FROM ERRONEOUS ANALT8B8. 



im 



ledge, and one who really knows soraethir is 



true and valuable. He takes these erroneou- .-s 



as his guides, and probably falls at once into some 

 serious mistake, by attempting to alter the supposed 

 constitution of his soil. After he has been disap{>ointed 

 in this way a few times, he is very apt to condemn 

 all scientihc agriculture as ridiculous, and of no avail 

 for any practical purposes. 



What 1 wish to impress in this connection, is the 

 necessity of caution in coming to such a decision. Let 

 it first be considertMl, if the experiments to be carrieti 

 out have been properly and careiully made, so that 

 there could be no mistake in that direction- Let it 

 next be ascertained that no physical obstacles are in 

 the way of success, and if it is found beyond doubt that 

 there has lM>en no error from either of these causes, then 

 let the - 



entifir I i 



an i were wrongly interpreted, or that the 



exa < re incorrectly made. 



There is truth in science, but it is not every one 

 who can draw it out ; and the proper course in cases 

 of an unsatisfactory nature, is to distrust the rtuxn, and 

 not the general nrmciples. 



It is «i»y t«> («n«»w f li;»f th« i • v serintw diffi- 



Chl' ■ -1- 



will take soils as an instance. Where mention has 

 been made of the inorganic si!l»«'ni' '"v in soils, as in 

 Table I. p. 60, it mu.st have l>t I that the pro- 



portions of some of them were <| m. Mnall, ^ ' a 



as to seem of little in»{K>rtatne. It was, he \- 



pl.ii • it the presence of " s 



w.i • ly neoeflsary, so i i- 



Tattnl crops would ti ' lein. 



Half n iKHind of ; ^ \n 100 IHr. of 



earth, is a very uniuually large proportion, even in 



