486 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



know rocks, but are "ignorant of human nature," and that they can 

 neither "bluff" nor "exaggerate." This rather reveals the low ideals 

 of some young men of our day; ideals entertained by a certain class of 

 thoughtless youths in all callings, probably no more frequently among 

 reporters than among others. The best and most effective kind of 

 politics is not the kind that relies on bluffs. While it is likely true that 

 scientists as a class hate sham and exaggeration, it is not to be for- 

 gotten that the great recent progress of geology is a direct result of the 

 really effective political talents possessed by some geologists who have 

 held, or who now hold, official positions the world over. Many good 

 geologists are also skillful politicians, not to say that a few have even 

 proved to be better politicians than geologists. As to the discovery that 

 geologists are not a wealthy class, the public was elsewhere treated to 

 interviews with two geologists who were millionaires. Some other 

 millionaires among them seem to have escaped this attention. The 

 space given to the discussion of the private economics of members of the 

 congress must be regarded as a concession, by the knights of the quill, 

 to the vulgar taste of our age, which knows no other measure of a man 

 than his bank account. Everything considered, the presentation to the 

 public of what may be called the general news of the congress was quite 

 complete. Considering that the members of the congress spoke more 

 than twenty languages, while the reporter was limited to two or three, 

 the items of general information gathered were as many and as varied 

 as could be reasonably expected. 



One reporter discovered that geologists rarely laugh. " As many as 

 six or eight papers will be read without producing a single flash of wit." 

 To one who attended the sessions and took part in some of the excur- 

 sions, the fairness of this statement appears questionable, to say the 

 least. While some of the lesser lights of the congress may wisely have 

 avoided any attempt at small wit, there were those who rightly regarded 

 their audiences as consisting of people capable of appreciating humor 

 and who also knew how to indulge without falling flat. In discussing 

 continental movements one of these men said : " It must be a source of 

 great satisfaction to know that the earth in our part is rigid." The 

 reporter evidently took this as a serious statement, for he soon proceeds 

 to make the assertion that "the congress, so far, has not revealed a 

 geological humorist." Evidently the layman is at a disadvantage in this 

 case. He can not always appreciate the background against which the 

 geologists's humor becomes apparent. 



In all these three characterizations by the reporters, that the geologists 

 lack humor, wealth and "bluff," there appears a robust survival of an 

 ancient popular attitude to scientists, which is hardly warranted in our 

 time. This attitude is clearly not based on any investigation by the 

 reporters. It is probably the result of high pressure work in filling 



