Mr. Traubel tells us in the “Conservator” …

Mr. Traubel tells us in the Conservator that he would have no competitions in trade, no elements divisional or compulsory operating anywhere. The mere absence of compulsory elements would not constitute a guarantee against competitions and divisional elements, and their existence is by no means an unmixed evil. No competitions in trade means perfect communism, and perhaps Mr. Traubel would have perfect voluntary communism. But, alas! he would not get rid of divisional elements even then, for intellectually and temperamentally men would be different and would think and act differently within very wide limits. Mr. Traubel also says that he would have all questions open until all men had closed them. Now, if this meant simply that he would grant people the freedom to discuss and question accepted doctrines without threatening to close anything in the sense in which tyrannical governments declare questions finally settled, there would be nothing original or striking in the statement. But it means more; it means that Mr. Traubel would regard no question settled in a scientific sense until all men had settled it in the same way, for he makes the remark in reply to a correspondent who regrets that Mr. Traubel has manifested a certain sympathy for anti-vivisection views, and who tells him that vivisection has passed the experimental stage and been firmly established. It is certainly no answer to such an assertion to say that some men still challenge vivisection, for there is hardly a scientific proposition which some men do not dispute. A question is not open in a scientific sense because some men have not solved it. Some men still believe that the earth does not move, but the question is not open. To keep all questions open in Mr. Traubel’s sense is to deny the possibility of scientific proof. He evidently confuses the political sense with the scientific. To punish men for heresy or ignorance would be a political closing of questions, which freedom forbids. To call a man a fool for holding absurd opinions is a scientific closing of questions against which liberty has nothing to say. The question whether water boils at a temperature of two hundred and twelve degrees is a closed question. Any one desiring to dispute the fact should be perfectly free to do so. But no individual’s denial of it should cause other men to entertain the least doubt on the subject, and no one should be expected to turn aside from other matters in order to listen to this denial and weigh it. It must be admitted, on general grounds, that there is always the bare possibility that the individual making this or any other denial or affirmation may be right, and that the fools are those who accept the seemingly-established opinion. But where this happens once, the contrary happens thousands of times; and, as the end of man is an action, not a thought, it will not do to bring all the steam-engines to a standstill in order that we may wonder whether the man who denies that water boils may not be right, after all. There is only one rule to follow in this matter. Accept nothing unless it appeals to your reason, whether it be proclaimed by all or by one, by the expert or the tyro; but, having arrived at a conclusion by means of your reason, do not be unsettled merely because some one else doubts or denies. Force the innovator to bombard you with reasons in order to gain your attention; otherwise, heed him not.