544 



AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 



ated, I have indicated those who are included 

 in the thousand in my " Biographical Direct- 

 ory of American Men of Science," a work of 

 reference that may be regarded as a by- 

 product of this study. I did this with some 

 hesitation, but it seemed best to place on 

 record those who were the subjects of this 

 research, more especially as this could be done 

 without any invidiousness. The probable 

 error toward the end of the list is about 100 

 places, so there are one hundred others who 

 have at least one chance in four of belonging 

 to this group. Further, several scientific men 

 of standing were omitted from the lists as 

 originally drawn up, and were not considered 

 in making the arrangements. Consequently, 

 while each of those indicated in the Biograph- 

 ical Directory is probably one of the leading 

 thousand American men of science, there are 

 others not indicated who belong to this group. 

 This, however, is a minor factor, and we have 

 with sufficient accuracy for statistical purposes 

 a group of the leading thousand American 

 men of science arranged in the order of merit 

 with the probable errors of position known. 



THE MEASUREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT 



Many of the problems that the writer had 

 in view in the present research might be 

 solved by the study of any group of. a thou- 

 sand American men of science, so long as 

 they had been objectively selected. The ob- 

 jective selection of a group sufficiently large 

 for statistical treatment is, however, essential. 

 As cases can be quoted to illustrate the cure 

 of nearly every disease by almost any medi- 

 cine, so examples can be given in support of 

 any psychological or sociological theory. The 

 method of anecdote, as used by Lombroso, 

 may be readable literature, but it is not sci- 

 ence. A thousand names might have been 

 selected by lot from all the scientific men of 

 the country, assuming a list to have been 

 available, but a group of the thousand leading 

 men of science arranged in the order of merit 

 has certain advantages. Information in re- 

 gard to tham can be better obtained than in 

 the case of those who are more obscure. Cor- 



relations can be determined between degrees 

 of scientific merit and various conditions. 

 The comparison with a similar group selected 

 ten or twenty years hence, or with a similar 

 group of British, French or German men of 

 science, would give interesting results. The 

 list itself, if printed after an interval of 

 twenty years, would be a historical document 

 of value. Lastly, the data can be so used as 

 to carry quantitative methods a little way 

 into a region that has hitherto been outside 

 the range of exact science. It is the last 

 problem that I wish to take up in this paper. 



It will be remembered that we have in each 

 science the workers in that science arranged 

 in the supposed order of merit by ten com- 

 petent judges, who made their arrangements 

 independently. If the ten arrangements 

 agreed exactly, we should have complete con- 

 fidence in the result, except in so far as it 

 was affected by systematic or constant errors. 

 If there were no agreement at all, the futility 

 of any attempt to estimate scientific merit 

 would be made clear. The conditions are 

 naturally intermediate. There is a certain 

 amount of agreement and a certain amount 

 of difference of opinion. Thus taking, for 

 example, the ten astronomers I., II., III., 

 etc. whose average positions were the highest, 

 the order given to them by each of the ten 

 observers, A, B, C, etc., is as shown in 

 Table I. 



Here we find complete agreement that I. 

 is our leading astronomer. He has been se- 

 lected as such by nine competent judges from 

 the 160 astronomers of the country." The 

 probability that this is due to chance is en- 

 tirely negligible. II. stands next in scientific 

 merit. He is placed second by four of the 

 observers, third by two, fourth by three and 

 ninth by one. The conditions are similar to 

 observations in the exact sciences. The av- 

 erage position or grade is 3.5, and the prob- 

 able error of this position is 0.45, i. e., the 



* In three cases where a question mark appears 

 the astronomer did not give a position to himself. 

 In one case the name was not included among the 

 slips. 



