26 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLV. No. 1150 



an explanation of the larger relations in as 

 direct and convincing a manner as William 

 James did his "Pragmatism." As ex- 

 ample of attempts of this sort, I am think- 

 ing of books like Haeckel's "Riddle of the 

 Universe," and Shaler's "The Individual." 

 Metchnikoff in his "Studies in Human Na- 

 ture" would seem an exceptional biologist 

 who has taken the pains to learn the meta- 

 physical rules, and it is an interesting proof 

 of the modern discouragement of specula- 

 tion on the part of scientists to be credibly 

 informed that the publication of this book 

 sufficed to debar its author from election to 

 honorary membership in one of our most 

 exclusive national societies. This discour- 

 agement reflects what I believe to be a 

 fundamentally incorrect attitude in many 

 of us toward metaphysics. We regard it 

 largely through ignorance of its methods, 

 and lack of appreciation of its heuristic 

 value, as a grab bag into which are dumped 

 all conceptions that can not be demon- 

 strated, or as a method adopted from un- 

 worthy motives by the scientifically inaccu- 

 rate. 



So much in explanation of an attempt 

 as an alien to speak a language with which 

 I am not familiar, the expressiveness of 

 which, however, I venture to think I appre- 

 ciate. So much in extenuation of an at- 

 tempted exposition of one phase of scientific 

 method. The thesis of my remarks is that 

 the best method of accomplishment in the 

 medical sciences is to adopt the bloodhound 

 method of nose to trail, to encourage our- 

 selves in specialization and still more spe- 

 cialization, to dig deep rather than to 

 spread smooth. 



My traveling acquaintance, a lawyer, 

 could not understand, when we passed the 

 power dam skilfully blocking the mountain 

 torrent, why I could not explain to him 

 the essential principle of converting the 

 energy of the foaming water into electrical 



voltage. ' ' I thought you were a scientist, ' ' 

 he remarked scornfully, "That is a scien- 

 tific problem, isn't it?" I had no crushing 

 retort ready for him, but I hope I may at a 

 later day explain and perhaps justify my 

 more or less deliberate ignorance to you, a 

 more discerning audience. The public ex- 

 pect results, but usually misunderstand 

 methods of obtaining them; they are will- 

 ing to accept the greater returns following 

 greater specialization, but do not always 

 realize that effective specialization takes 

 even more time than generalization, and to 

 some extent excludes it. 



I imagine that many of us, if we were to 

 present an ideal system of intellectual 'self- 

 development in graphic form, would sketch 

 a pyramid with a broad base of knowledge 

 representing the lower educational years, 

 sloping and narrowing upward toward the 

 increasing specialization of a life work. It 

 is inevitable that each additional unit of 

 knowledge, each brick in the structure we 

 are raising, will eventually take its place 

 in some definite relation to every previous 

 brick in the mental edifice by which we 

 represent to ourselves the external world. 

 But is this ultimate structure the one we 

 should have in mind in training ourselves 

 as brickmakers? Do we not confuse this 

 edifice, toward which we may contribute a 

 unit, with the plan by which we develop as 

 contributors? The pyramid is a not un- 

 pleasing and certainly an enduring struc- 

 ture; it met admirably the needs of a tomb 

 for Egyptian kings ; it may serve as a dig- 

 nified mausoleum for acquired facts, but 

 the more rapid acquisition or reception of 

 new facts may be better served by an essen- 

 tially different construction. Certain more 

 modern needs are better met, according to 

 Signor Marconi, by a very thin and lofty 

 antenna. May it not be that the wireless 

 outfit resting on no considerable base, 

 though carefully supported by connecting 



