Sy ay ae 
SCIENCE AND ETHICS 481 
Let us now, ‘without prejudice,’ as the lawyers say, stand for a time on 
this imaginary platform of the uselessness, for all practical purposes, of natural 
science, and consider from that standpoint the necessity of its study as a 
portion of a liberal and ethical education. 
I am anxious at the outset emphatically to disclaim any desire to belittle or 
disparage the studies which are ordinarily classed under the title of the 
‘humanities.’ It will be an evil day for us when we cease to appreciate their 
value, but we should, it appears to me, also claim the equality of science with 
the sister faculties for the purpose of the training of the mind and the enrich- 
ment of character. I, for one, do not want Cinderella to be made a princess 
and rule over her sisters; I do not even ask that she should entirely forsake 
the kitchen, for the kitchen should be a home of science; but I do desive that 
she should be regarded, mentally and socially, as equal te her sisters who 
discourse on art and literature in the drawing-room. 
To quote Sir Ray Lankester :— 
‘We believe in the great importance of science and the scientific method 
not merely for the advancement of the material well-being of the community, 
but as essential to the true development of the human mind and spirit. It is 
only by early training in the natural sciences that a true outlook on the facts 
otf existence can be secured. It is only by them that the supreme value of 
accuracy of thought and word and the supreme duty of intellectual veracity 
can be learned. In no other way can that complete independence of judgment. 
in moral, as well as in intellectual, subjects be established and justified in 
those who faithfully adhere to them.’ 
Faraday wrote : ‘I do think that the study of natural science is so glorious 
a school for the mind . . . that there cannot be a better school for education.’ 
These passages admirably express the views of those who urge the ethical 
and educational value of natural science. 
To me it appears an extraordinary thing that our present educational system 
is based on a study of the works of man rather than on those of the Creator. 
It is strange (to quote Sir Napier Shaw) that so much attention should be 
concentrated ‘on the failings and foibles of the human side of nature, so little 
about the majestic and inexorable laws of the physical side.’ 
In a recent letter to The Times I saw it stated that ‘in the vital 
element of education—the formation of character—natural science is of little 
or no value,’ and I am afraid some would go even further and regard it as 
detrimental. The point of view of certain such objectors is well illustrated 
by the letter of a parent to a University Lecturer :— 
‘Sir,—I hereby give you notice that I do not want my girl Sally taught 
ene about her inside. It does her no good and to my mind it is very 
rude.’ 
‘here you have it in a nutshell. Biology is too ‘rude’ a science to be 
taught to the young. 
Others honestly believe that such studies tend to the formation of an 
intellectual independence, to the habit of forming a judgment on the evidence 
alone, uncontrolled by tradition or authority, which, at all events from the 
theological point of view, is undesirable. If our masters and pastors state 
that the sun revolves round the earth, it is flat heresy to maintain or produce 
evidence to the contrary. This perverted’ idea of what is really meant by 
education is, I believe, the origin of many of our difficulties. It dies hard, 
it persists to the present day, and it is to be found in the most unexpected 
quarters. 
The best reply to this kind of nonsense is to be found in the following 
passage from Tyndall :— 
‘The business of the students of science is not with the possible but with 
the actual, not with the world which might be but with the world which is. 
This they explore with a courage not unmixed with reverence, and according 
to methods which, like the qualities of a tree, are tested by their fruits. They 
have but one desire—to know the truth; they have but one fear—to believe 
a lie; and if they know the strength of science and rely upon it with 
unswerving trust, they also know the limits beyond which science ceases to 
be strong. They best know that questions offer themselves to thought which 
science as now presented has not even the tendency to solve. They keep such 
