156 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 



than the level of the first spring, so knowledge derived from 

 Aristotle will at most rise no higher again than the knowledge 

 of Aristotle."* 



Thus the classification of facts about plants and the 

 formation of absolute judgments upon the basis of this classi- 

 fication — judgment independent of the idiosyncrasies of the 

 individual mind — essentially sum up the aim and method of 

 modern botany. t In metaphysics and philosophy we have 

 numerous systems, each frequently referred to by the name 

 of the thinker who elaborated it. Moreover, these various 

 systems may be diametrically opposed to each other. But in 

 such a science as botany, where elimination of the personal 

 equation is a fundamental prerequisite to progress, there is 

 only one system. When different individuals apply the same 

 method to the same range of facts, the result must eventually 

 be the same. 



In this connection the relation of popular science to real 

 botany may be referred to. Numerous recent articles on 

 Luther Burbank's marvellous skill in producing new varieties 

 of plants, for example, contain scarcely a hint of the method 

 applied in the realm of plant-breeding. They appeal to the 

 fancy, but not to the reason. This is a common defect of 

 articles on popular science, so called. They are poor science 

 because they present only startling or unusual facts, disre- 

 garding method, and tending to give distorted and incorrect 

 notions of the nature of science and scientific research. I 

 firmly believe in the popularization of science, provided it is 

 science that is popularized. 



There is one peculiarity of plants in which they diflfer 

 especially from animals, and which accounts for a difference 



♦Bacon. Adv. Learning (Dewey's edition). Book I, p. 61. 



tFrom Pearson, K. The Grammar of Science, Ed. 2, p. 6. 

 With slight change of wording. 



