626 



NATURE 



[October 23, 1890 



rienced eye and hand are often said to serve the purposes of those 

 concerned at the time ; but will anyone doubt that scientific 

 accuracy and system would be more reliable ? I am aware that 

 "practical men" doubt this, but repeated contact with "prac- 

 tical men " assures one that they pay a heavy penalty in loss of 

 time for their triumphs. 



It is repeatedly observable that the "practical man" — the 

 man of experience, in other words— has to spend long periods of 

 time in the acquirement of his unsystematized powers, and the 

 conviction forces itself upon the observer that he could do much 

 more if he were systematically and logically observant, instead 

 of being merely spasmodically so. In other words, he is scien- 

 tific in so far as his successes go, for in the end it all resolves 

 itself into keenness of observation and comparison ; and he 

 would save himself many failures if he were properly trained. 

 How often is it pointed out that such and such a man is unscien- 

 tific but practical ! Well, this resolves itself into a fallacy, for he 

 is really practical in so far as he is scientific in his methods — 

 clumsily so, it may be, and the science in him has been uncon- 

 sciously acquired and pursued ; but it is there, and it is just 

 where his science breaks down that he becomes a mere bungler. 

 This truth need not blind us to the further one that even a 

 bungler occasionally stumbles upon success, but my argument is 

 that his conclusions would be more constantly trustworthy if he 

 pursued a consistent and recorded course of methodical observa- 

 tion and comparison, instead of trusting to the unsystematized 

 impressions from which his keen mind draws the conclusions of 

 of which he is so vain. 



It is, to my thinking, one of the most curious problems of the 

 human mind that "practical men" can persist in upholding em- 

 piricism, on the grounds that such knowledge as the above is most 

 real and useful. Of course, it is real and useful in so far as it has 

 been acquired during long years of experience in contact with facis ; 

 but look at the opportunities lost in this expensive and wasteful 

 training— at the mistakes made and the wrong lines pursued, 

 until correction comes, sharp and merciless because it involves 

 failure. Surely, a better method is to prepare the man to gain 

 liis experience at least cost, and to profit to the utmost by his 

 mistakes ; and, when all is done, see the equivocal position the 

 " practical man " is put into — his only real knowledge is scien- 

 tific, and the wild hypotheses and ignorant fallacies to which he 

 is a slave might havebecome^friiilfuLthoiights, leadingJiLm to far 

 higher attainments had he learnt to observe and record, and 

 compare and judge when he was young. Personally, I know 

 no more contradictory being than the one who prides himself on 

 being a " practical man," and is continually throwing at one's 

 head the adage, " An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory," 

 for at every turn one finds him involved in endless tangles of 

 error, and his ignorance of this is only equalled by the obstinacy 

 with which he contends the contrary. 



The second speaker was Prof. F. W. Oliver, who considered 

 the question of botanical teaching only so far as it bears upon the 

 training of medical students. He argued that, since all scientific 

 medicine is based upon elementary biology, it is necessary to 

 bear in mind that, in a course of say fifty lectures, designed for 

 the requirements chiefly of medical students, some things must 

 be sacrificed in order that certain fundamental truths may be 

 driven home. The only questions are. What must go? and what 

 must be retained? And the reply is that much of the study of 

 types, and of such transcendental subjects as the alternations of 

 uenerations, and so forth, as found in the schedule of the London 

 University, for instance, should be sacrificed in order that the 

 teacher may concentrate his attention on such parts of the 

 subject as are of real importance and interest to the medical 

 student, and others composing large classes. He would go 

 so far as to say that about thirty out of the fifty lectures 

 should be devoted to the organography and elementary phy- 

 siology of the higher plants ; for in that case the teacher is 

 ■dealing with beings of which everybody knows something, and 

 there is more human interest to the student when the fades of 

 the organism is so familiar as is that of common flowering plants. 

 In conclusion. Prof. Oliver pointed out that the responsibility of 

 these matters rests with the examiners and those who draw up 

 such schedules as that of the London University, and laid some 

 stress on the importance of this responsibility. 



Prof. F. O. Bower followed, and directed his remarks chiefly 

 to the subject of teaching mixed and elementary classes in a 

 University. He wished especially to deplore the threatened 

 ■divorce between morphology and physiology, and advocated that 



such a divorce should be prevented at all hazards. In regard to 

 this, and to some other points, he must differ from Prof. Marshall 

 Ward's conclusions, though he heartily concurred with most of 

 what he had said. He thought that, taking into account the 

 value of the mental exercise, so useful a study as that of mor- 

 phology should be introduced early, and that the teaching of 

 the main homologies should be insisted upon. With regard to 

 the cut-and-dried schedules now so universal, Prof Bower was 

 of opinion that, while they protect the weaker teachers, they 

 hamper the strong ones, and he wished very much that more 

 individual freedom should be allowed to lecturers. 



Mr. Forsyth was especially interested in Prof. Marshall Ward\ 

 remarks on the teaching of botany to children in schools, and 

 described an experiment now being tried in the Leeds Higher 

 Grade School. The children are being taught to bring plants 

 themselves, and to observe them in the field, and the speaker 

 was of opinion that the new departure is a signal success. 



Prof. Green spoke very strongly against the "type-system" 

 as now pursued in the teaching of botany. Not only does it 

 occupy too much time, but it is quite a mistake to begin with an 

 unknown and minute object like the yeast plant : not only is 

 the Saccharomyces plant a strange object, but the student obiains 

 no adequate notions of its size or properties. He advocated less 

 section-cutting and less work with the compound microscope, 

 and more observation with the simple lens, at any rate until the 

 student is familiar with common objects. 



Prof. Hartog differed from previous speakers in thinking it a 

 mistake to be afraid to teach children technical terms, and 

 pointed out that children take very readily to hard names, and 

 are very proud of having acquired them. He also differed 

 entirely from those who advocate that the fern is a good type to 

 begin with : the fern is a difficult type, abnormal in its phloem, 

 its stomata, and other respects, and should be avoided for some 

 time. He thought it much better to select the various tissues 

 and elements from the first, and then pass on to the study 

 of types. 



Prof. Hillhouse agreed with Prof. Marshall Ward that 

 technical terms should be introduced carefully and not too early, 

 and considered that botany has suffered in the past from being 

 regarded as associated with hard words. He also advocated 

 that botany affords the best means for introducing students to 

 the use of the microscope. 



Prof. Geddes has often found that schools are detrimental to 

 the observing powers of children, and that the real way to 

 interest the pupils is to let them make discoveries for them- 

 selves. He advocated the establishment of a botanical garden 

 for every school, and pointed out that very useful notions of 

 geometry can be taught from flowers. Prof. Geddes objected 

 to the type-system for children, and urged that the life of the 

 plant, and not its destruction, should be the aim of teaching. 

 He would interest students in such subjects as insectivorous 

 plants, and so infuse general interest into their studies. 



Prof. Johnson remarked that at South Kensington, the home 

 of the type- system, they have for some years past tried varying 

 the order of teaching the several types, and have found that it 

 is best to work down from the higher to the lower plants. 



Prof. Marshall Ward having briefly replied, the discussion 

 was then closed by the President. 



THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE HYDRA TE 



THEORY OF SOLUTION} 

 T T is but four years since this Section devoted a day to the 

 -'- discussion of the nature of solution ; - since then, however, 

 the general aspect of the question and the position of the advocates 

 of the two rival theories have undergone such a complete 

 change, that in renewing the discussion we shall run but little 

 risk of going over the same ground which we then trod. At 

 Birmingham, Dr. Tilden opened the discussion by passing in 

 review all the well-known and long-known facts which might by 

 any possibility throw some light on the nature of solution, and 

 those who followed him in the discussion each gave the inter- 

 pretation of these facts which harmonized best with his own 

 views, and, as the facts themselves were susceptible of several 

 different interpretations, the not surprising result followed that 



' Paper read before Section B, at the Leeds meeting of the British -Associa- 

 tion, as an introduction to a discussion on the nature of solutions and the 

 theory of osmotic pressure. 



2 B. A. Report, 1886, p. 444. 



NO. TO95, ^^OL. 42] 



