PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION J. 715' 



with the mental development of the learner as a predominant factor 

 in the training process. The mental processes in the young are essenti- 

 ally inductive. Intelligent life is first aroused by sense impressions. 

 Inductions are formed consciously or unconsciously. To the young 

 mind the mental operation of logical deduction is quite foreign. All 

 knowledge which may be tested by the touchstone of reality, all science 

 in fact, is essentially and fundamentally empirical. We who have 

 felt the inspiration of science probably when younger thought it possible 

 for science to ultimately unriddle the mystery of the universe. As the 

 mind matures, we come to realise that the role of science is not to solve 

 the riddle of the universe, but to supply a wider extent of knowledge 

 from which to construct a more reliable basis for the right ordering of 

 our actions. For the better comprehension and utilisation of the vast 

 store of knowledge, its various items are pigeonholed and labelled as 

 generalisations or laws. In a given subject the classification should be 

 proportionate to the range of work. In the teaching of geometry and 

 chemistry by generally prevalent methods, we may see a dispropor- 

 tionate classification. In chemistry, the various items are isolated,, 

 each item as it were going into a separate pigeonhole. . On the other 

 hand, in the teaching of geometry by Euclid's system, all the items are 

 bundled into one huge pigeonhole, so that here, also, we lack that 

 classification so essential to a clear comprehension of the subject. The 

 teaching of geometry by a system elaborated by an ancient Greek 

 philosopher strikes me as an unparalleled educational anachronism. It 

 is true that for many years a powerful attack has been directed against 

 this anachronism, but the result has been rather by way of a treaty 

 than of an overwhelming victory. It is little to our credit that the 

 citadel has withstood so well the onslaughts made on it. Were the 

 educational fallacy involved in the Euclidean mode of teaching geometry 

 once fully realised, I am sure that its death knell would be instantly 

 rung. Certain arguments have been advanced against the abolition 

 of Euclid. They have been repeated almost since the period of my 

 earliest recollection. Euclid, it is claimed, provides excellent, mental 

 training, and further, if it were abolished, what would take its place ? 

 To put the matter plainly for the latter claim, the centralised examina- 

 tion system largely in vogue requires an accurately specified syllabus. 

 Euclid admirably suits this requirement. The necessity for a dead- 

 level platform in geometrical teaching to supply the facilities for centra- 

 lised examination long delays a much needed reform. Geometrical 

 teaching is not alone in suffering disability from this cause. Professor 

 Perkin, in a presidential address to the British Association a few years 

 ago, condemned the inferior type of teaching in practical chemistry 

 described as test-tubing. He attributes its long continuance solely to 

 the facility with which it lends itself to examination. We may trace, 

 I believe, the great development of the present examination system to 

 the institution by Lord Macaulay of competitive examinations to 

 supersede the older system of nomination. As a rival to the method 

 of nomination, no doubt the Indian Civil Service Examination was at 

 that time preferable. The lofty position which this service has always 



