April. 1928 



E \ L U T I N 



Pace Eleven 



The Snobbery of Science 



T. SwAN'N Harding 



«TT must be admitted that science has 



1 



its castes," writes G. N. Lewis in 



. '"The Anatomy of Science' and he later 



speaks of "the snobbery of science". In 



the words of our modem vulgate, Lewis 



tlidn't know the half of it! 



There are well meaning people who 

 want science made available to the masses, 

 who think that the clarity and precision 

 that could be imparted to mass thought by 

 a widespread acquaintance with scientific 

 method would be invaluable socially, po- 

 litically, economically and in mere per. 

 sonal relations. These good people simply 

 do not realize the almost insuperable dif- 

 ficulties in the way of acquainting the 

 masses with science. 



Scientific popularization by the non- 

 scientist untrained to think precisely, un- 

 used to examine evidence, to evaluate facts 

 and form sound, impartial judgments, who 

 has never undergone the vigorous scien- 

 tific training, simply cannot write com- 

 petently upon science. He finds it hard 

 system supplant verification and reality. 



What can he do? He can write a good 

 story, speaking journalistically. By un- 

 founded inference and unwarranted libei- 

 ties he can produce an article which will 

 hold the attention of the average reader 

 and will for that reason merit favorable 

 auditorial consideration. The average edi- 

 tor does not ask whether such an article 

 is accurate. He asks whether it will hold 

 the attention of his readers. 



He also says, "If this stuff is over my 

 liead it is probably over the heads of my 

 readers." This is probably untrue. For 

 readers are really more ready for digni- 

 fied scientific enlightenment than editors 

 are to give them such enlightenment. Nor 

 is there any valid reason why an editor 

 should fear to embark upon a moderate 

 educational program from time to time. 

 He could still make money and at the 

 same time be leading his readers to a 

 Ijetter appreciation of scientific endeavor. 



But this editorial obstacle is only one 

 thing which obstructs popular enlighten- 

 ment in science, and this is very far from 

 a castigation of editors. The scientist 

 himself shares tlie blame for separating 

 •science from the public. In fact, the at- 

 titude of the editors becomes more com- 

 prehensible when we consider the snobbery 

 ■of science. Let us give an example. 



The Russian Government produced a 

 cinema film of the physiologist Pavlov's 

 "work on secretions, rellexes and the local- 

 ization of various brain centers controlling 

 muscular, auditory, visual and others acts. 

 An audience of average intelligence, scien- 

 \ tifically untrained in complex research so 

 remote from ordinary life, could view this 

 film and in one hour and a quarter gain a 

 •useful comprehension of twenty-eight years 

 work by this famous physiologist and his 

 co-workers. 



The film was a masterpiece in lay edu- 

 cation. The audience learned more in 



less space of time than they had ever 

 learned on that subject in their lives be. 

 fore. It told more of evolution than could 

 be conveyed to these people by volumes, 

 which they probably would not read any- 

 way. Here was no propaganda, no fev- 

 ered effort to convince — but mere, unvarn- 

 ished facts speaking visibly for themselves 

 — the greatest educational force in the 

 world. A little fundamentalist flapper 

 from Richmond, Virginia, who had never 

 heard of biology in her life save to be 

 warned against it, was suddenly convinced 

 of evolution and her entire anti-scientific 

 training was undermined fatally within the 

 hour. Let such films multiply and we 

 should soon have fundamentalists clamor- 

 ing to give alms to research laboratories 

 instead of clamoring for anti-evolution laws. 



Then how did scientists, on the average, 

 view the effect of this film upon laymen? 

 Hrdlicka and other great scientists thought 

 the show worth seeing. But as an example 

 of snobbishness, a certain pair of young 

 research workers who saw this film typify 

 the attitude of many scientists. They ab- 

 solutely deplored it. Such an attitude 

 might be expected from older men, but 

 these were representative young workers in 

 science, products of the very finest British 

 and American universities. They deplored 

 the film as an example of pernicous popu- 

 larization which should never be indulged. 

 Intelligent laymen should be aware of 

 this snobbish scientific attitude which is 

 quite in line with a fashionable attitude 

 in scientific circles today. 



To be sure they differed in a minor 

 degree. One thought that science should 

 be reserved altogether for the amusement 

 and delectation of scientists alone, and 

 kept entirely free from the proletariat. 

 He was obviously a high churchman. The 

 other was a broad churchman. He 

 thought that tlie masses might seek to 

 learn of science and to find something 

 tor themselves if they always did so by 

 individual initiative, but that no efforts 

 should be made to interest the masses in 

 science because that would mean a sacri- 

 fice of dignity. In either case, such an at- 

 titude bodes )\l for science. 



The heretical investigator who seeks to 

 convey what he or others have done in 

 clear and concise language is derided, de- 

 plored and declasse. That explains why 

 the editor is really troubled with the re- 

 jection of so little effective scientific 

 writing, for only the scientific writer can 

 competently do that writing and so few 

 dare do so. Yet people are so determined 

 10 adhere to the worshipful attitude to- 

 wards holy, sacred scientific research that 

 few care to acquaint readers with an 

 aristocratic snobbery on the part of pure 

 scientists which does more to retard the 

 dissemination of the scientific viewpoint, 

 and therefore the progress of civilization, 

 than any other single factor. This snob- 

 bery should be scotched before it does 

 science serious damage. 



SHARES AVAILABLE 

 The Evolution Publishing Cor- 

 poration, organized under New York 

 State laws, offers its $10.00 shares 

 of 6% preferred stock. With every five 

 sliares of preferred one $10.00 share of 

 common, voting stock will be given. 



The immediate business is publish- 

 ing this journal. Evolution and 

 selling books. Later a Lyceum Bureau 

 for touring natural science lecturers 

 will be developed. 



Although it is expected the business 

 will pay, share-holders are not invited 

 on the basis of making profits, but be- 

 cause this work is WORTH DOING. 



Additional capital furnished now will 

 help make the circulation campaign 

 for Evolution magazine a success. 

 Checks should be made payable to 

 Evolution Publishing Corporation. 

 In remitting kindly state whether pay- 

 ment is made in full, or whether it 

 should be applied on a larger block of 

 stock to be held until balance is paid. 



LET US MAIL SAMPLES TO YOUR 

 FRIENDS 



Of course you'll show this issue of 

 Evolution to your friends and ask 

 them to subscribe. But you probably 

 know some who would be interested, 

 whom you can not visit yourself. Send 

 us their names and addresses and we'll 

 mail them sample copies. 



It will cost us about five cents a 

 copy to send out these samples, so if 

 you can send along a check to help 

 pay for them we'll not object. How- 

 ever, if your bank account is minus 

 don't let that stop you. Send us the 

 names anyway and well raise the cash 

 otherwise. 



WHAT'S A HUNTER WITHOUT 

 AMMUNITION? 



A hunter without ammunition is in 

 the same fix as an evolutionist without 

 copies of Evolution. Surely YOU 

 don't want to remain in such a pickle. 

 The best way out is for you to fill 

 in appropriate characters on the fol- 

 lowing blank in a hurry. 



Evolution Publishing Corp.. 

 96 Fifth Ave., New York City. 



Send me a bundle of _ copies of 



Evolution every month for one year. 

 (Rate: five or more, 50c each per year) 



I enclose $ 



Name _ 



Street and 

 Number _.. 

 City & 

 State 



