374 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, Xo. 1423 



Quixote of Mr. Bryan's calibre only appears 

 once or twice in a century and the opportunity 

 to study in cold print the celebrated Nebras- 

 kan's proposal to resurrect the "special crea- 

 tion of species" myth must be appreciated by 

 our scientific brethren who are interested in 

 studying the mysterious ways in which the 

 human mind sometimes works when it ap- 

 proaches subjects imfamiliar to it. 



My principal object in writing you is to 

 suggest that Mr. Bryan should be invited to 

 use the pages of Science to attack an even 

 greater heresy than Evolution. Since Mr. 

 Bryan still gets his biology from the Bible it 

 appears to be a safe inference that he must 

 draw his geography from the same soui'ce. 

 Bible geography, or "flat geography" is, I am 

 informed, taught nowadays only in the moun- 

 tains of eastern Tennessee. Why should not 

 our Bold Knight from Nebraska (or is it 

 Florida?) aim his lance at the teachers of 

 modern or "round" geography and admonish 

 them to hark back to the geography of Joshua ? 

 This is perhaps a subject which has been over- 

 looked by this eloquent defender of Biblical 

 science. I can hardly believe it to be lack of 

 courage which has led Mr. Bryan to attack 

 the few and widely scattered teachers of evo- 

 lution instead of the thousands of teachers of 

 modern geography. Whatever the explanation 

 of Mr. Bryan's neglect to denounce the heresies 

 to be found in the textbooks on geography 

 may be, I beg to suggest that the heretical 

 character of the modern teaching in geography 

 should be brought to the notice of Mr. Bryan. 

 Edwaed M. Kindle 



Canadian Geological Survey 



THE WRITING OF POPULAR SCIENCE 



To THE Editor op Science: Both Dr. Al- 

 fred H. Brooks^ and Dr. Edwin E. Slosson- 

 have recently called attention to the fact that 

 relatively few popular scientific works are be- 

 ing now wi'itten in this country; and the form- 

 er expresses the opinion that there is to-day 

 relatively less popular knowledge of science 



^Journal Wash. Acad. Science, 12: 73-115, 1922. 

 2 Science, 55: 241, 1922. 



and less interest in its methods and advance- 

 ment than there was a generation ago. This 

 opinion will probably be generally accepted as 

 correct. That it should be true in spite of the 

 large amount of scientific work that has been, 

 and' is being done, and in spite of the serious 

 attempts of scientific associations and other 

 agencies to create a popular interest in science, 

 indicates that it is high time for scientists to 

 consider seriously themselves, science and thw 

 public, in an endeavor to ascertain wherein the 

 difiiculty lies. Most scientists ■will agree with 

 Dr. Brooks that the lack of popular knowledge 

 of science is directly due to the form in which 

 science is presented, and that "what is needed 

 is the presentation of science in a form com- 

 prehensible to the educated and thinking man." 

 But to secure such presentation, it is necessary 

 to understand the public, the point of view of 

 those we desire to reach, the mental background 

 with which the science we present must be 

 harmonized; to understand science and our- 

 selves; to keep in mind, what constitutes 

 science; to have a clear idea of what we wish 

 to give the public. Otherwise we are iu danger 

 of merely groping blindly, and of, perhaps 

 often, prostituting the name of science. 



We all acknowledge that science is organized 

 knowledge. That neither an isolated fact, nor 

 an infinite number of isolated facts, is science; 

 no matter how true and exact the facts may 

 be. It is only when two or more facts are seen 

 to be related, that science comes into exist- 

 ence. Science does not consist of facts, but of 

 recognized relations between facts. Science 

 is essentially a mental phenomenon'*. 



But are there not, only too often, offered 

 under the guise of science mere isolated facts 

 trimmed with sufficient allegory and super- 

 ficial analogies to fill a respectable amount of 

 space and to attract the laj'man's attention? 

 This is not science, but merely information — 

 the raw material out of which science is made. 



2 Since this was written' Dr. F. L. Hoffman 's 

 admirable vice-presidential address (Science, 

 March 10), entitled "The Organization of 

 Knowledge ' ' has come to my attention. In this, 

 the essential distinction between mere facts and 

 science is strongly emphasized. 



