203 



passing a pavticular spot that such and such a plant would most 

 likely be found there, and on searching we found it. This 

 impressed the other very much, and he eventually asked liow 

 anyone could possibly say that a particular and ])y no means 

 common plant would be found in any special place. The botanist 

 ■carefully explained — the plant liked moisture, a jicaty soil, &c., &c. 

 " Oh !" said the other, and his interest was killed. There was 

 nothing miraculous iii it at all, and so he failed to appreciate the 

 reasoning faculty which had led our friend to his conclusions. 

 Nature does nothing miraculously, the reasons are always there, 

 and the patient and careful observer, by critical comparison and 

 reasoning, can often readily enough explain these apparent 

 miracles. 



In this utilitarian age we are continually faced with the 



-question " Cui bono." What good is it ? AVhen the botanist is 



not classified as a lunatic he is generally accredited as a 



" herb-gatherer," and I was recently assured that a certain 



entomologist made "a lot of money out of it." If yoii shoulder 



a geologist's bag and hammer, you are always prospecting for 



gold, or coal, or ganister. But apart from the use which the 



study of the sciences has in mental development, I should like to 



point out to the utilitarian another side which this " heuristic 



method " of study develops — that of the discoverer. By this 



method of study all your knowledge is that of discovery, and it 



is part of the method that you shall first of all tabulate your own 



observations or discoveries before comparing them with those of 



other workers. This attitude is a most valuable one to cultivate, 



and needs cidtivation in this country especially, as England seems 



to be getting behindhand in the various sciences in the matter of 



original research. In a Paper recently read by Professor Frankland 



before the British Association at Glasgow, he compares the number 



of original Papers sent in in Chemistry to the Chemical Societies 



of London and Berlin respectively. They varied in London from 



47 in 1868 to 127 in 1900, in Berlin froni 97 in 1868 to 636 in 



1900. The reason is not difficult to find. In this country too 



much importance has been attached to the attainment of 



knowledge for examination purposes, and when the school period 



of examinations is over the student is rarely encoiu'aged to 



jHirsue his studies ; he is assumed to have obtained all the 



information that can be got, and is now a master of his 



subject. In Germany so-called post-graduate study is encouraged, 



.and, indeed, it is assumed that only after a good preliminary 



training in method can anyone begin seriously upon the higher 



problems. The Englishman seems to ask, " What can I learn on 



this subject that others already know?" The German, on the 



