478 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION B. 
alliances and new activities on the frontiers that separate us from other sciences ; 
content to see many new kinds of chemistry arise in which we cannot all 
effectually participate. Chemistry is becoming bewildering in its extent, and it 
would be a great misfortune if this led to the notion that every chemist must try 
to enlarge his ambit to its confines and fit himself for every variety of work. 
Those of us who have responsibilities as teachers cannot, I think, be too careful, 
lest in the attempt to secure breadth we may encourage shallowness and fail to 
give our students that peculiar and time-honoured discipline in exactitude of work 
in chemistry proper, which has characterised the chemista of the past, and which 
is infinitely more important than superficial dealings with a great variety of pro- 
cesses and appliances. I confess that I have frequent misgivings as to whether 
our modern courses of instruction may not tend to turn out chemists more learned 
in the science and less perfect in the art than was the case under the ancient 
régime. There was, after all, great virtue in the system which often detained a 
student day after day, or perhaps week after week, on a single problem of 
chemical composition such as is involved in the exact analysis of fahl-ore. It is 
not easy to meet all requirements, but I think we shall all agree that, whatever is 
left undone, we must make a chemist a good craftsman. It is of the utmost 
importance that those whom we send out to work in the newer fields shall take 
with them the resources that have proved most serviceable in the old, and I think 
it is by supplying such men for special service, rather than by attempting to shift 
the centre of gravity of the whole system of chemical education, that we can best 
serve the newer interests. 
Another perturbation within the chemical camp in recent times has come from 
the region of philosophy. Even before the days of radium we have been accused 
of clinging too fondly to our atomic theory and of stating our knowledge too 
exclusively in terms of that theory. We are said to have drifted into a dogma- 
tism as real as any we ourselves have had to attack, and to shut our eyes to the 
light which will enable us to orient ourselves truly in the wide realm of thonght. 
The answer that most of us would give would be, that we value our hypotheses 
according to their productiveness in new knowledge, and that it is, on the whole, 
perhaps better to over-exalt an hypothesis that is fertile than from high considera- 
tions of philosophy to allow our ideas to become so fluid that they can afford no 
rigid framework for thought. 1 think that the attempts to view chemical phe- 
nomena apart from the atomic hypothesis, interesting as they undoubtedly are, 
have not made us feel that this hypothesis has either misled us in any matter of 
fact or obscured any pathway that we might have followed with greater profit. 
The value of the thermo-dynamical treatment of chemical problems is attested 
by its fruitfulness in promoting fresh discoveries; and here we may welcome a 
valuable adjunct to the atomic hypothesis. But I do not think we are called upon 
to acclaim a new method of treating old questions unless it promises some more 
tangible result than an alleged improvement of our intellectual morals. 
If, as I have ventured to hint, mathematics brings with it an element of danger 
into chemistry, I think that the intrusion of metaphysics would give far greater 
cause for apprehension. Philosophy always stands with open arms desiring a 
closer embrace of all the sciences, of which she declares herself to be the fond 
mother, whilst Science, as we understand the term, has stood reluctant, suggesting, 
as someone has wittily remarked, that she regards Philosophy rather as a mother- 
in-law. It may perhaps be desirable, especially in the present state of things, that 
scientific men should allow themselves to become a little more interested in deep 
questions affecting all knowledge, and should at least examine with some care the 
gifts that Philosophy is so anxious to bestow upon us. I have a fear that other- 
wise in the elaboration of scientific theory we may find ourselves embroiled in an 
unequal contest with what I cannot but regard as the traditional enemy—I mean 
the unmitigated metaphysician—and the suggestion that I make is, to tell the 
truth, not so much from the hope of gain as from the desire for self-defence and 
the safe preservation of the methods that have served us so well in the past. 
I think the accusation that we delude ourselves: into the belief that our hypo- 
theses are final truth is not true of any thoughtful chemist; the great men of 
