THOUGHT IN SCIENCE 169 



nothing unlawful or lawless in a curved spine or clironic constipation 

 or an accidental poisoning. It is inconceivable that the ordinary pupil 

 will get any very clear idea of " law in nature " from teaching that is as 

 ambiguous as that of most teachers in the matter of law. 



Ambiguous and misleading use of significant terms shows itself 

 further in connection with ideas of causation — ^which certainly ought to 

 be fundamental in science teaching. A teacher asks the question, " Why 

 is air necessary to a plant ? " Now this is a perfectly legitimate question 

 if the meaning is " Wliat is the relation of air to the maintenance of 

 life in a plant?" But I have heard this and similar questions asked 

 when the teachers' meaning was substantially, "What is the evidence 

 that air is necessary, etc. ? " In about three fourths of the cases the 

 pupils will answer such a question by saying "Because the plant can 

 not live without it." Teachers will frequently in such cases teach an- 

 other answer — presumably the "right" one — ^but there will be no 

 clearing up of thought. 



Another type of question confuses a vague teleology with physio- 

 logical principles of function, or with some ecological theory of adapta- 

 tion. Thus, "Why has the grasshopper longer hind legs than the 

 walking stick ? Why has the rose-bush thorns ? Why has a fly a shorter 

 proboscis than the butterfly? Why has the bean-blossom a showier 

 corolla than the oak?" These are actual examples of questions asked 

 by teachers of biology in various schools. Strictly speaking, such a 

 question means, " How came this organism to have the character in 

 question — organism here standing for species?" Which no one can 

 answer. The pupil may have read or have heard of the speculations 

 of Darwin or of Lamarck, but if he has, he should have been informed 

 also that they were speculations. I have heard teachers who are re- 

 garded as of high merit asking such questions when they meant simply 

 "WTiat is the advantage such an animal has from this character?" 

 Not only is the apparent utility, function or adaptation tacitly assumed 

 by many teachers to explain the existence of organs or instinct, but 

 the adaptation itself is assumed to be the "intention" or purpose of 

 nature. The expression " nature's intention " is frequently heard in the 

 class room. It may be impossible to speak in our public schools of the 

 "purpose of God" without prejudice; but it does not seem to be a bit 

 more scientific — and it is much more presumptuous — to speak of the 

 "intention of Nature." 



In the matter of intellectual honesty, does the teacher of science 

 show any superiority over other teachers ? The science teachers do not 

 appear to me to be less prone than other teachers of my acquaintance 

 to resort to indirect methods of accomplishing practical results. They 

 do not appear to me to be less evasive in their dealings with subordinates 

 or superiors. Pupils are constantly impelled to ask questions suggested 



VOL. LXXXVI.— 12. 



