Viewing page 52 of 97

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

98
as this account was less liable to lead into error provided the methods are correct. That even here a [[red underlined]] so called exact Science had struck a snag. [[/red underlined]] In chemistry we are used to this and we are ready to change our theories as often as we strike our paradox. But for [[red underlined]] mathematicians this was a hard pill to swallow. [[/red underlined]] Some them swallowed it and made up their mind to start anew along new methods and [[red underlined]] accept [[/red underlined]] the [[red underlined]] existence of the paradox, [[/red underlined]] fortified with the idea that if it took so many thousand years to strike this paradox it will probably take again so many thousand year before they strike the next [[strikethrough]] parado [[/strikethrough]] paradox. He tells that some mathematicians
[[end page]]
[[start page]]
99 
in [[red underlined]] France made up their mind to ignore the paradox [[/red underlined]] and went on as heretofore. - "Those" he says" [[strikethrough]] a[[?]] [[/strikethrough]] [[red underlined]] are bound to see their mathematics perish". [[/red underlined]]
All this seems very impressive to me and explains why some men persist in error. - If [[red underlined]] such things can happen in mathematics [[/red underlined]] how much more is it liable to happen in such incomparably more complicated matters as [[red underlined]] sociology, politics, religion [[/red underlined]] etc.
Germany and Austria with their remnants of the feudal system and their cult of everything for the Hohenzollerns or the Hapsburgs have struck their paradox long ago but still [[red underlined]] persist in their logic instead [[/red underlined]] of side stepping.
[[strikethrough]] For the [[/strikethrough]] The same thing applies to [[strikethrough]] every [[/strikethrough]] [[red underlined]] every line of action [[/red underlined]] every line of thought or argu-