Sir David Prain 67 



as regards a few may we venture to imagine that we understand their 

 causes or know their nature. 



The economic worker shares with the seeker after truth for truth's 

 sake the hope of detecting natural effects hitherto unsuspected. He 

 may even aspire to increasing the number of known natui'al things. If 

 his duties debar him from attempts to explain natural causes, they at 

 least afford him reason for wishing that his knowledge were less circum- 

 scribed than it is. 



The existence in divers degrees of these hopes and wishes led to the 

 old subdivision of students of nature into those who are "learned" and 

 those who are "curious." Both rely on the aid of the same two studies: 

 History, which records what is known; and Philosophy, which con- 

 siders w^hat may be knowable. Both depend for success on the same 

 two faculties: Observation which, where fully trained, occasionally per- 

 ceives what is obvious; and Imagination which, when properly con- 

 trolled, sometimes suggests how knowledge may be sought. 



The "learned" are largely incited to study by the effects of natural 

 quahties. They keep imagination under control. Their progress both 

 in conception and in accomphshment is fer gradum. The "curious" are 

 more attracted towards enquiry into natural causes. They use imagina- 

 tion to devise theories. If the conception which gives rise to a hypothesis 

 and to the experiment which tests it be philosophical, the progress, if 

 any, which they make is per saltum. Whatever may be the case in other 

 studies Economic Biology is beholden to both. 



The pecuhar merits of each sometimes develop into defects. If the 

 "learned" fear to employ imagination their progress is shght. If they 

 rely imphcitly on authority their progress may cease. If the "curious" 

 become the victims of imagination they may lose ground by accepting 

 explanations of natural causes which neither observation nor experi- 

 ment can confirm. 



Philosophical study has been most impressed by these defects. The 

 term "learned" has been relegated to hterature; the term "curious" 

 has fallen out of use. The pejorative significance which these names 

 have acquired among students of nature has its disadvantages. The 

 economic biologist has reason to know that the discontinuance of this 

 classification has neither altered the conditions that led to its adoption, 

 nor modified the circumstances that dictated its abandonment. He is, 

 however, left to discover, after he has embarked on economic study, 

 how valid and vital the old distinction was. 



Yet academic natural study was perhaps justified in discarding these 



5—2 



