Criticsofthelatterdayuniversitypolicieshavefromtimetotimecalledattentiontoanapparentreluctanceonthepartoftheseacademicscientiststoencounterpresent—dayfactshand—to—hand，ortotraceoutthecausestowhichcurrentconditionsaredue。Distemperedcriticshaveevenallegedthattheacademicleadersinthesocialsciencesareheldundersomeconstraint，asbeing，insomesort，inthepayofthewell—to—doconservativeelement;thattheyaretherebyincapacitatedfromfollowingupanyinquirytoitslogicalconclusion，incasetheconclusionmightappeartotraversetheinterestortheopinionsofthoseonwhomtheseleadersareinthiswaypecuniarilydependent。
Now，itmaybeconcededwithoutviolencetonotoriousfacts，thattheseofficialleadersofsciencedocommonlyreachconclusionsinnocuoustotheexistinglawandorder，particularlywithrespecttoreligion，ownership，andthedistributionofwealth。Butthisneedimplynoconstraint，norevenanypeculiardegreeoftact，muchlessamoralobliquity。Itmayconfidentlybeasserted，withoutfearofcontradictionfromtheirside，thattheofficialleadersinthisprovinceofacademicresearchandindoctrinationare，commonly，innowayhinderedfrompushingtheirresearcheswithfullfreedomandtothelimitoftheircapacity;andthattheyarelikewisefreetogivethefullestexpressiontoanyconclusionsorconvictionstowhichtheirinquiriesmaycarrythem。Thattheyareabletodosoisafortunatecircumstance，duetothefactthattheirintellectualhorizonisboundedbythesamelimitsofcommonplaceinsightandpreconceptionsasaretheprevailingopinionsoftheconservativemiddleclass。Thatistosay，alargeandaggressivemediocrityistheprimequalificationforaleaderofscienceintheselines，ifhisleadershipistogainacademicauthentication。
Allthismayseemtoomuchlikeloosegenerality。Withaviewtosuchprecisionasthecaseadmits，itmayberemarkedthatthisprovinceofacademicscienceashabituallypursued，iscommonlyoccupiedwithquestionsofwhatoughttobedone，ratherthanwiththeoriesofthegenesisandcausationofthepresent—daystateofthings，orwithquestionsastowhatthepresent—daydriftofthingsmaybe，asdeterminedbythecausesatwork。Asitdoesinpopularspeculation，soalsointhisacademicquasi—science，theinterestcentresonwhatoughttobedonetoimproveconditionsandtoconservethoseusagesandconventionsthathavebyhabitbeenimbeddedinthereceivedschemeofuseandwont，andsohavecometobefoundgoodandright。Itisoftheessenceofpopularspeculationsonthisrangeoftopicsthattheyarefocussedonquestionsofuse;thattheyareofateleologicalorder;thattheylooktotheexpediencyoftheobservedfactsandtotheirexploitation，ratherthantoascientificexplanationofthem。Thisattitude，ofcourse，istheattitudeofexpediencyandhomiletics，notofscientificinquiry。
Asingleillustrativeinstanceoftheprevalenceofthisanimusintheacademicsocialsciencesmaybeinplace。Itisusualamongeconomists，e。g。，tomakemuchofthepropositionthateconomicsisan\"art\"——theartofexpedientmanagementofthematerialmeansoflife;andfurtherthatthejustificationofeconomictheoryliesinitsserviceabilityinthisrespect。Suchaquasi—sciencenecessarilytakesthecurrentsituationforgrantedasapermanentstateofthings;tobecorrectedandbroughtbackintoitsnormalroutineincaseofaberration，andtobesafeguardedwithapologeticdefenceatpointswhereitisnotworkingtothesatisfactionofallparties。Itisa\"science\"
ofcomplaisantinterpretations，apologies，andprojectedremedies。