In a recent criticism of Christian Science the fact was brought out that in its method of reasoning Christian Science confined itself almost exclusively to deducing its conclusions from a fixed principle. This, our friend argues, is entirely contrary to the accepted method of scientific thought. He says that the one thing common to all scientific reasoning, is the inductive method. In other words, our friend says that only by reasoning backward from effect to cause, is it possible to have a scientific procedure of thought. This statement is not, however, borne out by facts, as even a cursory investigation will prove. On the contrary, many of our best-known lines of really scientific thought start from a definite principle or a series of fundamental facts upon which is built' a superstructure, purely by deductive reasoning.
For example, the whole of mathematics, with all its wealth of figures and its many intricacies, is built upon the homely multiplication table, by deductive reasoning. It was argued that if two times two is four, then it follows that four times four is sixteen, and from this modest beginning there was evolved, by forward reasoning, the science of numbers, with all its ramifications.
It is well, at this point, to note that it is impossible to explain why two times two is four. We accept it as a fact, because we can prove it, each one for himself. Our modern scientific friends accept many unexplained things as facts, always provided they can prove them to be true. Is mathematics true? Then it is possible to have a really scientific system, built upon an unexplained principle which is proven true by the superstructure built thereon by deductive reasoning.
