136 



of deduction, we arrive at the conclusion that il a tube, the end of 

 which is immersed in water, be exhausted of air, the water will rise 

 in that tube to a certain height and no further. It will be clear to 

 you all, I think, that that is an inference — an inference, too, drawn 

 from facts — the premises with which we started. It is, moreover, 

 an inference which, without the testimony of observation, we might 

 have pronounced a fact. But observation also tells that it is a 

 fact. The explanation therefore of the rise of a column of water 

 in an exhausted tube, is not only a statement of facts themselves, 

 but it is also an inference draAvn from facts. 



I next come upon a statement in Mr. Kitchin's paper 

 to which I must object most strongly. It runs thus: "the 

 bringing to bear upon everyday life of an accumulated know- 

 ledge of facts is not the application of theory to practice." 

 To this I would reply that if the theory meant by Mr. Kitchin 

 be anything less than an accumulation of facts, I for one would 

 most certainly object to employ it as a guide to my practice, 

 since I know that there is something — call it what you will — which 

 I can safely employ as a guide. That something is the rational 

 application of the body of accumulated and accumulating facts — 

 both logical and observational — which goes by the name of science. 

 That is what I call theory when I use the word in connection with 

 practice, and I cannot possibly understand any one advocating the 

 regulation of practice by theory, unless that be the meaning of the 

 word. 



A little further on in Mr. Kitchin's paper I find him saying 

 " that the application of the knowledge that a column of water will 

 rise no higher in a tube than to the point at which it counter- 

 balances the pressure of the atmosphere, no more makes a 

 man a theorist than does that which causes him to use a lever in 

 moving a heavy weight." True, but Mr. Kitchin here fails to note 

 a great distinction. One man may know but the simple fact that 

 water will only rise to a certain height in an exhausted tube. 

 Another man kows the fact quite as well, and in addition knows 

 why it will only rise to that height. That is the man I call a 

 theorist, and that, I think, you will agree, is the man most likely 



