Explanation of Science

[Originally untitled.]

Am I right in my explanation of Science when I say it is a knowledge of forces?

“Yes,” but that does not cover all the combinations of the word, for science has no established standard independent of error. I will try to give you a plainer illustration of the word. To give an explanation of the word science, you must first know what is to be tested. If intended to apply to acknowledged truths, then your explanation covers all the ground. But if it is to be applied to wisdom not understood, then it will not cover the objections, for opinions may come in, as they are science by the natural man. True science is of the wisdom of God, false science is of man; so in using the word, this difference must be kept in mind.

I will give you your position before the world in regard to me or this truth. You are not to be supposed to be the truth or even to be me, but only to explain what I teach. For instance, one person can execute music on a piano and yet be ignorant of the science. Another can execute music and understand how he learned it and how to teach the same to others. Now the masses acknowledge both as musicians and class them in the same catalog. The scientific musician knows they are not alike, but the masses cannot understand the difference, for the tunes sound just alike to them. The wisdom of this world, or the masses, sees no difference. Now the scientific musician wants someone to tell where he makes the difference. He need not play or teach music, but show by experiment that one can play a tune that anyone can bring him and at the same time show that the other plays by rote.