ELISHA MITCHELL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY. 71 



which these results were calculated and see how they 

 are but the means of series with decidingdv varying- 

 fio-ures — a balancino- of errors perhaps. One is induced 

 to think that for many years, at any rate, the hig-hest 

 attainment to be hoped for will be a correct first dec- 

 imal. 



These being- the facts, it is but false pedantry in 

 the present state of our knowledgfe to write these fig- 

 ures beyond the integ'er in most cases unless the deci- 

 mal is a larg-e one. In a few cases the first decimal 

 might be used. In no case is the second justifiable. 

 What would be gained by a knowledge of the absolute 

 atomic weig'ht beyond the satisfaction of having secured 

 that much knowledge of the truth? Do these costly 

 labors promise results sufficiently valuable to justify 

 them or are the energies of many of the most skilled 

 chemists misdirected and wasted ? Of course no true 

 labor is wasted, but an energy which would accom- 

 plish g-rander results in some other direction is wasted 

 if turned into trivial channels. All will acknowledge 

 that no good to practical chemistry would result from 

 weights known to the second decimal place. If known 

 approximately to the iirst every requirement of the 

 anal^^tical chemist would be satisfied. 



Two thing's may be gained for science however by 

 such knowledge. First, the question of constancy of 

 weight would be settled, beyond all reasonable doubt, 

 and secondly, data Vv'ould be obtained for the discovery 

 or confirmation of underlying laws. 



Some dim presentiments of such laws were seen 

 when these weights were in their most chaotic state. 

 The vision of them was obscured by the confusion of 

 standards and the disagreement in determinations. As 

 these difficulties were partially removed the way 



