1 82 CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. 



\_Lctter of H. H. Turner. '\ 



University Observatory, Oxford, 



November 2^, 190J. 



I have delayed answering your letter of October 30 for a few days, 

 not from any lack of sympathy with its general purport or doubt as 

 to the value — the immense value — which such a scheme as you 

 suggest would have, but because I wished to think whether I could 

 contribute anything of possible importance to the discussion of 

 details. The result has, however, not been very encouraging, and 

 I must not delay longer a reply on the main point. 



I imagine you will not find any one to doubt the necessity of a 

 far more extended discu.ssion of results. In the days of Newton 

 perhaps observations were .scarcer than theories, and it was advisable 

 to set them going ; but, once set going, inertia has come into play 

 here as elsewhere, and observations of all kinds are churning out 

 masses of observations which no one is attempting to deal with. 

 There is no doubt whatever that it is a crying necessity that we 

 should organize the discussion of the masses of accumulated material. 

 The necessity extends bej'ond astronomy — to meteorology certainly ; 

 to natural history perhaps, though here the observations {metrical') 

 are also needed, as in astronomy in Newton's time. 



How, then, to set to work to improve matters? I have no better 

 plan than yours. Perhaps I should approach the subject from rather 

 a different point of view. I should start with the proposition that 

 the amount of critical discussion (/. c. , discussion of any value) of 

 results obtained is likely to depend roughly on the number of men 

 of first-rate ability who can be enlisted into the service. For making 

 observations a moderate ability may suffice, but there is no doubt 

 about the ability required for discussing them and directing future 

 programs. Well, then, I fear it must come to this : That we want 

 more positions of eminence — well paid or honored or both — such as 

 the leading professorships. When Schuster gave his address, which 

 you quote with approval. Dr. W. N. Shaw (head of our Meteoro- 

 logical Office) remarked that meteorology had never had ^ny profes- 

 sorships at the universities (Is this also true in the United States?), 

 and I think the remark went very near to a sufficient explanation 

 of the lack of adequate discussion of results. You can get heaps of 

 people to measure rainfall, but who is to think about the results? 

 It is more thinkers we want. 



