. *In these\nseveral departments the same physical object may be considered\nunder different aspects. The physicist may study its molecular\nrelations, while the chemist determines its atomic constitution.\nBut when they both deal with the same element or agent, it cannot\nhave one set of properties in physics, and another set contradictory\nof them, in chemistry. If the physicist and chemist alike assume\nthe existence of ultimate atoms absolutely invariable in bulk\nand weight, *the atom cannot be a cube or oblate spheroid for\nphysical*,* and* *a sphere for chemical purposes. A\ngroup of constant atoms cannot be an* *aggregate of extended\nand absolutely inert and impenetrable masses in a crucible or\nretort*,* and a system of mere centres of force as part of\na magnet or of a Clamond battery. The universal Ether cannot be\nsoft and mobile to please the chemist*,* and rigid-elastic\nto satisfy the physicist; it cannot be continuous at the command\nof Sir William Thomson and discontinuous on the suggestion of\nCauchy or Fresnel.*\"***\n\nThe eminent physicist, G. A. Hirn, may likewise be quoted saying\nthe same in the 43rd Volume of the *Memoires de l*'*Academie\nRoyale de Belgique*,* *which we translate from the French,\nas cited: \"When one sees the assurance with which are to-day\naffirmed doctrines which attribute the collectivity, the universality\nof the phenomena to the motions alone of the atom, one has a right\nto expect to find likewise unanimity on the qualities described\nto this unique being, the foundation of all that exists. Now,\nfrom the first examination of the particular systems proposed,\none feels the strangest deception; one perceives that the atom\nof the chemist, the atom of the physicist, that of the metaphysician,\nand that of the mathematician . . . . have *absolutely nothing\nin common but the* *name!* The inevitable result is the\nexisting\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"Concepts of Modern Physics,\" p. xi-xii., Introd.\nto the 2nd Edit.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 483 NO AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS.\n\nsubdivision of our sciences, each of which, in its own little\npigeon-hole, constructs an atom which satisfies the requirements\nof the phenomena it studies, without troubling itself in the least\nabout the requirements proper to the phenomena of the neighbouring\npigeon-hole. The metaphysician banishes the principles of attraction\nand repulsion as dreams; the mathematician, who analyses the laws\nof elasticity and those of the propagation of light, admits them\nimplicitly, without even naming them. . . . The chemist cannot\nexplain the grouping of the atoms, in his often complicated molecules,\nwithout attributing to his atoms specific distinguishing qualities;\n*for the physicist and the metaphysician*,* partisans of\nthe modern doctrines*,* the atom is*,* on the contrary*,*\nalways and everywhere the same. *What am I saying? **T**HERE\nIS NO AGREEMENT EVEN IN ONE AND THE SAME SCIENCE AS TO THE PROPERTIES\nOF THE ATOM. Each constructs an atom to suit his own fancy, in\norder to explain some special phenomenon with which he is particularly\nconcerned.\"*\n\nThe above is the photographically correct image of modern Science\nand physics. The \"pre-requisite of that incessant play of\nthe 'scientific imagination,' \" which is so often found in\nProfessor Tyndall's eloquent discourses, is *vivid* indeed,\nas shown by Stallo, and for contradictory variety leaves far behind\nit any \"phantasies\" of occultism. However it may be,\nif physical theories are confessedly \"mere formal, explanatory,\ndidactic devices,\" and if \"atomism is only a symbolical\ngraphic system,\"** then the occultist can hardly be regarded\nas assuming too much, when he places alongside of these *devices\n*and* *\"*symbolical *systems\" of modern\nScience, the symbols and devices of Archaic teachings.\n\n--------------\n\n[[This page continued in next section]]\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* \"*Recherches experimentales sur la relation qui existe\nentre la resistance de Pair et sa temperature*,\"*\n*p. 68.\n\n** From the criticism of \"Concepts of Modern Physics\"\nin *Nature. *See Stallo's work, p. xvi. of *Introduction.*\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}