"Exactly the same may be said in regard to the mineral structure of a
mining district; the course of a metallic vein being often correctly
indicated by the shrewd guess of an OBSERVANT workman, when THE
SCIENTIFIC REASONING of the mining engineer altogether fails."

Precisely. Here we have exactly the kind of thing we are in search
of: the man who has observed and observed till the facts are so
thoroughly in his head that through familiarity he has lost sight
both of them and of the processes whereby he deduced his conclusions
from them--is apparently not considered scientific, though he knows
how to solve the problem before him; the mining engineer, on the
other hand, who reasons scientifically--that is to say, with a
knowledge of his own knowledge--is found not to know, and to fail in
discovering the mineral.

"It is an experience we are continually encountering in other walks
of life," continues Dr. Carpenter, "that particular persons are
guided--some apparently by an original and others by AN ACQUIRED
INTUITION--to conclusions for which they can give no adequate reason,
but which subsequent events prove to have been correct." And this, I
take it, implies what I have been above insisting on, namely, that on
becoming intense, knowledge seems also to become unaware of the
grounds on which it rests, or that it has or requires grounds at all,
or indeed even exists. The only issue between myself and Dr.
Carpenter would appear to be, that Dr. Carpenter, himself an
acknowledged leader in the scientific world, restricts the term
"scientific" to the people who know that they know, but are beaten by
those who are not so conscious of their own knowledge; while I say
that the term "scientific" should be applied (only that they would