232 Fourth Conference 



A third difficulty is of a very delicate character. 

 We use the heuristic method in the laboratory, but 

 in the time at our disposal it would be fatal to do 

 without lectures and a well -arranged and concise 

 system. I would never criticise Professor Miall's 

 views when carried out by himself, but it is my duty 

 to protest against heuristic methods being adopted 

 a tort et a tr avers against the judgment of the teacher. 

 Personally, I see no reason whatever for disregarding 

 all the work done for us by our spiritual fathers in 

 the study of Nature. Moreover, we in Glasgow do 

 not work in a paradise, where time and money are 

 non-existent. We cannot afford a month, or a week, 

 or even a day, in which nothing is done. Our students 

 are not ideal students; we are not ideal teachers: 

 it is difficult to see how any even elementary know- 

 ledge of a well-arranged and concise nature can be 

 obtained without imparting information. There is 

 no doubt that the prospect is a very tempting one. 

 No expensive lantern-slides or diagrams, no lectures 

 to prepare, rewrite, and bring up to date over and 

 over again. There would be no need to get up those 

 sides of the subject which we do not personally care 

 for, because on such methods the student's minds 

 must be inevitably led to the favourite ideas of the 

 teacher. 



But to me it seems probable that such methods, 

 if adopted everywhere, would lead to the entire dis- 

 appearance of Nature-study as a teaching subject: 

 we could not show business men that such classes 

 may definitely assist agriculture. 



It is, however, in no way my intention to criticise 

 systems adopted by others. The study of a single 



