THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 69 



of medicine. But many technical developments in Eg)'pt 

 reached a certain le\'el and then ceased to progress, so that 

 it is not astonishing that experimental science did not de- 

 velop to a greater degiee in the Egyptian system. 



There is yet another possible explanation for the failure 

 of the ancient world to discover the method of experimental 

 science. The individual scientist, hou'ever much he might 

 discover personally, had no satisfactory way of communicat- 

 ing it to his fellows before the art of printing was discovered. 

 He could, of course, write manuscripts, but he had no means 

 of knowing all those to whom his manuscripts would be of 

 interest; and it must be remembered that experiinental 

 science, especially in earlier times, -^vas of interest only to 

 a very small audience. The specialists today from whom 

 the great advances come have an understanding audience of 

 only a few people in the Avhole world. The rest do not read 

 original papers or, if they do read them, do not realize what 

 has been done. Realization and acceptance by the scientific 

 world as a whole await recognition by the specialists and the 

 explanation of the work by other writers than the original 

 discoverers. Moreover, interest and ability in writing are 

 not necessarily correlated with interest and ability in experi- 

 mental discovery. Newton communicated his results to the 

 Royal Society in the most casual manner; and, if it had not 

 been for the insistence of Edmund Halley, it is doubtful if 

 Ne^vton's collected papers ^vould ever have been published in 

 such a form that they could produce the effect achieved by 

 the publication of the Principia. 



In the earlier days, there was no mechanism whatever by 

 which the scientist could find an audience. Nor was he often 

 interested in finding an audience. The poet, the dramatist, 

 and even the eloquent speaker might ^vrite for the delight 

 and interest of his fellow men; the philosopher and teacher 

 would write; but the experimental scientist ^vould make his 

 observations, store them in his memory, tell a few of his 

 friends, whose attitude toward him might be one either of 

 derision or of uncomprehending veneration, and the kno^vl- 



