68: 



NA TURE 



[November iS, 1922 



Correlation of the Social Sciences. 



A CON] ERENCE was held at Oxford on October 

 :-ii, under the auspices of the Sociological 

 Society, with the view of securing proper correlation 

 1 the various sciences contributory to the 

 iology. l*r. A. J. Carlyle, of University 

 College, Oxford, acted as local secretary, and other 

 < >xford nun, Mich as Prof. J. I.. Myres and Dr. R. R. 

 Vlarett, helped in the work of organisation. The Warden 

 oi Nc« College gave the opening address. History, 

 geography, biology, psychology, philosophy, anthro- 

 pology, economics, and political science — all these 

 subjects w.ie considered, the leading of a papei on 

 eai ii being fi ill iwed by a discussion. 



Mr. J. S. Marvin emphasis© I the need for a constant 

 return of the sociologist to history ; in history we 

 cal principles in action. He pointed the 

 difference between the two methods by showing how 

 the biography oi a great man like Napoleon, say, 

 could be materia] fur history or fot soi iology, accord- 

 ing to the way in which it was treated. Sir Halford 

 Mi. kinder (in contradistinction to some of the other 

 speakers) made very modest claims for geography, 

 merely pointing out that it was a limiting factor in 

 sociological matters. Mr. J. S. Huxley attempted 

 to show the principles which are common to human 

 and non-human biology. He stressed the biological 

 differences between man and other organisms as 

 against the resemblances, and rebutted the claims 

 of those who seek to make the struggle for existem e 

 the most important biological principle. Further, 

 he pointed out that the general direction observable 

 in organic evolution provided an objective criterion 

 foi 1 leas oi progress in social science. Prof. Myres 

 was emphatic on the need for a biological basis for 

 any true i ieni e i 'I si n ioli ig j 



Dr. Marett read a very stimulating paper on 



anthropology, laying stress on the fact that anthro- 



e now coming more and more to adopt 



what might be called sociological methods, in that 



re invi itigating whole cultures instead ol 



isolated actions or beliefs. He made it clear that 



the only essential distinction between anthropology 



and sociology to-day is that the former invi 



primitive peoples, while the latter is concerned with 



atei complexity of civilisation. 



I 'rot. Spearman made large claims on behalf of 



igy, and drew a vivid (ii somewhat unplea :ing l 



picture of a future state of soi tetv in which the 



ability ol every boy and girl would be gauged, and 



their oci upations found for them by the application 



of mental tests. This would bring about a state 

 of affairs in which the just claims of democracy 

 would be realised, together with the merits of 

 aristocracy. 



Prof. Leonard Hobhouse, in an attempt to lead 

 the conference back to fundamentals, insisted that 

 the primary difference between science and philo- 

 sophy was that the latter introduced the idea of 

 values — a statement which provoked an interesting 

 disi ussion. 



Prof. W. J. Roberts, in discussing economics, 

 pointed out that a broad treatment of the subject 

 was necessary, particularly in order to prevent the 

 common mistake of students of regarding the existing 

 state of all ins as approximately ideal. Historical 

 and sociological aspects of the science should be 

 stressed. 



Finally, 1 >r. Carlyle, in a characteristically amusing 

 and vigorous address, dealt with political si ieni e. 



The conference was obviously a success, in that 

 it stimulated thought and discussion, and was profit- 

 able to those who took part in it. But the subjects 

 treated were so large, the modes of treatment so 

 varied, that many were doubtful whether much 

 advance had been made by its close along the path 

 of correlal ii in. 



.Mr. Graham Wallas, in opening one of the debates 

 in his most refreshing manner, made a suggestion 

 which may prove fruitful. He pointed out that those 

 who presented papers were given much too free a hand 

 — that they could say what they liked, and that, as 

 a matter of fact, this was usually not what the 

 sociologists wanted to know. He suggested that 

 sociologists should draw up questionnaires asking 

 for answers on certain definite points from the 

 anthropologists, the psychologists, the biologists, and 

 the rest. 



ft is clear that sociology can become a most 

 important science, and that its field is one left 

 severely alone by other sciences. But it has to 

 accept 'the data of a great many special si 

 to take them on trust, and then to correlate them 

 in a particular way. It is to be hoped that the 

 Sociological Society will adopt some such plan as 

 that of Mr. Wallas, pinning the experts down to 

 answering certain problems on which it must have 

 light. This might be done at next year's conference ; 

 and the year after another might be held to deal 

 with the purely sociological task of synthesising and 

 employing these data. 



The Effect of Deformation on the Ar 1 Change in Steels. 



'THERE is considerable evidence as to the existence 

 -1 of lag in the crystallisation of pearlite, parti- 

 cularly in hypoeutectoid steels. Cooling cur\ i 

 it in the observed temperature of the change, which 

 depends on the rate of cooling. Microscopical ob- 

 servations testify to it in that the presence of carbide 

 nuclei within the austenite (gamma iron) areas leads 

 to crystalli ition of globulai pearlite a1 a 1 emperature 

 1 onsiderably higher than that at which growth occurs 

 in the absence of such nuclei. Moreover, the growth 

 ol lamellar pearlite when once started does aof 

 occur simultaneously throughout the specimens. The 

 change proceeds gradually, and there is no dun. uli 5 

 in quem hing a pecimen so that it contains ai 

 of pearlite (transformed) and martensite (partially 

 transformed) intet mixed, 



In taking cooling curves, the specimen is usually 

 allowed to cool undisturbed, and Mr. J. H. Whiti ley 



NO. 2768, VOL, I IO] 



has conducted an investigation to test vyhether the 

 temperature of the change could be raised and the 

 rate of pearlite growth increased by deforming steels 

 in this metastable zone. Recently A. 1". Hallimond, 

 m disi ussing the question of delayed crystallisation, 

 remarked that for super-saturated solid solutions, 

 violent mechanical working may be the analogue of 

 agitation. In Mr. Whiteley's experiments, described 

 before .1 rei 1 at meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute, 

 two nut hods of deformation were used, namely, 

 hammering and bending, tests were carried out in 

 a small, electrically heated, vertical furnace, resting 

 on a 1 ili ic k ol steel. A bar of hard chromium steel was 

 used as an anvil, separated from the steel block by a 

 thii k pad of asbestos. Temperatures at the surface 

 were measured. A rod of manganese steel selected 

 because it is non-magnetic was used to transmit the 

 hammer blows to the specimen on the anvil. In 



