SELECTED PAPERS 



mind. Most scientists are quite ordinary folk, with ordinary human 

 virtues, weaknesses, and emotions. A few of the most eminent ones are 

 people of superlative general ability, who could have done many things 

 well; a few are freaks, with a freakish capacity and intuition in their 

 special fields but an extreme naivete in general affairs . . .' Now, it 

 does not seem doubtful that the scientists who are in the first place 

 responsible for the progress of science belong either to the type with 

 'the superlative ability' or to 'the freakish category'. Nobody will have 

 any difficulty finding characteristic examples of either of the two 

 groups. For me, the outstanding representative of the superlatively 

 able group is H. A. Lorentz, the famous physicist, so well known for 

 his theory of electrons and his contraction theory which initiated the 

 relativistic age in physics. Characteristic of Lorentz was his perfectly 

 harmonious nature which enabled him to deal with equal facility with 

 highly abstract and eminently practical problems. It is not generally 

 known that he devoted himself for almost ten years to the solution of 

 problems connected with the subsequent so successfully accomplished 

 reclamation of the Zuiderzee. But, in addition, he was a master in 

 'handling' men. As President of our Academy, he has remained un- 

 surpassed, but he scored his main triumphs in international scientific 

 meetings. Accordingly, at the end of his career, he was president of the 

 League of Nations Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, the pre- 

 cursor of Unesco. 



You, as Americans, will probably be inclined to think in this con- 

 nexion of the eminent chemist who now holds the very important post 

 of High Commissioner in West Germany, but many other examples 

 could be given as well. 



It will be superfluous to remark that scientists like Lorentz and 

 Conant are not in need of any support from anybody; they are fully 

 qualified to look after themselves! 



However, things seem different for Hill' s second category of super- 

 normally gifted scientists whom he designates as the freakish type. 

 Now the word 'freakish' has to my ear a somewhat disreputable sound. 

 It is quite possible that I am mistaken in this and that it is only due to 

 my imperfect command of the English idiom. Anyhow I should prefer 

 to call this category, with Ostwald, the romantic type, for any dis- 

 paragement seems misplaced in view of the huge debt which science 

 owes to scientists of this type. 



478 



