272 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LIII. No. 1369 



plied from botany, zoology, geology, climatology 

 and so forth. 



The implication conveyed in designating 

 plant culture as an art is presumably that a 

 science is something intellectually higher. Of 

 course, this is a mere matter of definition of 

 terms. Someone has proposed the definition: 

 Science is " finding out and learning how and 

 why." So broadminded a man as Huxley once 

 gave his views of science as follows: 



To my mind, whatever doctrine professes to he 

 the result of the application of the accepted rules 

 of inductive and deductive logic to its subject- 

 matter: and which accepts, within the limits which 

 it sets itself, the supremacy of reason, is science. 



There is in this definition no trace of re- 

 striction as to what the subject-matter may 

 be. It pertains quite as much to plant cul- 

 ture as to plant morphology, to goats as well 

 as sheep. A restricted definition that classi- 

 fies knowledge of plants as science and dis- 

 poses of knowledge of plant culture as non- 

 science, has not been a solidifying influence 

 among plant workers. 



The attempts to divide science on the basis 

 of quality or usefulness have been in the 

 main very unfortunate as in most cases one 

 of the subsidiary terms involves a disparage- 

 ment; thus pure science and applied (by im- 

 plication impure) science; fundamental and 

 superficial; practical and theoretical (by sug- 

 gestion impractical) science; philosophical 

 and practical science. Some of the terms 

 suggest that they were invented by snobbish 

 persons, but others seem sincere efiorts to 

 distinguish purely pragmatic knowledge from 

 that which rests on a philosophical or theoret- 

 ical basis. It would make for gp-eater soli- 

 darity, I imagine, if instead of making dis- 

 tinctions that concern persons as well as 

 things, we should emphasize " science in the 

 service of humanity " or " science the hand- 

 maid of progress." 



If we must persist in the attempt to dis- 

 tinguish two sorts of science I would sug- 

 gest empirical and philosophical. The former 

 would include in the main information based 

 purely on observation or on test, as long as 



the underlying causes are unknovpn or vague, 

 and which some writers delight to call " mere 

 empiricism " ; the latter to the knowledge 

 which is illuminated by proven theory or 

 broad inductive generalizations. I suspect it 

 is the mental satisfaction derived from know- 

 ing something of the why and the how that 

 tends to make us regard philosophical science 

 as something more to be esteemed than is 

 information of facts regarding the underly- 

 ing causes of which we are either entirely 

 in the dark or guess at vaguely. It is much 

 as though we praised ourselves unduly when 

 we solved wholly or in part one of nature's 

 puzzles, and called the other fellow stupid 

 because he could not unfold his problem. It 

 is perhaps well to be modest and to realize 

 that some riddles are much more difficult than 

 others. 



But the phrases " pure science " and " ap- 

 plied science " have involved other unfortu- 

 nate consequences even to the confusion of 

 thought. " Applied science " is conceived by 

 some writers to imply the employment of 

 definite known scientific truths or principles. 

 In the words of one writer, " You must have 

 your science before you can apply it." If this 

 statement be true, there is very little of ap- 

 plied science in plant culture, or indeed in all 

 agriculture. It is safe to say that 90 jper cent, 

 of what is known of practical methods in the 

 culture of plants is almost purely empirical, 

 and has been gained by an enormous amount 

 of observation in actual trials. This informa- 

 tion is nevertheless real knowledge as meas- 

 ured by the best of standards; it works in 

 practise, however little we may know about 

 the underlying causes or factors. The re- 

 peated assertions to the effect that the major 

 part of agriculture is something applied from 

 botany, chemistry, geology and what not is 

 one that I wish emphatically to contradict. I 

 have no hesitancy in stating that 90 x>er cent, 

 of the garnered knowledge of botany in the 

 traditional sense has no obvious relation to 

 plant culture, and most of it has little con- 

 ceivable relation. Another writer asserts, 



It is the pure or fundamental science that keeps 

 applied science alive, that makes progress possible. 



