January 6, 1922] 



SCIENCE 



findings have been embraced and woven into the 

 warp and woof of intelligent practice has been 

 a constant source of stimulation. It makes 

 even more imperative the call for steady prog- 

 . ress, not only in getting practical results for 

 immediate use, but in securing deeper insight 

 and larger intelligence about the common things 

 of agriculture. 



The problems of agricultural science have be- 

 come increasingly difficult. As the simpler 

 things lying near the surface are gradually 

 solved the underlying problems are seen to be 

 more complex and difficult, taxing knowledge, 

 skill, and imagination to increasing extent. Al- 

 most have they come to call for that rare per- 

 spicacity of the colored preacher who claimed 

 to be able "to explain the unexplainable, to 

 make known the unknowable, and to unscrew 

 the inscrutable." 



At all events, there is no more exacting field 

 of experimental inquiry at the present time, 

 and success in it is largely a matter of methods. 

 It calls for a clear conception of the nature 

 of problems and means for deriving the needed 

 data for their solution. Steady advancement 

 in some of the oldest and most common lines 

 of agricultural inquiry rests more largely on 

 the development of methods than on additional 

 experiments or the accumulation of data on 

 the conventional basis. It is the largest prob- 

 lem in agricultural investigation at the pres- 

 ent time, and it is so important that in a large 

 degree it determines the progress of science. 



Fundamentally the method of science is the 

 same, of course, in agriculture as in the sim- 

 ple sciences. It makes no difference whether 

 the subject is cornmeal or a chemical com- 

 pound, the response of the growing plant or 

 the law of falling bodies, the experimental 

 method and requirements for the same gi'ade 

 of inquiry are the same. But in practice diffier- 

 ent types of eff:ort are represented which vary 

 with respect to their aim and the extent to 

 which they require application of the scientific 

 method. The difference is perhaps chiefly a 

 quantitative one, of degree rather than kind, 

 in conception of the end of inquiry rather 

 than in general essentials which must be met. 



In the simpler form of agricultural work, 

 consisting of observations, tests and trials, the 

 object may be a quite superficial one — the at- 

 tempt merely to get a bit of information but 

 one step removed from ordinary experience, 

 such as the profit from use of a fertilizer, the 

 larger crop from spraying, or the advantage 

 of fall plowing. The information may be quite 

 sufficient for the practical purposes of the time 

 and place, but it can not be said to be very 

 scientific, even if made with every care, for 

 the work involves no study of exact relation- 

 ships or tracing of the effect of conditions. In 

 other eases observations, tests and trials may 

 have a deeper purpose and form a step in in- 

 vestigation. Similarly, experiments may be 

 purely comparative, as showing the relative 

 value of different fertilizers, or feeding stuffs 

 or methods of tillage, without touching any 

 basic fact; or they may be the means of secur- 

 ing scientific facts in a piece of fundamental 

 research. 



In the early stages of agricultural experi- 

 mentation, before the problems had been or- 

 ganized to show their nature and content, the 

 work was naturally elementary, based largely 

 on observations, comparative trials, and simple 

 experiments which did not attempt to determine 

 the underlying conditions or establish definite 

 relationships. These types of work have given 

 results which although largely empirical have 

 been extremely useful. They have supplied a 

 great fund of information on which to develop 

 practical systems and to base further experi- 

 mental inquiry. Although sufficient for one 

 stage, they may be a poor means of progress 

 in another. Hence they need to be replaced 

 by more rigorous methods and by investigation 

 which goes to the heart of the problems. 



It has been a somewhat prevalent mistake 

 to assume that a complex agricultural problem 

 could be solved in its practical aspects without 

 a study of the principles and factors underlying 

 it. This has led to the attempt to secure quick 

 results by short cuts, and has bred overcon- 

 fidence in the competence of simple comparative 

 experiments. Reliance upon such time-honored 

 procedure in certain classes of work has re- 



