REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1917 25 



In dealing with these aberrant types there are encountered 

 certain other fallacies of a more specious and hence of a more 

 troublesome character. They arise out of the prevaiUng inno- 

 cence of, if not contempt for, the doctrine of probabilities. The 

 simplest of these fallacies is seen in the common belief that one 

 mind is as likel}- as another to make discoveries and advances in 

 the realms of the unknown. Thus it is assumed that research 

 estabhshments should maintain experts, or corps of them, for the 

 ])urpose of promoting the efforts of tyros, amateurs, and dilet- 

 tanti, or, in other words, perform the functions of elementary 

 schools. A subtler fallac}^ is expressed in the more common 

 belief that a research organization should occupy itself chiefly in 

 soliciting and in examining miscellaneous suggestions. It is 

 held that if these are received in large numbers and if they are 

 read long enough and hard enough, the possibilities of knowledge 

 will be completely compassed. This has been elsewhere called 

 the process of "casting dragnets in the wide world of thought 

 . . . with the expectation that out of the vast slimj^ miscel- 

 lanies thus collected there will be found some precious sediments 

 of truth." It is, indeed, a metaphj^sical method of extracting 

 truth out of error. The worst of all these fallacies is found in 

 the not unpopular notion that if experts could be set at w^ork 

 under the direction of inexperts great progress could be achieved. 

 This is the fallacy so often used to justify placing technical work 

 under the administration of politicians and promoters rather 

 than under the charge of competent men. It finds frequent 

 expression also in suggestions to the Institution that its corps 

 of investigators might avoid the dangers of ''respectable medi- 

 ocrity" by yielding to the requests of the less conservative and 

 more brilliant advocates of advancing knowledge. 



But what, it may be asked, are the characteristics which 

 differentiate these pseudo-scientists from normal investigators? 

 They are well defined and not numerous. The pseudo-scientist 

 is in general excessively egoistic, secretive, averse to criticism, 

 and almost always unaware of the works of his predecessors and 

 contemporaries in the same field. He displays little of that 

 caution which is born of adequate knowledge. He is lacking 

 especially in capacity to discover and to correct his ow^n mistakes. 

 He is forever challenging others to find errors in his work. He 



