Man and woman : a study of human secondary sexual characters / by Havelock Ellis.

  • Ellis, Havelock, 1859-1939.
Date:
1904
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Man and woman : a study of human secondary sexual characters / by Havelock Ellis. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by King’s College London. The original may be consulted at King’s College London.

    498/538 (page 474)
    to-day the most brilliant and conspicuous champion. I am not competent to judge of the mathematical validity of such methods, but so far as I am able to follow them I gladly recognise that they constitute a very valuable instrument for biological progress. I say nothing against the instrument: I merely point out that, on this occasion, the results obtained by its application have been wrongly interpreted.1 1 A recent criticism by Mr. Havelock Ellis of my view that there is no preponderating variability of man over woman seems to need no reply (we read in Biometrika, vol. ii., 1903, p. 372), for the author does not appear to understand what weight is to be given to scientific evidence as compared with vague generalities. No one can realise more clearly than I do that the evidence I have had before me in discussing this question was very imperfect. It was, however, less imperfect than the evidence which enabled Darwin to reach a con- clusion in the matter which is still accepted by most persons qualified to judge. Professor Pearson has introduced more exact methods of dealing with biological data, and for this we owe him a debt of gratitude. But it is necessary to point out, once more, that a scientific method is, strictly, an instrument. Its value depends upon the user. Professor Pearson possesses a statistical instrument of great precision, but the best instrument in the world will not enable a man to select his facts rightly or to interpret them correctly. I have shown (as specifically as I am able) that in attacking my position Professor Pearson has applied his method to the wrong facts, that he has, more- over, wrongly interpreted his own results, and that he has, further, fallen into many extraordinary errors by the way. Now, as he retires from the assault, he is content to say, in effect: But then, you see, my methods were so scientific ! If that reply were adequate to the occasion it would constitute a serious criticism of scientific methods. It remains an instructive self-criticism. LIBRARY INSTITUTE ©F PSYCHIATRY ^ DE CRESPIGNY PARK ^** LONDON SE5 8AF