THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS 431 



Mr. Lyttelton's pronouncement on Science is as follows : 



" Science, in the sense of chemistry, physics, biology, etc., 

 is omitted from the preparatory school altogether. If mathe- 

 matical measurements and handicraft combined with drawing 

 are part of the curriculum and if the scientific language- 

 teaching, grammar and syntax never outstrips the pupil's 

 intelligence, the foundation for science specialisation is being 

 securely laid. The question which requires more discussion 

 than it has yet received is : How far can we safely postpone 

 the beginning of science proper, laboratory work, etc. ? Pro- 

 bably the answer would now be to this effect : That from 

 fourteen to sixteen there should be an increased amount of 

 rudimentary science work such as weighing and measuring 

 and of the all-important work of accurate description." 



I should like to analyse this passage line by line, almost 

 word by word — to interrogate Mr. Lyttelton, so as to ascertain 

 what meaning he wishes to be attached to his statements, to 

 find out whether they have any clear meaning in his mind. 

 Particularly, I should like to ask him why he heads the page 

 which is about half covered by the passage I have quoted 

 " A Bugbear " ? What are we to suppose has caused him 

 needless terror ? Surely we have the right to ask literary 

 magnates to be careful in their choice of words, to be clear and 

 logical in their statements. If I am to extract any meaning 

 from the passage, it is that there should be no " science proper" 

 in the earlier years of school life. My contention is that there 

 should be little else than proper science ; but then my definition 

 of science is " the business of knowing," in its best sense, 

 without any equivocal meaning whatever. What Mr. Lyttelton 

 calls science proper I should probably term science improper. 

 The word science is generally misused : the connotation 

 attached to it by schoolmasters (literary schoolmasters) is 

 always too narrow. It is impossible, however, to be too 

 emphatic that whether it be science proper or improper, 

 systematic experimental science must be begun in the kinder- 

 garten and carried through every stage of the student's career. 

 No schoolmaster will admit that literary work can be laid 

 aside at any stage ; we, on our side, cannot admit that experi- 

 mental work can ever be omitted from the course. 



Mr. Lyttelton, I fear, is not sound on the subject of 

 science. I trust I do not do him an injustice if I assume 

 that probably he has never made an experiment knowingly 



