loomis] CHILDREN AS NATURALISTS 57 



phere, the "set" of which is strongly toward lessons taken from 

 the physical realm. He sees lessons of a high grade on simple 

 chemical and physical properties and changes; he is led to recog- 

 nize the peculiar disciplinary training of such lessons; to review 

 the dependence of modern society on the applications of physics 

 and chemistry. While therefore, the above testimony affords 

 sufficient ground on which to maintain that children of all school 

 ages are interested in the physical portions of their surroundings, 

 it would not be fair to infer from it that children are more in- 

 terested in the non-living than in the living portion of their 

 surroundings. 



It must be recalled that the purpose of this paper is to submit 

 evidence bearing on the question, (i) "are children naturally 

 interested in living things and very little interested in lifeless 

 things," (2) to offer an explanation for the possible origin of this 

 statement in current literature. I am not expressing an opinion 

 as to whether we oughc to interest children of the lowest grades in 

 the physical side of their surroundings, or to pass any judgment 

 on the relative value of the physical and biological subjects to 

 children. In reply to the first question, I must say in the light 

 of my experience that children of all school ages display a keen 

 and well-sustained interest in the lifeless portion of their sur- 

 roundings when presented objectively by competent teachers. 

 Furthermore, I hold as a theory that the general run of children 

 are not interested in anything in particular, and everything in 

 general, and that a skillful teacher, equally equipped in biological 

 and physical topics and without prejudice in favor of either, 

 will secure about equal responses from the two realms. As for 

 the origin of the idea that children are naturally interested in the 

 living part of their surroundings and without interest for the non- 

 living, it may have been in the statement of some over-zealous 

 biologist, more probably, however, it was used as an argument in 

 support of some contention. Once started, it came into verv 

 general use. It must be acknowledged that there has been a 

 good deal to strengthen it and give it apparent validity as an 

 educational doctrine. 



