Science and Tradition 13 



pressed by their genesis than by their occurrence. He admires the won- 

 ders of science, but the greatest wonder of all, he reflects, is that man 

 revealed them. The infinity of stellar space and the inverse infinity of 

 atomic structure are awe-inspiring, yet less so, than their gradual pene- 

 tration by the mind of man. 



Many men of science have reached a peculiar mid-way stage. They 

 recognize the value (philosophic, scientific, humanistic) of the history 

 of science, but lacking historical training they do not understand the 

 implications. Let me tell you an anecdote first. A very distinguished 

 physicist once told me that physics had become a field of such large 

 size that no man could encompass the whole of it, while history was easy 

 enough to read up. His remark proved that he was more familiar with 

 physics than with history. Both domains being infinite it is foolish to 

 say that one is larger than the other. It is certainly easier to read a book 

 of history than a book of physics; the superficial difference may be enor- 

 mous, for there is no historical book which would be entirely closed to 

 an educated man, while many a physical book would be as dark to the 

 uninitiated as if it were written in Chinese. The real difference, how- 

 ever, between both cases grows smaller, much smaller, as one's familiar- 

 ity with them increases. It will be found that the reader will obtain from 

 either book as much knowledge — living, integrated knowledge — as his 

 previous experience justifies, not more. His ability to judge either book 

 will be a function of his knowledge of either subject and of his study of 

 many other books covering more or less the same field. 



Reading is but the first stage, the passive stage, of education. If one 

 wishes not simply to study the knowledge obtained by others, but also 

 to extend that knowledge, strict methods must be used. The methods 

 of physical science are pretty well known, the methods of historical re- 

 search are less well known ( at least by men of science ) ; they are not so 

 easy to define and their application is made especially difficult by their 

 subtlety and by the circumstance that human facts are infinitely more 

 complex than physical ones. In both fields the specific methods apply- 

 ing to them must be abided by and the materials used must be sound ( it 

 is a part of the method to determine^ their soundness ) . Here again be- 

 ginners (and most scientists who become interested in the history of 

 science are beginners ) may have, and generally do have, illusions. They 

 known well enough the difficulties of their own field, but as they ig- 

 nore or underestimate historical difficulties, they rush in where angels 

 fear to tread; they seem to fancy that historical work is comparable 

 only to the final stage of scientific work, the writing up of the results! 

 They accept uncritically statements published almost anywhere and mix 

 them together. As a wit put it, "When five books have been devoted to 

 a subject, it is easy enough to write a sixth one." True enough, but what 

 is the value of that sixth book? However small the time of writing it, it 

 was a waste of time. We must admit that books produced in that easy 

 way contain much truth, but as the truth is promiscuously mixed with 



