14 Introduction 



error and not differentiable from it, the whole must be considered erro- 

 neous. Historical works written by men of science disregarding histori- 

 cal methods must necessarily lead to a degradation of spiritual energy.^ 



It is curious that most men of science would recognize the difficulties 

 of historical work in other fields than the history of science, say, in the 

 fields of Greek history, or mediaeval history, or even English history. If 

 they be well educated we may assume that they have a good all-around 

 knowledge of the history of their own country, and they may have read 

 considerably on that subject throughout the years, yet they would be 

 the first to disclaim any authority, and they would never venture to 

 publish a book on it. The same modest men might consider themselves 

 fully equipped to teach the history of science, though without any 

 suitable preparation. What is the explanation of that paradox? Simply 

 this that for teaching the history of science the first condition is to know 

 science, to have a first-hand knowledge of it; that condition is so hard 

 to satisfy, in fact, unattainable for anyone who has not received in his 

 youth a scientific training of some kind or another, that it may be thought 

 to be sufficient. It is necessary but not sufficient. 



As the importance of the history of science is more generally recog- 

 nized not only by men of science, but by educated people in general and 

 by "educators"^ there is an increasing need of trained historians of 

 science. Auguste Comte had understood that need more than a century 

 ago when he observed that as science is becoming more specialized, 

 there must needs be one more specialty, the study of the generalities of 

 science, the interrelations of its parts, and its wholeness. This new kind 

 of specialist must be a historian of science, for knowledge of the tree of 

 science ( which is the very knowledge required ) is almost impossible to 

 obtain without knowledge of its genesis and development. 



We may thus, or rather we should, intrust that task of unification and 

 communication to the historian of science, but the latter will have other 

 duties, which may be summed up with the words, he shall be the keeper 

 of scientffic memories and the defender of tradition. 



We shall come back to that presently but first let us remark, that the 

 work of the historian of science is often misunderstood and even resented 

 by the very scientists who need it most, that is, those who are at the 

 same time the most specialized and least educated. Those extreme 

 specialists, who know everything about a tiny little subject and nothing 

 about the rest of the universe, do not like what they might call the 

 Olympian attitude of philosophers and historians. Of course, it cannot 

 be denied that the latter may be sometimes a bit complacent and offen- 



® Non-historians may do occasionally useful work in quoting a definite statement 

 from a good source or a good book, correctly referred to. To know the best source 

 or the best book on a topic is almost as good as to know that topic. Such bibli- 

 ographical information is not easy to obtain for a great variety of topics and is 

 exceedingly complex; the mastery of it in a large field may require a whole life of 

 study and meditation. 



* In the United States the title "educator" is assumed not so much by teachers 

 and writers, but rather by administrators, such as presidents and deans of colleges, 

 trustees, directors of educational conferences and projects, etc. 



