THE STATUS OF PROFESSOR SODDY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19622, 17 October 1933, Page 11

THE STATUS OF PROFESSOR SODDY.

To the Editor of “ The Tlmaru Herald ” Sir—Your correspondent, A. M. Paterson, refers to Professor Soddy, and he asks: “What is he, pray?” It is generally known that Professor Soddy is a scientist and, as a chemist and physicist, he has won distinction However, for Mr Paterson’s instruction, It can be added that Soddy was lecturer in physical chemistry and radioactivity at Glasgow University (ISO - 14) and professor of chemistry at Aberdeen University (1914-19), and professor of inorganic and physical chemistry at Oxford University. His published works include “Radioactivity,” “The Interpretation of Radium" and “The Interpretation of the Atom.” In addition, and of late years, Soddy has also published his ideas on so-called postidiluvian economics. These latter works are not accepted as authoritative, because they are entirely outside the sphere of Soddy’s life work. He has won notable distinction in the sciences of physics and chemistry, but his learning has not given him knowledge of the science of economics. In passing, it might be noted that Soddy has evolved various mechanical inventions; one in particular is a centrifugal reducing and reversing gear suitable for marine engines. Very probably Douglas cranks think that because Soddy has evolved a reducing and reversing gear, he could be usefully employed on Douglas social credit. Certainly Douglas credit would require some reducing and reversing if it were released on its inflationary course. But, even though Soddy has expressed some peculiar ideas on economic science, he has not descended to endorse the very peculiar and ridiculous ideas advocated by Major Douglas and his motley groups of differing followers. It is to be hoped that Mr Paterson can now comprehend Professor Soddy’s scientific status; further, it is hoped that Mr Paterson can now remedy his very evident delusion, and that he can now realise that Professor Soddy is a physicist and chemist, but certainly not an economist; and still further, it is hoped that Mr Paterson finds his question answered to his satisfaction, and that he finds his curiosity gratified. “‘Value’,” says Mr Paterson, “following the example of Mr Lyold Ross, quoted the same book to prove that the people of Austria, at a totally different time, were in dire straits.” It is unfortunately necessary to remind Mr Paterson that Repington’s diary is dated and that in addition, my letters contained quotations from two other reputable writers. Repington and Gibbs and Nitti all supported the fact that the bread credits put the people of Austria in “dire straits.” However, will Mr Paterson quote any reputable authority to show that the bread credits definitely benefited the peopleof Austria? Until Mr Paterson can put forward this authority—and he has had every opportunity to do so—it does not become him to voice baseless contradictions. "In reply to Professor Copland," asserts Mr Paterson, “Major Douglas gave five elements in prices which wages, salaries and dividends could not possibly meet.” Mr Paterson is wrong. Will he give five specific and concrete examples of those “five elements”? Assuredly, it can be added that Mr Paterson will not answer this question; but. he forgets that the whole structure of Douglasism collapses unless these examples are brought forward.

There is very little more in your correspondent’s letter worth a reply. The most significant thing about his letter, is that he has appointed himself judge of this debate. It is perhaps useful to remind him that it is not usual for participants in a debate to assume to give judgment on that debate; contestants in a boxing ring cannot, on authority or principle, award themselves points. It is not for Mr Paterson to give judgment on the letters connected with the present controversy; that function is reserved for the Intelligence of the readers thereof. Perhaps, Mr Paterson was led into this error because of his inspired regard for the Douglas doctrine. Writing in “The Hope of the Workers," Austin Hopkinson said: "People are too apt to regard as inspired any doctine which they cannot understand ...” Perhaps that is why Mr Paterson fondly clings to a vanished dream; why he cherishes that obsolete absurdity which is Douglasism. —I am, etc., VALUE.