Although I was seriously annoyed by the crudeness of this attack I suppressed my resentment and

calmly gave the man all the explanations which his naivete made obviously necessary. "You are right," I
said. "Everyone of us has his special domain in which he feels, and probably is, competent. He refrains
from trespassing on what you call the country beyond. But it is easy to see the reason for this reserve. In
the course of more than two thousand years, first mathematics and then one discipline after another
have learned to solve their problems properly. A standard of achievements has thus been created of
which, for instance, Greek philosophers were quite unaware. Experience shows that concentration on a
limited held is necessary if our work is to measure up to that standard. Nothing comparable with this
standard has ever been attained when people, instead of cultivating certain 'little farms’ have tried to
solve those general problems about which you and many other contemporaries are so concerned. Such
failures are sufficiently common in our own time and in our immediate neighborhood. In a way you
need not complain. A host of writers feel called upon to tell us what the essence of man is, how the
events of history are brought about, and what course history will have to take in the near future. They
interpret, they prophesy, they attribute meaning to history or they deny it, all to their heart's content.
When we try to read such literature we find that even the darkest language of prophecy fails to hide the
shallowness and the arbitrary character of the underlying ideas. No actual knowledge which nobody has
of such matters merely subjective opinions and the general malaise of our time, make these men write.
All their great words about your essential problems of mankind have, however, at least one effect upon
us: Since there is no substance behind them we are by now thoroughly tired not only of such literature
as such, but also of its alleged subject-matter. It is not a bad but a good symptom if most professors
refuse to join a chorus that sings so consistently out of tune. When asked to choose between writing
badly about the greatest questions and well about more modest topics we prefer the second
alternative. It is perhaps a pity that no valuable statements can yet be made about your major human
issues; but by mere wishing or by sheer will power you cannot found a new domain of knowledge,
however desirable, for which the time has not yet come. Galileo observed how stones fall to the ground.
What a trivial occupation! But he was right. His observations led to the foundation of general dynamics."

I thought that this would silence him. But in the manner which such stubborn people have he began at
once to turn my own arguments against me. "I have seen some of those writings," he answered, "to
which you allude, and I do not like them any better than you do. But what is responsible for their
existence and for the unwholesome influence which they doubtless exert? It is the academic
indifference and the disdainful attitude of those who ought to clarity our thought in such matters. In
prolonged distress most people are unable to live without a frame of reference, an interpretation of
human life, which would make their existence meaningful in spite of so much misfortune. It the
professors who have the necessary training and the equally necessary intellectual discipline do not give
them what they need, these people will naturally turn to surrogates, to Ersatz. Strange food will be
eagerly swallowed in times of famine. This may have deplorable results. If such consequences appear in
our case we shall ask the protestors why they did not act while there was still time. Plato intended to
select the governing body of his ideal state from the learned class. He must have been thinking of a
different kind. The professors of our time shrug their shoulders much too often. They do not see that
with the great power of the skilled mind they also assume a tremendous responsibility.
"I am glad that you mentioned natural science which, as you rightly say, does not confine its
investigations to little farms; far be it from me to belittle the great advances which have been made in
physics, in chemistry and in certain branches of biology. So long as our attention remains focussed on
the material knowledge of these disciplines we shall feel inclined to celebrate the irresistible force of the
scientific mind. Personally I think quite as highly of the services which such research has rendered to
hygiene and to medicine. There, for once, science has done a great deal for humanity. If I refrain from
intoning at this point the customary hymn in praise of technical progress in human communication,
travelling and so forth, I do so for a good reason. Agreeable though this special form of progress may be
in several respects, it also deflects the attention of those who enjoy it from much more essential issues
of man. Gradually they become accustomed to measuring the 'standard of living’ of a people in terms of
mere material comfort; and they forget altogether that the same development contributes little and
often is even harmful to the standard of living in a higher sense of the word. On the now accepted scale,
neither St. Francis nor Luther had very much of a 'standard of living'; yet it may be the great danger of
our particular industrial civilization that it neither gives birth to Luthers nor accords sufficient thought to
what a Luther of our times would regard as his main business.

"But let me return to natural science. Here we see indeed what real knowledge is. The more we study
natural science, however, the more striking will the contrast be between such achievements and our
complete bewilderment in all essential human matters. Take what the social sciences have to offer and
compare it with any part of natural science. What an appalling difference both as to available methods
and as to the confidence which we may have in the results! I know, they give us many historical facts
and much statistics in economics and in political science. But do such data lead to well-founded insight
into the dynamics of economic and of political events? I need not answer this question: You answered it
for me when you said that nobody has actual knowledge of such matters, that no valuable statements
can yet be made about the major human issues, and that the time has not yet come to found this new
domain of knowledge. Here you went much farther than I had done. I pointed out that for some reason
you do not like to deal with our problems. Although I had some suspicion that, even if the professors
wished, they would not be able to investigate such problems, I preferred to keep that suspicion to
myself. But since to my surprise you admit the fact spontaneously I may as well be equally frank.
Obviously this is the situation: The general name of science or knowledge is given to widely different
occupations. A few of these are concerned with matters which are comparatively clear and simple. Such
is the situation in mathematics, in the sciences of inanimate nature and in certain parts of biology. None
of these disciplines tries to solve problems which refer to the essential characteristics of man, to the
dynamics of society and of history. In this respect we have made a most depressing discovery: Wherever
the scientific mind tries to handle these topics it loses its bearings; its methods fail to yield any valuable
results, and mere opinions take the place which in real science is occupied by knowledge. Evidently all
these problems have one element in common which makes them inaccessible to your technique. This
common element is man. Whether considered as an individual or in groups, i.e. in society and in history,
it is man to whose nature you are unable to do justice. There is something in him which you cannot
conquer by procedures which are quite successful in present natural science. For this reason your
achievements begin to sink to a much lower level when your thinking merely approaches human affairs.
Until recently we believed that the scientific mind could clarify any subject-matter listed in the
university-catalogue. When in the present period of distress we found the professors unable to answer
our questions, we began to discover that in certain departments the customary technique of science is
practically powerless, and that nobody knows how to find new methods which would apply in these
fields. On the program of these departments, man is the main item. Unfortunately he is only on the
program. Science properly speaking achieves insight into its subject-matter. This can be done so long as
science keeps away from man, i.e. within a limited zone of secondary subject-matters. In departments
which are supposed to study human life, discussion of this program apparently serves as a substitute for
actual insight and factual knowledge.