February, 1922. 



SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 



183 



the acquiring of data, it may be a waste 

 of time, ail aimless, hopeless, tlead effort. 

 Its results may be chaotic, impossible of 

 developing a leading principle or an il- 

 luminating fact. 



There is still a quite prevalent idea that 

 thi^ ends of research may be satisfied by 

 the accumulation of data. It is a common 

 expression in connection with the status 

 of long-continued experiments that "data 

 are being accumulated"'. This is especial- 

 ly apt to be the case where such complex 

 conditions and factors are involved that 

 the results from year to year are confus- 

 ing ; and it is assumed that these uncon- 

 trolled variables may be eliminated by 

 long repetition. In such cases there is apt 

 to be lack of a critical attitude toward 

 both the method and the data themselves, 

 and hence the test of adequacy or com- 

 petence is not applied. Data add to the ac- 

 cumulated fund of information when they 

 are accurate, systematic, and orderly, and 

 so capable of enabling deductions or fit- 

 ting into other supplies which may b? 

 so used. Unless they respond to such a 

 test it may well be questioned whether 

 their accumulation is profitable at this 

 stage, when there is already such a large 

 background. 



Simplification and definiteness of pur- 

 pose give direction to the making of re- 

 cords and the gathering of data. All ex- 

 perimental inquiry turns upon securing 

 proof which is both accurate and ade- 

 quate 'to the purpose. The method of 

 science is the process of securing accur- 

 acy and precision in purposeful observa- 

 tion, and the interpretation of the pro- 

 duct As has been said, it is ''only a per- 

 fected application of our human resources 

 of observation and reflection." - 



The method is not a fixed thing but is 

 continually changing as progress makes 

 possible. Science strives constantly' after 

 new ways of acquiring and proving facts 

 which would otherwise not be known or 

 but imperfectly so, and at the same time 

 eliminating tlie personal factor. Appar- 

 atus and appliances are designed primarily 

 to make possible tjie taking of observations 

 wliir-h would otherwise not be feasible, or 

 with equal accuracy. They therefore en- 

 large the field of observation and increase 

 precision. 



This applies of course to facilities and 

 -methods for agricultural inquiry such as 

 field plats and cylinders, feeding appli- 

 ances, special apparatus and other means 

 for securing experimental data; and there 

 is the same need of critical examination 

 of these from time to time that tliere is 

 of other facilities, to determine whether 

 they are supplying proof which is accur- 

 ate and sufficient, or to assess correctly 

 what can and what can not be shown by 

 such methods. 



The question is forcing itself upon the 

 minds of many as to the adequacy of cer- 

 tain types of field experiments, as ordin- 

 arily conducted, to answer fmidame'ital 

 questions in plant nutrition and soil man- 

 agement. Large reliance has been placed 

 on such experiments in the past, and data 

 have been accumulated from them over 

 long periods. The oldest series of fertiliz- 

 er and rotation plats in this country runs 

 back over forty years; several others have 

 been under way from twenty-five to thir- 

 ty-five years. One station has some two 

 thousand plats. 



These experiments have brought high- 

 ly important practical results, and have 

 marked a definite step in agricultural in- 

 quiry. They have furnished a rich back- 

 ground of material and suggestion for 

 more definitely directed studies. The 

 question is whether they have reached 

 thrir maximum and how far they are 

 to be depended upon in making further 

 advances. 



It is now realized that many of these 

 long-time experiments contain inherent 

 difficulties dating back to their beginning 

 which introduce a strong element of 

 doubt in interpreting results. For one 

 thing, most of the published reports fail 

 to describe the soil except in the most 

 general way, and lack information as to 

 tjie condition and previous treatment of 

 the field indications of irregularity, etc. 

 Again, the number of check plats is usu- 

 ally too small, and the same is time of the 

 amount of replication of treatment. This 

 may account for the different interpre- 

 tations made by different persons from 

 the same series of experiments. In few 

 cases has the necessary number of checks 

 and duplicates been worked out mathe- 

 matically for such experiments, and where 



