Scripto | Page Revision | Transcription

CONRAD SHADLEN COUNSELOR AT LAW NEW YORK, N.Y. 

-2-

admit within the definition of "fact" not only those propositions which can be demonstrated through reliance upon the senses,  but also those assertions which are based on valid rational inferences ultimately depending on sensibly demonstrable propositions.   Assuming all this,  propositions which predict future events can still scarcely be referred to as "facts".   The predictions which you, yourself,  made based on your celebrated theory of relativity could not and were not accented as "fact".   Else, why did an expedition travel to observe the phenomena you had predicted? 

  Let us even assume the validity of the philosophical position that "facts" exist independently of our power to observe or "know" them?  The reference I have made to your theory of relativity would seem to show that the world is unwilling rationally to accept prophecies,  based on whatever a ccurate calculations as facts until they can be observed.   Especially is this so with prophecies as portentous as those with which your committee deals.   

  At best,  your propositions that: 1) no military defense against atomic bombs is to be expected, 2) atomic bombs will in the future be used, 3) there is no solution except international control, 4) atomic bombs will become more destructive, are profound opinions expressed by brilliant and well qualified persons.   With your other assertions I will not quarrel. 

  To argue that these assertions are "facts" is to weaken your position,  to give the opportunist his chance to be destructive,  to give the sincere sceptic fuel for his fire.  

  Such risks seem to me to be unneccessary.  Is it not enough that persons such as you and your committee and the many thinking men and women who I am sure will support you, think that these assertions have a reasonably high degree of probability?  Must we say that these"facts" are as true as the fact that each of us exists? Is it not sufficiently frightful that these assertions are very probable to move us to protect ourselves against their becoming actualized in the near future?  Is not their threat horrifying enough that we must insist on their actuality? 

  To my mind, if the people of the world come to know, as many of them apparently do not know, that the prophecies you make may very likely come true, they will act as one to preserve themselves.  To convince them of this danger will be difficult enough; to convince them that these propositions are "facts" may be impossible.