()2G EXPERIMENT STATION RECORD. 



Such distinctions make an impression more or less potent upon the 

 public mind, and, what is more serious, they can hardly fail to exercise 

 a determinative influence upon the conclusions of the student who is 

 casting about for a field of work in which he may let loose his scientific 

 enthusiasms. 



Is it true that, viewed in any light whatever, a study of the abstract 

 apart from its relations to concrete phenomena or to considerations of 

 ntility ofl^ers an opportunity for intellectual achievement and for real 

 usefulness superior to that enjoyed by those who labor in the field of 

 applied science? In attempting to answer this question let us first 

 define terms. Science in general is "knowledge gained l>y systematic 

 observation, experiment, and reasoning" — it is "knowledge coordi- 

 nated, arranged, and systematized. " This definition includes all knowl- 

 edge. Pure science is that which treats of laws or general statements 

 apart f i-oni particular instances and without reference to any applica- 

 tion whatever. Applied science is "science when its laws are employed 

 or exemplified in dealing with concrete phenomena." As particular 

 examples of the former we have the principles of geometry, the laws 

 of heat and light, and the general constitution of the compounds of 

 the fatty series, and the latter is illustrated by applied mechanics, soil 

 physics, our knowledge of nitrogen acquisition and loss in agricul- 

 tural operations, our understanding of certain fermentations as utilized 

 in technical processes, and the facts of plant and animal diseases. In 

 a very obvious and emphatic sense, science is applied when it is utilized 

 in explaining and directing industrial operations and the practical 

 affairs of life. 



It is reasonable to assert, then, that tlie devotee of pure science seeks 

 knowledge for knowledge's sake, for the love of truth, and that the 

 student of tlie concrete and the practical nmst of necessity be inspired 

 more fully ])y a desire to comprehend the fimctions of energy and of 

 law and to master their utilities. Our question may be restated in 

 another phraseology: Who stands on the higher plane in the domain 

 of science, the theorist or the utilitarian, the one who uncovers a law 

 or the one who discovers its practical relations and uses? 



We are bound to inijuii'e in the first place whether there are inherent 

 differences in the quality and value of knowledge according to its sub- 

 ject-matter. When it appears that science in one department is for 

 any reason more precious than some other class of systematized facts, 

 then we have a good reason for choosing the larger value. But how 

 shall we judge? If we adopt a commercial standard and base our 

 estimates on cost in human effort we shall not find that the men of 

 pure science have acquired all of the highest values. Measured by 

 the expenditure of intellectual energy in securing it, our knowledge 

 of the economics of plant and animal life must be classed among the 

 most precious of the results of modern research. If we measure the 



