CONSERVATISM IN SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 43 



ure, such as the " dairy course, " no justification? They are 

 .abundantly justified both by what the four years' course has 

 failed, and always will fail, to accomplish, and by the actual 

 results which have followed their introduction. They are reach- 

 ing young men who otherwise might never have had their thought 

 stimulated to greater activity or their eyes fitted for larger vision. 

 They are not ideal. They are not a full substitute for the four 

 years' course, but I am of the opinion that as a means of carrying 

 to the mass of farmers a higher appreciation of exact knowledge, 

 they are likely to constitute the most efficient school effort that 

 we are now attempting. I do most emphatically protest, though, 

 against these briefer courses being regarded as an acknowledg- 

 ment that the higher and fuller course lacks form and efficiency. 

 The logic of such reasoning is not clear, and scarcely requires 

 comment. 



Passing now from that phase of our subject which relates 

 chiefly to the college professor and the investigator, let us con- 

 sider the need of conservatism in the interpretation to the farm- 

 ing public of its relation to scientific facts and theories. In this 

 particular field of work, aside from the station bulletins, we have 

 to do chiefly with the institute speaker and the editor. 



In order that the farmer may be instructed and helped, and 

 not confused, these two popular teachers should display a con- 

 servatism that is born of sound and adequate knowledge. 



Institute speakers as we now find them include men of a great 

 variety of experience. Today we listen to the man of science 

 and tomorrow to the man of practice, both of whom have their 

 peculiar place and value. It is extremely desirable, however, that 

 the one shall not attempt to occupy the province of the other. 

 While there is an occasional scientist who is familiar with the 

 methods of practice, and a few who till the soil that have a fairly 

 wide range of scientific knowledge, the rule is that the one falls 

 far short of expertness in the domain of the other. It is better 

 that the specialist in some line of agricultural practice shall not 

 feel called upon to furnish a scientific explanation of all that he 

 does, and that the speaker who is expert mostly in some depart- 

 ments of science shall not give too much free advice in regard to 

 the details of farm work. Such a regard for the proprieties will 

 tend to the establishment of greater confidence on the part of 

 the public in those who appear in the capacity of teachers. 



