THOUGHT in SCIENCE 165 



question whether this accuracy is not itself a contributing factor in the 

 selection of their specialties, rathei than a result of pursuing the studies. 

 But in so far as the ability to make minute observations on special 

 material is the result of training, it may mean simply the acquisition 

 of a special technique for running a fine-tooth comb over particular 

 classes of objects, and not a general habit of taking in details at a 

 glance. Teachers of physics are not especially acute in noting varia- 

 tions in the leaves of plants that they happen to pass; teachers of 

 biology are not especially keen in observing delicate changes in the 

 facial muscles ; teachers of chemistry are not exceptionally alert in dis- 

 covering the nevr fashionable angle for the cut of reveres. Whatever 

 excellence of observation any of these may show seems to be confined 

 either to the subject-matter or to the material in which the individual 

 has a special interest. But this is just as true of mathematics teachers 

 and of milliners, who never studied any " science " at all. 



The method of science or of the science laboratory is supposed to 

 develop a certain " instinct " for system or order. My observations do 

 not support the expectation that science teachers are exceptionally 

 orderly in their handling of materials. A working scientist must cer- 

 tainly have some sort of system in his head, but scientific work of a y&tj 

 high grade seems to be quite compatible with personal habits of a very 

 high degree of disorderliness. Science teachers can not guarantee to the 

 fond parents that the science courses will make the children any more 

 careful about hanging up their hats and putting away the books than 

 they were before. It is not to be denied that many individuals received 

 from some well-conducted laJboratory their first inspiration to make a 

 place for everything and to keep everything in its place; but it is 

 equally true that a successful science teacher may reside in the same 

 skin as that occupied by a person who only occasionally gets his personal 

 belongings into the right place — at home. At any rate, the science 

 teachers that I happen to know are not as a class more systematic in 

 their handling of materials than are the teachers of other subjects, or 

 than the business men and housekeepers who never studied science at all. 

 When we extend this principle of order to the matter of time, we 

 find the same failure to generalize the training. Teachers of science 

 within my experience are not more punctual in keeping engagements; 

 they are not more prompt in setting to work when it is time to set to 

 work, or in stopping when it is time to stop; they are not more 

 systematic in planning the work of an hour or of a day. The indi- 

 vidual variations seem to be as great among science teachers as among 

 shoppers, and their general efficiency with respect to planning their 

 time to the best advantage is exceeded by many housekeepers and 

 clerks who lay no claim to special training. 



When it comes to having system or order in the handling of ideas 



