40 



NATURE 



[September 9, 1915 



difficulties and the drudgery that must accompany 

 every serious study. 



I have already alluded to the different tendencies of 

 individuals either to prefer solitary reflection or to 

 seek companionship. Almost in every profession we 

 find men of both types. Darwin's autobiography 

 furnishes a good example of the man who prefers to 

 learn through quiet reading rather than through 

 lectures, but to many men of science the spoken word 

 is inspiring and contact with congenial minds almost 

 a necessity. 



From our present point of view the most interesting 

 passages in Darwin's autobiography are those in- 

 dicating the aesthetic feeling which, like Poincar6, he 

 connects with scientific research. Referring to his 

 early studies we find this passage: "I was taught 

 by a private tutor, and I distinctly remember the in- 

 tense satisfaction which the clear geometrical proofs 

 gave me. I remember with equal distinctness .the 

 delight which my uncle gave me by explaining the 

 principle of the vernier of a barometer." To a man 

 who apparently had no pronounced facility of master- 

 ing mathematical difficulties this feeling of satisfac- 

 tion is especially remarkable. The combination of 

 scientific ability with leanings either to music, or art, 

 or poetry, is very common, and examples are to be 

 found in almost every biography of men of science. 

 It is difficult indeed to name an eminent scientific 

 man who has not strong leanings towards some artistic 

 recreation : we find the poetic vein in Maxwell and 

 Sylvester, the musical talent in Helmholtz and Ray- 

 leigh, and the enthusiastic though amateurish pictorial 

 efforts of less important men. That the similarities 

 are to be found also in temperament may be noticed 

 on reading Arnold Bennett's article on "The Artist 

 and the Public,"* where many passages will be seen 

 to be applicable to students of science as well as to 

 writers of fiction. 



If we look for distinctions between different indi- 

 viduals, we may find one in their leanings either 

 towards the larger aspects of a question or 

 the microscopic study of detail. The power of 

 focussing simultaneously the wider view and the 

 minute observation is perhaps the most characteristic 

 attribute of those who reach the highest eminence 

 in any profession, but the great majority of men have 

 a notable predilection for the one or other side. 

 Though it Is Indispensable for a scientific man to 

 study the details of the particular problem he is trying 

 to solve, there are many who will lose interest In It 

 as soon as they believe they can see a clear way 

 through the difficulties without following up their 

 solution to Its utmost limits. To them detail, as 

 such, has no Interest, and they will open and shut 

 a door a hundred times a day without being even 

 tempted to Inquire Into the Inner working of the lock 

 and latch. 



There is only one feature in the operation of the 

 Intelligence by means of which a sharp division may 

 possibly be drawn between brain-workers showing 

 special capabilities In different subjects. In some per- 

 sons thought attaches Itself mainly to language, in 

 others to visualised Images, and herein lies perhaps 

 the distinction between the literary and scientific gift. 

 Those who, owing to external circumstances, have 

 resided In different countries are sometimes asked 

 In what language they think. Speaking for myself, 

 T have always been obliged to answer that, so far as 

 I can tell, thought is not connected with any language 

 at all. The planning of an experiment or even the 

 critical examination of a theory is to me entirely a 

 matter of mental imagery, and hence the experience, 

 which I think many, scientific men must have shared, 



8 English Review, <^ctober, 19 13. 



NO. 2393, VOL. 96] 



that the conversion of thought into language, which 

 is necessary when we wish to communicate its results 

 to others, presents not only the ordinary difficulties of 

 translation, but reveals faults in the perfection or 

 sequence of the images. Only when the logic of 

 words finally coincides with the logic of images do 

 we attain that feeling of confidence which makes us 

 certain that our results are correct. 



A more detailed examination of the instinctive pre- 

 dilections of a child would, I think, confirm Poincar^'s 

 conclusion that a decided preference for one subject 

 Is In the main due to an unconscious appeal to his 

 emotions. It should' be remembered, however, that 

 the second step of Poincar^'s philosophy Is as impor- 

 tant as the first. The mere emotional impulse would 

 die out quickly. If it were not supplemented by 

 the gratification experienced on discovering that 

 the search for the beautiful leads us to results which 

 satisfy our Intellect as well as our emotions. There 

 may still be bifurcations In the second portion of the 

 road. Some may rest content with achieving some- 

 thing that supplies the material needs of humanity, 

 others may be inspired to search for the deeper mean- 

 ing of our existence. 



There remains, therefore, some justification for the 

 question why we persist In studying science apart 

 from the mere intellectual pleasure it gives us. It 

 was once a popular fallacy to assume that the laws of 

 nature constituted an explanation of the phenomena 

 to which they applied, and people then attached im- 

 portance to the belief that we could gauge the mind 

 of the Creator by means of the laws which govern 

 the material world, just as we might trace the purpose 

 of a human legislator in an Act of Parliament. As 

 this archaic Interpretation was abandoned, philoso- 

 phers went, In accordance with what politicians call 

 the swing of the pendulum, to the other extreme. 

 We can explain nothing, they said — In fact, we can 

 know nothing — all we can do is to record facts. This 

 modesty was Impressive and It became popular. I 

 know, at any rate, one scientific man who has acquired 

 a great reputation for wisdom by repeating sufficiently 

 often that he knows nothing, and, though his judg- 

 ment may be_ true, this frame of mind is not inspiring. 

 As a corrective to the older visionary claims, which 

 centred round the meaning of the word "explain," 

 the view that the first task of science is to record facts 

 has no doubt had a good influence. Kirchhoff laid 

 It down definitely that the object of science is to 

 describe nature, but he did not thereby mean that It 

 should be confined to recording detached observations ; 

 this would be the dullest and most unscientific pro- 

 cedure. Description, in the sense in which Kirchhoff 

 uses It, consists In forming a comprehensive statement 

 gathering together what, until then, was only a dis- 

 connected jumble of facts. Thus the apparently quite 

 irregular motions of the planets, as observed from the 

 earth, were first collected in tabular form. This was 

 a necessary preliminary, but was not In itself a scien- 

 tific investigation. Next came Kepler, who bv means 

 of three laws summed up the facts In their main 

 outlines, and the description then took a more refined 

 form, substituting half a page of printing for volumes 

 of observations. Finally, Newton succeeded In pre- 

 dicting the planetary movements on the assumption 

 of a gravitational attraction between all elements of 

 matter. According to Kirchhoff, the chief merit of 

 this discovery would lie in Its condensing Kepler's 

 three laws into one hypothesis. This point of view 

 Is not necessarily opposed to that of Polncar^, because 

 It Is exactly the simplicity of Newton's explanation 

 that appeals most strongly, to our aesthetic sense, but 

 there is an important difference In the manner of 

 expression. However beautiful an Idea may be. It 



