"Can I call a distinguished biologist a donkey, when he is quite certain that my classification is incorrect?"

How far am I justified in arguing with a person much more learned than myself? Or if you dislike this egoism, how far are you justified in arguing with a person much more learned that yourself- supposing that such a person could exist? At what point may I come to the conclusion that a man who has certainly read more books than I, has, neverthless, read them wrong? The problem must often cross the path of ordinary men who are sagacious rather than learned; for very few of us are learned, whereas all of us are frightfully sagacious. Can I call an eminent orthinologist an owl, when he assures me that his bodily structure renders this untenable? Can I call a distinguished biologist a donkey, when he is quite certain that my classification is incorrect?

As a first guide in this matter, I should like to offer one suggestion. I think that you and I are quite justified in disagreeing with doctors, however extraordinary in their erudition, if they violate ordinary reason in their line of argument. If they cannot even reason upon their facts, I think we are justified in doubting even their facts. Suppose a man says to me, "I know more than you do about the Tragic Drama of Athens." I reply: "Yes, you do know more than I; you could not well know less." But suppose he goes on to instruct me, and says: "You see Euripides left ten plays, and Sophocles left four plays, and that makes seventeen plays." Then I think I am justified in breaking in and saying: "You are a horribly learned man, no doubt; but, as you obviously can't count, I don't see why I should feel certain that you can do anything else." Suppose a man says: "You know nothing about Danish churches: let me tell you that every Danish church is balanced on the tip of its spire." I then reply: "I know nothing about Danish churches, except that they aren't like that." The intellectual principle is a very simple one; and yet it will, I think, be found to be of interest, and even of utility, in the life of to-day.

-October 31, 1908, Illustrated London News