SCIENTIFIC DABBLERS. 



595 



plainly, since he is ignorant of that which he expounds, it is better for 

 him to leave common things to common minds, and, by discussing the 

 loftier questions of the day, get greater credit for wisdom from those 

 who are equally ignorant with himself. He is safer from overthrow in 

 speculating upon unsettled theories than in attempting to explain that 

 which has been well demonstrated. 



Probably the majority of Americans get their ideas upon scientific 

 questions from the newspaper and the pulpit. The meagre quantities 

 of scientific lore picked up in the common schools, and in most of the 

 colleges, are scarcely important enough to be worth noticing ; and the 

 knowledge doled out in the form of popular lectures is so often beaten 

 up into froth, to suit the tastes of those who listen merely to kill time, 

 that it may also be left out of question. But, week after week, the 

 clergy hurl forth their anathemas against the profanities of science, 

 and, day after day, the newspapers quote the sayings of the popular 

 reviews. And but too frequently clergymen and journalists are both 

 mere scientific dabblers. Not always, but wofully often. Quite nat- 

 urally, then, much of the information given is practically worthless. 

 The really important discoveries are rarely noticed until they are years 

 old, for these retailers of scientific gossip scarcely ever know what is 

 of value, and generally content themselves with giving remarkable 

 theories, broached by intellectual quacks, or brilliant illustrations of 

 principles, with the principles themselves left out. The surface is given, 

 but the meanings lying beneath are neglected. 



Now and then, however, a startling theory is put forward by some 

 eminent scientist, or, after lying comparatively unnoticed for years, is 

 lifted into sudden prominence. And, presto ! down sweep the clergy 

 upon it as opposed to religion ; and the newspapers, roused by the 

 noise, add their dubious ridicule to the forces of the Church. Only the 

 press is generally less conservative than the pulpit. Its attacks are 

 not nearly so virulent as those of the theologian. 



And unquestionably these assaults do some good. They advertise 

 the theory, set people to thinking, and, in some measure, stimulate the 

 advance of the truth. Had it not been for Romish persecution, Galileo's 

 views might have been much slower in gaining ground ; and it is like- 

 ly that, if the English pulpit had made less vigorous attack upon young 

 Geology, there might still have been educated men believing in the 

 literal six days' creation and the universal deluge. And yet it is 

 worth noticing, in this connection, that a book has been published in 

 England, within the past two years, which is meant to show that the 

 earth is not a globe, and that the sun revolves around it. The author's 

 chief arguments are that " water is level," and that his views are 

 scriptural. He calls Newton a " lunatic " (these are the words of his 

 prospectus)., and the Astronomical Society a set of " professional liars." 

 Equally ridiculous statements upon scientific matters may be heard 

 from popular lecturers and writers nearly every day. 



