galton.org 267
would have been rightly appraised. We see at the same time that the effect
of any particular kind of Nurture could not be determined, because the
whole of the conditions were not under observation.
(4) Suppose the caretaker to feed during the night certain worms that
he had marked for the purpose in a manner that wholly escaped the notice
of the observer, and that the selection of the worms that were marked had
been made on grounds irrespective both of their breed and of the care
bestowed on them during the day-time. The result would be that in any
large number of worms grouped either according to breed or to the
observed dietary, the proportion in either group will be the same between
those who thrive, and those who otherwise would not have thriven,
consequently the relative well-being of the two groups will remain
unaltered. Favour or disfavour that is bestowed irrespectively of breed and
of nurture cannot influence the relative effects of breed and nurture in the
long run.
The foregoing arguments cover all composite cases where the
influences are mixed, therefore whether there be any unperceived
theocratic intervention in favour of particular races, or of individuals
irrespectively of race, or partly in one way and partly in another, it cannot
under the foregoing suppositions vitiate a statistical comparison between
the relative effects of Nature and Nurture, it being understood that 'Nature'
refers to all the hereditary gifts and privileges of the race, including
constant theocratic intervention in its favour during the period of the
observations.
There is, however, a fifth supposition which I feel somewhat ashamed
to record. It is that the caretaker, knowing he was watched and not liking
it, devised plans for defeating the observer. I fully acknowledge that he
could easily succeed in misleading him. The homologue would be a God
with the attributes of a Devil, who misled humble and earnest inquirers
after truth by malicious artifice. I should not have dared to have alluded to
such an ignoble supposition, had not Milton himself put it forward in
Paradise Lost, Bk. viii, where he makes Raphael tell Adam that God 'did
wisely' not to divulge his secrets to be scanned by those who ought rather
to admire, and that if they list to conjecture, he has perhaps left the fabric
of the heavens to their disputes to 'move his laughter' at their quaint
opinions. I think the passage (which was written before Newton's time)
must have jarred on the hearts of many readers, and that Milton's
supposition of such a character in his God is not likely to be adopted by
many persons at the present time. I cannot imagine a more cruel and
