54 Introduction 



number of facts with which I am unfamiliar; yet, I do not feel disqualified 

 from understanding a subject, because I do not know every detail of it. 

 Let us take a simple example. Consider two teachers of geography, the 

 former teaches the geography of England and the second the geography 

 of the world. The former could make fun of the latter saying, "I have 

 spent my life studying the geography of England, and in spite of that, 

 I am still learning new facts every day. Think of my colleague who 

 presumes to teach the geography of the whole world. He has seen only 

 a small part of it, and as you know, there are some parts which no scholar 

 has ever seen." His fallacy lies in believing that the geography of the 

 world is a larger subject than the geography of England. It is not. 

 Both subjects are equally inexhaustible; they are equal in infinitude. 

 All that we can say is that the two subjects are very different. It is 

 probable that both instructors teach in the same time the same number 

 of facts; their two collections of facts are different but about equal. Not 

 only does the world geographer abandon many of the facts of the Eng- 

 lish geographer, but he would give proof of ignorance and stupidity if 

 he introduced them in his own survey. 



This example is perhaps too simple to be convincing; yet, it suffices 

 to illustrate the general truth. One may know a general field without 

 knowing every detail of it. Such knowledge may be almost worthless 

 for practical work in that very field, but it is sufficient to realize the na- 

 ture and peculiarities of that field and its relationship to other fields. 

 One thing is certain: our two geographers must know the basic facts of 

 geography. They cannot know them too well; in the same way, the 

 historian of science must know the general facts and theories of science, 

 he must be as familiar as possible with at least one branch of it or he 

 will remain unable to understand anything clearly. We shall come back 

 to that presently. After all, is that situation different from any other 

 in education? Can one expect the man who teaches chemistry to have 

 a first-hand knowledge of the whole of chemistry? Of course not, but 

 why should he? All that we claim is that he should have a first-hand 

 knowledge of a part of his field. 



As our studies are still in the pioneer stage, they must necessarily suf- 

 fer from pioneer imperfections and crudities. If it be your lot to live 

 on the frontier, you must do without many conveniences; but that should 

 not prevent you from living a well integrated life. As the laborers are 

 few, historians of science are, more often than not, alone in their uni- 

 versity, and this obliges them to be like the frontiersmen, jacks of all 

 trades. When we bear in mind the specialization of tasks in our history 

 departments (ancient history, classical antiquity, middle ages. Renais- 

 sance, colonial history), each jealously guarded against trespassers, it 

 seems foolish to expect one scholar to be equally familiar with every 

 period of history plus the whole of science. It cannot be done. It is 

 absurd, quoth the sceptic. And yet in this pioneer stage, it must be 

 done, and it can be done. 



