256 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



is intimately connected with the erroneous estimate of the extent 

 and perfection of chemistry. It is not uncommonly supposed that 

 the chemist is in the condition at once to solve, by the invostiga- 

 tions of the laboratory, all sucli questions in practical agTiculture 

 as may happen to be submitted to him — that he can determine, 

 when nothing else can, why certain methods of cultivation are suc- 

 cessful, others unsuccessful. It is just possible that he may in some 

 instances be able to do this, but far more frequently his researches 

 enable him not to state positively what is or what is not the case, 

 but rather to draw a probable conclusion — to form, in fact, a hypoth- 

 esis, which is not in itself a truth, but which must be further tested 

 by experiment in the field, whereby it may be eitiier confirmed or 

 entirel}'' refuted. Now, ver^^ unfortunately, this hypothesis is often 

 taken for a positive statement ; and when it turns out to be errone- 

 ous, it is immediately held up as an instance of the fallacy of science 

 by those who, not being themselves acquainted with the method of 

 investigation by experiment, are unaware that all scientific facts 

 are developed in such a manner. No one ever thinks of going 

 fortuitously to work, when he proposes to determine a scientific 

 fact. lie first weighs all facts of a similar character, or having a 

 bearing on the subject which he desires to elucidate, and then founds 

 upon these a hypothesis, the truth or fallacy of which is to be tested 

 by experiment. 



Now, without any explanation, it has frequently happened that 

 such hypotheses have been handed over to the practical man, whose 

 field experiments having refuted them, he has forthwith abandoned 

 the science which seemed to him to give erroneous results, not 

 knowing that these results were only in progress of being arrived 

 at by those very experiments which he was engaged in performing. 

 The very same process has been emploj^ed in the applications of 

 science to every other art ; but the difterence between them and 

 agriculture is, that with the former, the hypothesis is formed and 

 the experiments executed by the same person ; in agriculture the 

 hypothesis must in many instances be handed over for experimental 

 elucidation to the practical man. The many failures which are 

 made in other arts remain unknown to all but those by whom they 

 have been made, while in agriculture they become known to all and 

 sundry, and by them it is not understood that though these results 

 are negative, they still serve to bring us all the nearer to the truth. 



And this leads me to observe, that the true manner in which 

 chemical agriculture is to be advanced, is not merely by the exer- 

 tions of the chemist or the labors of the laboratory alone. It must 

 be by the simultaneous eflbrts of science and practice, each endeav- 

 oring to develop with care, steadiness and accuracy, the facts which 

 fall within its province. Nor must each pursue its own course 

 irrespective of the other. They must go hand in hand, and taking 

 advantage of each other's experience, and avoiding all sorts of 

 antagonism, they must endeavor to co-operate for the elucidation 

 of truth. The chemist and the practical man are, in fact, in the 

 position to give each other most important assistance. The one 

 may point out the conclusions to which his science, so far as it has 



