August 24, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



185 



Now the fundamental consideration in the 

 above-mentioned incident is not whether 

 phrenology is a science, or whether it has any 

 scientific basis, or even whether intelligent 

 people should take note of it, but rather it 

 is a question of the advisability of preventing, 

 so far as possible, the expression before col- 

 lege students of views not generally believed 

 by scientists. This lecture, be it noted, had 

 no special sanction of the university, but was 

 a private venture by a group of students in 

 one of their own organizations. Certain it 

 is that a phrenologist has a right to be heard 

 and students not only have a right to hear, 

 but they should be urged to, rather than hin- 

 dered from, a careful investigation into the 

 errors of any system. If the scientific facts 

 opposed to phrenology are not strong enough 

 to convince people of the fallacies of the 

 subject, then surely no one has a right to pre- 

 vent the expression of such ideas; and if the 

 scientific facts are all opposed to the phreno- 

 logical interpretation, then the artificial op- 

 position on basis of authority is entirely use- 

 less as well as entirely unscientific. It may 

 be argued that phrenology is not a modern, 

 scientific theory, but an outworn supersti- 

 tion and hence should be discouraged. With- 

 out doubt superstitions should be discour- 

 aged, not by power of authority, but by 

 scientific facts. Moreover, that which seems 

 to be an outworn superstition may, in another 

 form, appear later as a scientific theory, as 

 for instance, the idea of the transmutation of 

 metals. A few years ago a lecture on the 

 " Transmutation of Elements " would no 

 doubt have found many objectors who would 

 have said that students should not have such 

 foolish ideas placed before them. Now, how- 

 ever, such a lecture would be listened to with 

 great interest because some scientists of high 

 reputation vouch for the possibility of such 

 transmutation. No idea should be smothered 

 except by facts, for all the authority in the 

 world, without good foundation of fact, may 

 be as entirely wrong as the unauthorized idea 

 expressed by the least known student. Fur- 

 ther than this also we must go. Any idea, no 

 matter how foolish it may appear, is worthy 



of attention as a means of stimulating 

 thought and may even have a germ of truth 

 which may develop into more truth by pa- 

 tient investigation. Let us demolish all 

 superstitions as rapidly as possibly by the ac- 

 cumulation of scientific facts, but let us not 

 hinder any propaganda by power of author- 

 ity. College students should be encouraged 

 to find out all the theories concerning any set 

 of facts and then be led to a careful balancing 

 of these by processes of logical thought. 



Ernest Shaw Eeynolds 



QUOTATIONS 



WAR BREAD 



The public has been led to feel some anxiety 

 concerning the effects of the present war bread 

 upon national health and efficiency. Sugges- 

 tion plays an inevitable part in such a connec- 

 tion. Certain untoward symptoms in individ- 

 uals, for which some other tangible cause is not 

 immediately evident, are liable just now to be 

 ascribed on the slenderest evidence to the bread 

 eaten. Once the belief in a deleterious infiu- 

 ence has arisen, it is easy to understand how 

 vridelj it may spread by suggestion. In the 

 opinion of those best qualified to know, there 

 would seem to be little basis for any such con- 

 demnation of the bread. It rests, nevertheless, 

 with the food controller to obtain the best pos- 

 sible evidence concerning the facts, and we are 

 glad to know that Lord Rhondda and the wheat 

 commissioners have empowered a committee of 

 the Royal Society to make a full and thorough 

 investigation. This committee comprises some 

 eminent medical consultants, as well as the 

 physiologists who have been serving on the 

 main food committee of the society. Its task 

 is to decide whether the higher extraction of 

 the grain can in itself be held responsible for 

 any disturbance of health, and whether the ad- 

 mi.xture of other cereals with the wheat has 

 produced a less digestible loaf, owing, for in- 

 stance, to the associated difficulties in milling 

 and baking. 



Among other matters which are also engaging 

 the attention of the committee is a greater tend- 

 ency to " rope " in the bread, alleged to be due 

 to the higher extraction of the grain. The 



