OcToBER 9, 1902] 
NATURE 
595 
examination (Appendix A), it appears that not one Experi- 
mental Science, but two Experimental Sciences are contem- 
plated, viz. Physics and Chemistry, either of which may be 
taken in preference to Latin and together with English, 
Mathematics, and French or German. A most important issue 
is involved in this recommendation, and it cannot be too strongly 
opposed. 
It is very strange, and a proof of how little we are accustomed 
to act consistently or to organise, that having found a good 
thing we rarely make use of it. In the early days of scientific 
teaching, the elementary parts of chemistry and physics were 
taught as one subject ; but gradually, as the individual sciences 
developed, this healthy practice fell into abeyance. Then 
time brought its revenge; it was seen that a very one-sided 
creature was being trained up; that the subjects were in reality 
interdependent. Moreover, a revolt had been setting in against 
the formal stereotyped manner in which chemistry was being 
taught in the schools; this came to a head about 1887, and a 
better policy was inaugurated by the Reports and scheme 
presented to Section B of this Association in 1889 and 1800, 
which condemned ‘‘test-tubing” in favour of problem work 
and led to the introduction of the quantitative exercises which 
are now generally admitted to be of the first importance. 
Although the scheme dealt primarily with chemistry, being the 
work of the Chemical Section, it yet had a physical basis ; 
physical measurement, in fact, was its life blood, and all the 
earlier exercises prescribed in it were in essence physical 
exercises ; moreover, the importance of paying some attention to 
bio-chemical and bio-physical phenomena was not overlooked. 
As teachers have gained experience of the educational value of 
the heuristic methods advocated in the British Association 
scheme, they have been led to apply them more and more 
widely, and the teaching of Elementary Science has in con- 
sequence been regarded with growing favour of late years ; 
more and more has been done to give it the necessary 
breadth so as to constitute it an effective system of ‘‘ Nature 
Study.” 
The University of London—not the reconstituted body of 
the present day, but the much-abused examining body of the 
past—after careful inquiry a few years ago advisably substituted 
the subject of General Elementary Science for .the specific 
sciences previously prescribed for the Matriculation Examination, 
and by so doing took a forward step which has generally been 
admitted by those who can really appreciate the issue to be one 
of the most important possible from an educational point of 
view. But:the syllabus was imperfectly drawn up—although it 
had many good points—and the examination was entrusted 
to men who, besides having little sympathy with the subject, had 
scant knowledge of school requirements and possibilities. 
Consequently, the examination was a failure, as everyone 
foresaw it would be if conducted without proper consideration. 
The new University has taken the most unwise step of reverting 
to single subjects. It has done far worse than this, however, in 
making “Science” an alternative subject. Such a reversal of 
the policy so long pursued by its forerunner can only be 
described as a WNatéonal disaster, I make this statement with 
the utmost consideration, and trust that the fact that it is so pro- 
nounced from the Chair of this Section may give increased force 
to my opinion. 
It may be claimed that the action taken by the Committee on 
Military Education is in harmony with that approved of by the 
Senate of the University of London. The only comfort left 
open to us is that afforded by the proverb that two wrongs do not 
make a right. Let us hope that wiser counsels will ere long 
prevail. The consequences of perseverance in so narrow a 
policy must be very serious. Consider the effect even from a 
limited professional point of view. It is widely felt that, owing 
to the growth of knowledge, it is necessary to specialise if we are 
to do effective work ; but this does not mean that we should be 
uncultured. We know that the very contrary is the case, and 
that there was never a time when general knowledge was of 
greater value than it is at the present day. Yet how little this 
is recognised. The physicist is already unable to understand 
the chemist. And although the biologist is attempting to 
unravel almost transcendental problems in chemistry, he has 
but the most rudimentary knowledge of the subject. What 
intellectual pigmies we shall be if we pursue so short-sighted a 
policy ; how ineffective must be our treatment of borderland 
problems. How little right men of science will have to 
reproach those who have received only a classical and literary 
NO, 1719, VOL. 66] 
training with lack of general culture if we remain so narrow 
within our own domain. And from a general point of view the 
outlook is still more serious. The object of introducing 
Experimental Science into schools is to give training in 
knowledge of the world and to cultivate appreciation of its 
beauties and mysteries. To do this involves resort in some 
measure to all the sciences. Chemistry and physics are put 
first merely because they are of fundamental importance, 
chemical and physical changes being at the root of all natural 
phenomena. 
As to the value of ‘‘ Science” to military men, it is easy to 
understand that they should have little conception what it may 
do for them ; having never received proper training hitherto, 
they cannot have had the opportunity of testing its usefulness 
or of appreciating its merits. But making all allowances, it 
is difficult to understand an answer such as that given by Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Murray (Q. 4806) to the Committee on Military 
Education, viz. that ‘*Science is a narrowing study for the 
young mind, and we want to widen and open the mind as 
much as possible; let them learn their science afterwards” 
(that is, after the entrance examination). The contention of 
the advocates of ‘‘Science” has always been that of all 
subjects it tends most to widen and open the mind. Why 
attention should be specially called to this answer by the 
Committee in their report is a riddle; I hope it was because 
they desired to show they could rise superior to the occasion. 
But the idea that science ‘“‘can be learnt afterwards” is a 
very common one, and one of the most pernicious abroad. 
Learning from books and teachers, is a lazy method of learn- 
ing, and the average scholar is corrupted at an early age by 
exclusive resort to such methods, Much of the mental inert- 
ness of the day is acquired at school by over-indulgence in 
book study. But apart from this, early youth is the period 
when the mind is most alert and the desire to acquire and 
experiment greatest; it is the time when the powers of ob- 
serving and of reasoning can be most easily developed into 
fixed habits ; in fact, if they are not then developed, it is only 
in exceptional cases that the omission can be rectified in after 
life. It is too cruel that Mr. Shenstone, the one witness on the 
subject heard by the Committee on Military Education, should 
have given expression to the ill-considered opinion that 
the beginning of the study of Science necessarily comes 
somewhat later than that of Latin. The statement shows how 
prone we are to draw false conclusions, how little we think 
before we speak. The study of Science begins when the infant 
opens its eyes ; every step it takes when it toddles is an attempt 
to apply the methods of experimental science ; some training in 
scientific method is given in well-conducted Kindergarten 
schools ; but when school is entered, the curtain is suddenly 
drawn upon all such rational study ; if it be the fate of the child 
to enter a Preparatory school prior to entering a Public school, 
he is at once referred back to the times of the Romans and Greeks, 
his teachers being oblivious to the real lesson to be learnt from 
the study of the scholastic methods of classical times—that the 
training given to the youth should be such as to fit him to do 
his work asa man. How can our officers, how can any of us, be 
otherwise than ill prepared to do our duty in the world when 
we are so treated as youths ? 
Of course all such narrow views, all such narrow actions, as 
those I have referred to are but consequences of the lack of 
imaginative power—of our failure to make any scientific use of 
our imagination. Surely it were time we recognised this, and 
that we sought to do our duty towards our children. An Arnold 
who could introduce morality into school method, not merely 
into school manners, would be a precious gift to the world in 
these days. Steeped as we are in medizvalism, we need some 
cataclysm—some outburst of glowing sand and steam such as 
the world has recently witnessed in the islands of Martinique 
and St. Vincent—which would sweep away preconceived 
opinions and give clearness to the atmosphere. American 
industry is distinguished by the readiness with which manu- 
facturers scrap their machinery and refit. Why cannot we 
agree to scrap our scholastic and academic ideals, if not our 
schools and schoolmasters, and refit on scientific lines? If we 
are to weld our Empire into a coherent whole and maintain it 
intact, we must doso, Unless we recognise prophets—if progress 
be allowed to depend on the multitude—we shall perish. And 
time presses; we cannot with safety much longer remain a 
“‘nation of amateurs.” An appeal must ere long be made to the 
masses to enforce the provision of leaders ; it must be urged upon 
2 
