ZOOLOGY AS A SCIENCE 



ent discrepancy here disappears when the 

 various sciences are considered. For exam- 

 ple, the science of human anatomy is indeed 

 organized knowledge, because over the 

 past centuries all of the parts of the body 

 have been described in ever greater detail 

 and it is highly unlikely that a great deal 

 new can be added to our present knowledge 

 in this field. Therefore, the anatomist thinks 

 of his science as organized knowledge per 

 se. The physiologist, on the other hand, is 

 working in a field of biology that is con- 

 stantly changing; from one month to the 

 next new facts are being brought to light, 

 so that at no time can he say his is a nearly 

 completed volume of knowledge. He is apt 

 to think of his science as the process by 

 which organized knowledge is assembled. 

 His is a dynamic definition of science, 

 whereas the anatomist's is a static one. 



It is apparent, then, that as knowledge in 

 a certain field of science comes to a point 

 where there is very little left to be added, 

 it can be considered as organized knowl- 

 edge. During the process of gathering this 

 knowledge, that is, during the early days of 

 a new science, it must be considered as the 

 process by which organized knowledge is 

 assembled. It is a matter of time; some day 

 perhaps all science will be the static type, 

 although this is highly unlikely. 



In general, people appreciate the static 

 type of science because it is the certain sci- 

 ence. They like to be certain of the answers 

 with no guesswork. Today we are in the 

 midst of many new sciences, all of them 

 dynamic, all of them crying out for more 

 and better answers to problems involved in 

 the business of living. Very few of them are 

 certain; most of them are solving problems 

 that change almost from day to day. This 

 makes many people very uneasy, even to 

 the point of wishing the scientist would stop 

 his headlong plunge into the world of the 

 unknown. In our present state he will never 

 stop, nor should he. Whether his efforts are 

 good or bad are not for him to decide; it is 

 not what he learns that is either good or 



bad, it is the use of that knowledge that 

 determines ultimately its value to society. 

 The scientist should not be curbed in his 

 inquiry into the unknown; rather society 

 should take stock of its own interrelation- 

 ships, so that what is discovered by the sci- 

 entist can always be put to ultimate good 

 in alleviating the burdens of the worka- 

 day world, freeing man from pestilence and 

 disease, and giving him a more enjoyable 

 world in which to live. This is a real goal 

 and one to which the scientist has contrib- 

 uted mightily in the past, and can con- 

 tribute to in the future. 



Just how did the scientific approach to 

 the study of problems get underway, or has 

 it always been a part of man's way of life? 

 It is said that we live in a scientific age, a 

 statement which would indicate that science 

 is a recent thing. Just when did it have its 

 inception and by whom and where? Per- 

 haps a brief historical sketch would help 

 answer some of these questions. From this 

 history we may see how the scientist works. 



HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

 OF ZOOLOGY 



From the time man first organized into 

 groups or societies he has had his problems 

 either solved or greatly influenced by cer- 

 tain members of his group who were placed 

 in a position of authority, and whose word 

 was absolute, even to the point of life and 

 death. Conclusions were based on emotions, 

 hunches, and superstition, but rarely, if ever, 

 on observed facts. This cannot be relegated 

 entirely to ancient times, since even today 

 there are countries in the world where simi- 

 lar policies are followed. In this modern 

 world such tactics have led to much blood- 

 shed and may continue to do so. 



Historically, we need not go back any 

 farther than Aristotle (384-322 b.c.) to find 

 the faint beginnings of a new way of solving 

 problems, indeed, a complete new way of 

 life. Aristotle gave us the inductive method 

 of reasoning, which means that generaliza- 



