12 



needs a particular theory or a particular measurement most at any one time. 

 In fact knowing most of the participants of this symposium I am sure the theo- 

 reticians will hold up their end of the discussion. Actually, the important thing 

 is that the instrument designers, the experimentalists, and the theoreticians 

 each do their work aggressively and well. Oftentimes great progress is made 

 in a large scale straightforward approach right at the heart of the problem. 

 Occasionally, this method hits an impasse and some clever unknown scientist 

 gains the answer easily with an end-around play on a seemingly unrelated prob- 

 lem. 



While we are discussing the problem of the comprehensive experiment 

 versus the simple one, I want to call attention to a common looseness in our use 

 of the words crude and precise. All too often one hears a latecomer in a field 

 referring to the crude measurements which his predecessor made. Personally, 

 I have a great regard for the early worker in a field, because I think that pre- 

 cise thinking and simple measurements have often had a larger scientific product 

 than precise measurements and simple thinking. For example, I do not think 

 measurements should be called crude if they accomplish their objective and ma- 

 terially add to our fund of knowledge. One should not be satisfied with inferior 

 measurements but one must also be sure he doesn't concentrate on the difficult 

 so much that he overlooks the apparent. 



It is easy to divide any research work up into one of three classes: 



1. The probing qualitative venture which usually 

 is quite incomplete and generates more new 

 problems than it solves. 



2. The careful detailed study which answers impor- 

 tant questions in a quantitative manner. Such 

 measurements carry a ring of authority and are 

 mile posts for future workers. 



3. The in-between class which gives information 

 but neither opens nor closes a problem. 



This latter category is the dangerous one because it is the one into which 

 we put most of our effort. It would, therefore, behoove us both as individuals 

 and groups to do some soul searching on the types of instruments and problems 

 we are going to undertake and ask ourselves, "Will it produce new problems, 

 firm answers, or neither?". 



DISCUSSION: Robert G. Paquette 



It is refreshing to read Mr. Isaacs' unconventional discussion of the 

 problems of measurement and exploration in the sea. He expresses basic 

 philosophies which should be understood by explorers in any field. He relates 

 the instrument to the senses from a viewpoint probably seldom before appreciat- 

 ed by an oceanographer, and presents a number of novel ideas which, if not im- 

 mediately applicable, provoke progressive thought. 



