RELATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. 51 



To-day all has changed. Science has ceased to be a pursuit and has become a 

 mode of thought, and is an essential factor of learning in every department thereof, 

 liberal or useful. The philologist, the historian, the social and political economist, and 

 the jurist employ scientific methods. Every intelligent man uses them in the consid- 

 eration of every serious question. 



There are differences of degree in the manner in which individual men are scien- 

 tific. Scientific research involves four processes: (1) observation; (2) the record of 

 the results of observation; (3) the classification and assimilation of these results; 

 (4) their interpretation, both for immediate use and as a guide for subsequent inquiry. 



While facts may be observed effectively by any intelligent man, and may be 

 recorded by any person who has been educated to use instruments of precision 

 and to write, it is only the scholar who can classify these records, assimilate them, 

 and incorporate them with the stores of knowledge already in existence, while the 

 man who makes successful interpretations must be to some extent a philosopher. 



I had intended to illustrate my meaning here by citing some instances of the 

 relative importance of these various processes in the consideration of an economic 

 problem, but I am disposed to believe that an illustration of a different character 

 will serve my purpose better, aud I quote from Bishop Latimer, in the last sermon 

 which he preached before Edward VI, of England, in 1530: 



Here, now [said he], I remember an argument of Master More's, which he bringeth in a book, that 

 he made against Bilney ; and here, by the way, I will tell you a merry toy. Master More was once 

 sent into Kent to try (if it might be) what was the cause of the Goodwin sands and the shelf that 

 stopped up Sandwich-haven. Thither cometh Master More, and calleth all the country before him, 

 such as were thought meu of experience, and men that could of likelihood best certify him of the 

 matter concerning the stopping of Sandwich-haven. Among others came in one before him, an 

 old man with a white head, and one that was thought to be little less than an hundred years old. 

 When Master More saw this aged man he thought it expedient to hear him say his mind in this mat- 

 ter (for, being so old a man, it was likely he knew most of any man in that presence and company) ; 

 so Master More called this old-aged man unto him, and said: "Father," said he, "tell me if ye can, 

 what is the cause of the great arising of the sands and shelves here about this haven, the which stop 

 it up, and no ships can arrive here? Ye are the eldest man that I can espy in this company, so that if 

 any man can tell any cause of it, ye of likelihood can say most to it, or, at leastwise, more than any 

 man here assembled." " Yea, forsooth, good master quoth this old man, for I am well-nigh an hun- 

 dred years old, and no man here in this company auy thing near unto mine age." " Well, then, "quod 

 Master More, "how say yon to this matter? What think you to be the cause of these shelves and sands 

 that stop up Saudwich-haven?" "Forsooth, sir," quoth he, "I am an old man. I think Tenterden 

 steeple is the cause of Goodwin sands: for I am rid man quoth he, and I may remember the build- 

 ing of Tenterden steeple, and I may remember when there was no steeple at all there. And before 

 that Tenterden steeple was in building there was no manner of speaking of any flats or sands that 

 stopt up the haven; and, therefore, I think that Tenterden steeple is the cause of the destroyingand 

 decay of Sandwich-haven." 



Here is an example of thought which is faulty in all its processes — imperfect obser- 

 vation, substitution of memory for written records, absolute inability to classify and 

 assimilate, and deductions absolutely without relation to the foundations on which 

 they are supposed to rest. Had he lived at the present day this rustic philosopher 

 would have wrongly described himself as a practical man. He would have been in 

 error, for nothing is less practical than ignorance and poor thinking. 



The most serious obstacle to economic progress is the attitude of a certain class 

 of men who, seemingly proud of their own limitations in knowledge and training, boast 



