374 



THE GUIDE TO NATURE 



Resisting Knowledge vs. Correcting 

 Error, 



I have a lecture entitled, "Garden In- 

 terests versus Utility," that has been 

 delivered in many parts of the country, 

 on several occasions before strictly 

 scientific audiences. I believe the lec- 

 ture contains new material, the result 

 of original investigation. At any rate 

 it has been delivered so many times and 

 before so many critical audiences that 

 even if it had been originally erroneous 

 all errors would by this time have been 

 eliminated. I was recently engaged to 

 deliver this lecture with some others in 

 a rural community in Indiana. On leav- 

 ing the platform I remarked to the 

 superintendent who had engaged me, 

 "That seems to contain some good new 

 material that your teachers can use." 

 The astonishing reply was, "Yes, I 

 liked the lecture in a measure. Some 

 of the things I knew but the others I 

 did not know. I have a garden but the 

 plants there have never shown me any 

 of the things you describe." I said. 

 ^'You surely have received something 

 ■new and valuable?" The man shook 

 "his head dubiously. I suspect he dis- 

 approved of the lecture because it told 

 liim something that he did not already 

 know, the very point for which he 

 should have most valued it. 



The same spirit is occasionally the 

 characteristic of a nature student. In 

 a recent number of The Guide to Na- 

 ture we published the statement of a 

 thoroughly trustworthy observer, more 

 tlian seventy years of age, Miss Mary 

 A. Roe. who said that she had observed 

 tliat birds at times may sing especially 

 for a human audience. That appealed 

 to me as an original observation and I 

 believe it to be correct. I had not pre- 

 viously thought of it but a variety of 

 remembered experiences has convinced 

 me of its truth. I am grateful to Miss 

 Roe for relating the observation, but 

 it brought forth strong opposition from 

 those who would not receive it as new 

 but persisted in calling it an error. Er- 

 ror should be corrected, but informa- 

 tion should be received and valued, al- 

 though it may be absolutely new and at 

 first difficult to understand. How else 

 can we ever learn, how else can we be 

 an Association, if we do not try to see 

 things in Louis Agassiz's spirit, and be, 

 as he was, a real teacher in imparting 

 our knowledge to others? Think care- 



fully when you feel like correcting an 

 error and decide whether you may not 

 be resisting the incoming of knowledge. 

 It is dangerous for any naturalist, how- 

 ever competent, to announce a discov- 

 ery. 



I have edited scientific magazines for 

 twenty-seven years, and in that time 

 have published original observations 

 from the ablest scientists in the United 

 States. Not many statements escape 

 criticism, no matter from how reliable 

 an observer, but the people are numer- 

 ous who will reject the knowledge and 

 call it an error. "I have had experience 

 in my garden, but I have not seen the 

 things about which you make state- 

 ments." That is a wrong spirit on the 

 part of a learner. Such scepticism is 

 the greatest drawback to the gaining 

 of information. Every one of us is 

 naturally inclined to think with the 

 mistaken wise man of old that "All men 

 are liars." I have learned, after a quar- 

 ter century of editorial experience, to 

 believe that the majority of men are 

 truth seekers and truth speakers. Ev- 

 ery one that tries to observe correctly 

 should be received with grateful re- 

 gard, and his statements accepted in 

 good faith. The troubles of this world 

 are owing not so much to conflict be- 

 tween right and wrong as between per- 

 sonal rights. 



Beware, my friend, when you go on 

 a platform and make statements in re- 

 gard to what is new or not generally 

 known. If a man has a message let 

 him deliver it ; receive him with cour- 

 tesy, and accept the information as true 

 unless you can disprove it. But how 

 ready opposition is to spring forward. 

 "I have never seen that in my garden ; 

 therefore it is not true." One who has 

 worked extensively in the astronomical 

 garden knows that astrology is a rem- 

 nant of past supersitition. The real 

 lover of nature knows that these mon- 

 strous things printed in the almanacs, 

 and showing the different parts of the 

 human body, with arrows pointing at 

 a nude and disemboweled human be- 

 ing, are the rankest nonsense. He that 

 knows from scientific investigation 

 knows that horsehairs do not become 

 worms, he that has studied the subject 

 scientifically knows that the moon does 

 not control the weather, yet all these 

 are dangerous topics when mentioned 

 in the presence of the ignorant. Whe- 



