Scientific data are often subjected to two contradictory over-simplifications. People who have no personal experience in science often say that a certain idea has been scientifically established and feel that the question is therewith settled. They do not distinguish among methods, or generalizations in different fields. This implies that all science is infallible. The other oversimplification comes from the specialist; he may dismiss the work of men who study the problems approaching his own but who use methods different from his. This view implies that only one type of scientific investigation is really sound. Both groups are wrong, for science is neither infallible nor wholly untrustworthy. In fact, science as an abstract whole is nothing; it is the name given collectively to all methods which men have used to explore natural processes and the results obtained by the use of such methods. Some problems are sufficiently simple and accessible to be explored in detail while others can be treated only after a set of postulates have been set as a starting point. A mechanism must be established within which it is possible to deal with the problems at hand. In other words, there are levels of scientific research which may be arranged in a series based on increasing assumptions. The more complex levels are formed by assuming the data and methods of those simpler and adding to them a new set of assumptions with the aid of which it is possible to treat the phenomena to be studied. Material cannot be carried directly from one level to another unless attention is given to the premises on which the conclusions have been drawn. Since such attention is not always given, entire fields of research have sometimes been brought into suspicion on the part of those working in what they themselves style “a more fundamental field.” Yet there may be data available at a different level which, when properly used, would be of value in their own work.

Among the issues before the American People today none are of greater importance than that of National Planning. The gradual evolution of the processes of civilization to their present state has brought National Planning to public attention as the next logical step. No one can explore the facts of our natural resources, our tool-power and our man-power without becoming aware of their interdependences and the need of intelligent coordinated action concerning them, if an orderly progressive society is to be established and maintained. If planning is to be incorporated in National Policy, the very nature of the problem itself and the facts and relationships to be dealt with should command the sincere and devoted attention of all groups of scientific workers in every field of human interest. It is not the purpose of this paper to argue this point. It will be assumed, before this group, that the planning process is a scientific process and therefore should be of great interest to the members of this association. In the short period assigned to the consideration of this subject, all that can be accomplished is to indicate what are some of the problems involved in scientific social planning. The inadequacies of the type of planning such as attempted by the German, Italian and Japanese Governments, to mention a few, and its comparison with the types of planning from which evolves a democratic social power, must be left for consideration at another time. The planning process as related to democratic social objectives is concerned with setting up a framework of relationships among the processes of civilization which has a high probability of attaining optimum social satisfactions. Modern civilization is founded on three primary dynamic systems each having its own characteristics. These dynamic systems will be termed “Systems of Power” and are:

1. Systems of Resources Power

2. Systems of Tool-Power

3. Systems of Man-Power

Medical research is still in its infancy. Within the memory of many of us, medical knowledge has made more progress than had been achieved in all the preceding time since the beginning of history. We have witnessed the reduction of our death rate, the extension of our life span and the achievement of a general state of health hitherto unknown.

What is the relationship between the field of science and the philosophy of dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union? Ninety-five per cent of the fears and misgivings expressed by American writers in regard to this subject are quite unwarranted. They have been arrived at, not by any use of the scientific method of carefully examining observable facts, but by accepting the superficialities and distortions of the sensational press, and by making sweeping “deductions” from wholly unverified premises, or from isolated and exceptional instances. Some scientists who would not dream of approaching their own field of specialty in any such manner apparently feel that the complex problem of the relations between science and a certain philosophy within a new society can be so approached.

The use of the marginal concept in academic economic theory is found to underlie a good deal of current orthodox economic analysis. The marginal concept is used by thinkers with a collectivist bent as well as thinkers of an orthodox stamp. Marginal analysis is reasonably serviceable on some occasions but fraught with difficulties on others. When the marginal concept refers to a measurable factor, such as the marginal product of an additional unit of capital, it is unquestionably useful for analysis. When it refers to a subjective situation, such as a marginal increase or decrease in satisfaction or demand, the analysis which rests upon it is often somewhat shaky. This paper is an attempt to point out some difficulties in the use of marginal analysis when such analysis refers to internal psychological states of economic men. The points made here will center about the concept of marginal satisfaction in income, that is to say, the assumption that the increment of satisfaction resulting from an additional unit of income, diminishes with size of income.