January 12, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



27 



strands, typifies the modern method of 

 development of one's powers for produc- 

 tive scientific work? Does not this delicate 

 apparatus, shooting up straight from the 

 earth, allow expansion into the unknown 

 which the self -limiting convergence of the 

 planes of the pyramid excludes ? 



At all events, it is no longer possible for 

 one to master all, or even several contrib- 

 utory sciences, before turning his attention 

 in a productive way to one of them; there 

 is not time or strength enough. We are 

 no longer in the middle ages, where a 

 genius like Dante could reflect all knowl- 

 edge that had preceded him in a set of scho- 

 lastic and poetical treatises, or another like 

 Leonardo da Vinci could contribute to sev- 

 eral arts and sciences methods that were 

 fundamental. I appreciate, I believe, the 

 surprising vigor of Leonardo's intellect, 

 but am not willing to admit that his aston- 

 ishingly successful versatility proves him a 

 type of superman that has ceased to exist. 

 I feel sure that Leonardo's intellectual 

 equal may well be among us to-day, but 

 could never by any chance make notable 

 contributions to subjects so diverse as paint- 

 ing, sculpture, engineering and mathe- 

 matics. This would seem to prove not that 

 the race of man has fallen off, but that each 

 of the subjects has so grown in complexity 

 as to require a lifetime to master. It is no 

 little factor in success in any subject to be 

 early in the field, to be the fii*st explorer. 

 In many respects it requires greater powers 

 of observation to detect further important 

 details in a landscape, the important and 

 perhaps more obvious features of which 

 have already been described by another. 

 The earlier observer, moreover, has the 

 undoubted advantage of entering on hia 

 work with a mind untrammeled by the no- 

 tions of numerous predecessors. 



The most modern equipment for scien- 

 tifiie advance need be burdened with no 



very heavy impedimenta of fact — the newer 

 science develops or rediscovers the meth- 

 ods of other sciences at need without having 

 mastered their content in fact. To justify 

 this light-marching order, which I venture 

 to recommend for the scientist in his inva- 

 sion of the unknown, I must outline my con- 

 ception of the nature of scientific progress 

 and then discuss to what extent each sci- 

 ence is dependent on other sciences in this 

 advance. Let me repeat that I have in 

 mind primarily the newer biological sci- 

 ences, particularly those that relate to medi- 

 cine, and am considering them in relation 

 to one another and to the more funda- 

 mental sciences of mathematics, physics 

 and chemistry. My remarks doubtless do 

 not now apply to these latter fundamental 

 groups which seemed to have developed into 

 a more closely correlated and perfect whole 

 where interdependence seems more con- 

 stant. Am I not correct in assuming that 

 in its early development, chemistry, for ex- 

 ample, was less dependent on mathematics 

 and physics than it is to-day ? May we not 

 look upon these three sciences as similar in 

 their growth to three adjacent trees which 

 at first stood clear from each other, but 

 which in their further development hava 

 intertwined their branches and roots so 

 that they now appear from a distance as 

 more nearly an entity ? 



At all events progress in the biological 

 sciences depends, first, on discovery of new 

 facts by purely observational and by ex- 

 perimental methods, and, secondly, on the 

 elaboration of hypotheses and theories as a 

 means of uniting these data and as intro- 

 ductory to more facts. Let us consider in 

 some detail the method by which each of 

 these advances is made and in what respect 

 knowledge of kindred sciences is essential 

 in this analysis and synthesis. 



It seems obvious to us now that proper 

 appreciation of any scientific phenomenon 



