i bring together here different studies relating more or less directly to questions of scientific methodology. the scientific method consists in observing and experimenting; if the scientist had at his disposal infinite time, it would only be necessary to say to him: ‘look and notice well’; but, as there is not time to see everything, and as it is better not to see than to see wrongly, it is necessary for him to make choice. the first question, therefore, is how he should make this choice. this question presents itself as well to the physicist as to the historian; it presents itself equally to the mathematician, and the principles which should guide each are not without analogy. the scientist conforms to them instinctively, and one can, reflecting on these principles, foretell the future of mathematics.

we shall understand them better yet if we observe the scientist at work, and first of all it is necessary to know the psychologic mechanism of invention and, in particular, that of mathematical creation. observation of the processes of the work of the mathematician is particularly instructive for the psychologist.

in all the sciences of observation account must be taken of the errors due to the imperfections of our senses and our instruments. luckily, we may assume that, under certain conditions, these errors are in part self-compensating, so as to disappear in the average; this compensation is due to chance. but what is chance? this idea is difficult to justify or even to define; and yet what i have just said about the errors of observation, shows that the scientist can not neglect it. it therefore is necessary to give a definition as precise as possible of this concept, so indispensable yet so illusive.

these are generalities applicable in sum to all the sciences; and for example the mechanism of mathematical invention does not differ sensibly from the mechanism of invention in general. later i attack questions relating more particularly to certain special sciences and first to pure mathematics.

in the chapters devoted to these, i have to treat subjects a little more abstract. i have first to speak of the notion of space; every one knows space is relative, or rather every one says so, but many think still as if they believed it absolute; it suffices to reflect a little however to perceive to what contradictions they are exposed.

the questions of teaching have their importance, first in themselves, then because reflecting on the best way to make new ideas penetrate virgin minds is at the same time reflecting on how these notions were acquired by our ancestors, and consequently on their true origin, that is to say, in reality on their true nature. why do children usually understand nothing of the definitions which satisfy scientists? why is it necessary to give them others? this is the question i set myself in the succeeding chapter and whose solution should, i think, suggest useful reflections to the philosophers occupied with the logic of the sciences.

on the other hand, many geometers believe we can reduce mathematics to the rules of formal logic. unheard-of efforts have been made to do this; to accomplish it, some have not hesitated, for example, to reverse the historic order of the genesis of our conceptions and to try to explain the finite by the infinite. i believe i have succeeded in showing, for all those who attack the problem unprejudiced, that here there is a fallacious illusion. i hope the reader will understand the importance of the question and pardon me the aridity of the pages devoted to it.

the concluding chapters relative to mechanics and astronomy will be easier to read.

mechanics seems on the point of undergoing a complete revolution. ideas which appeared best established are assailed by bold innovators. certainly it would be premature to decide in their favor at once simply because they are innovators.

but it is of interest to make known their doctrines, and this is what i have tried to do. as far as possible i have followed the historic order; for the new ideas would seem too astonishing unless we saw how they arose.

astronomy offers us majestic spectacles and raises gigantic problems. we can not dream of applying to them directly the experimental method; our laboratories are too small. but analogy with phenomena these laboratories permit us to attain may nevertheless guide the astronomer. the milky way, for example, is an assemblage of suns whose movements seem at first capricious. but may not this assemblage be compared to that of the molecules of a gas, whose properties the kinetic theory of gases has made known to us? it is thus by a roundabout way that the method of the physicist may come to the aid of the astronomer.

finally i have endeavored to give in a few lines the history of the development of french geodesy; i have shown through what persevering efforts, and often what dangers, the geodesists have procured for us the knowledge we have of the figure of the earth. is this then a question of method? yes, without doubt, this history teaches us in fact by what precautions it is necessary to surround a serious scientific operation and how much time and pains it costs to conquer one new decimal.