282 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVII. No. 433 



matheinatics, and shall be equally obligatory, you would 

 long ago have effected a revolution in school education." 

 Eeading between the lines, I imagine that Dr. Percival 

 would imply that such action of the university would have 

 led schools generally to pay attention to natural science, just 

 as they do to mathematics, and that the general public 

 would thereby also have been led to appreciate such studies. 

 Charles Kingsley gave utterance to similar thoughts when 

 he said, "I sometimes dream of a day when it will be con- 

 sidered necessary that every candidate for ordination should 

 be required to have passed creditably in at least one branch 

 of physical science, if it be only to teach him the method of 

 sound scientific thought." Evidently Kingsley was of opinion 

 that the teaching of his day was not always conducive to 

 habits of "sound scientific thought." Has it been much 

 improved in the interval ? There are a few who cannot real- 

 ize what would be the effect of neglecting to teach the ele- 

 ments of mathematics : Dr. Percival's advice that the elements 

 of natural science should be made equally obligatory is 

 therefore pregnant with meaning. All can imagine what 

 difficulty would be created at Cambridge, for example, if 

 those who went up wishing to study mathematics had no 

 acquaintance with even the first four rules of arithmetic, but 

 such is the position, owing to the neglect of natural science 

 in schools, in which those of us find ourselves who are called 

 on to teach science in colleges and at the universities; and 

 the result is, that the time which should be devoted to the 

 study of the higher branches of a subject is wasted in teach- 

 ing elementary principles, more often than not, to unwilling 

 minds unprepared to assimilate knowledge involving studies 

 of an entirely novel character. 



But, beyond the difficulties created by the low standard of 

 scholastic and public opinion as regards natural science, 

 there is a second retarding cause in operation, for the ex- 

 istence of which we teachers of natural science are in a great 

 measure responsible, and which it behooves us to remove. 

 I refer to the absence of any proper distinction between the 

 teaching of what is commonly called "science" (i.e., facts 

 pertaining to science) and the teaching of scientific method. 

 The dates at which our various kings reigned, the battles 

 they fought, and the names of their wives, are facts pertain- 

 ing to history, and it is not so very long since such facts 

 alone were taught as history. Nowadays such facts are but 

 incidentals in a rational course of historical study, and it is 

 clearly realized that the great object is to inculcate the use 

 of such facts, — the moral lessons which they convey. "And 

 if I can have convinced you that well-doing and ill-doing are 

 rewarded and punished in this world, as well as in the world 

 to come, I shall have done you more good than if I had 

 crammed your minds with many dates and facts from mod- 

 ern history" (conclusion of Kingsley's lectures on America 

 at Cambridge in 1862), are words which aptly convey an 

 idea of one of the chief purposes gained in teaching history, 

 and by which the methods of teaching it are being moulded. 

 In like manner, to inculcate scientific habits of mind, — to 

 teach scientific method, — we must teach the use of the facts 

 pertaining to science, not the mere facts. Again, in teach- 

 ing history in schools, we recognize that the subject must be 

 broadly handled, and attention directed to the salient points 

 which are of general application to human conduct: the 

 study of minutiae is left to the professed historian. But the 

 very reverse of this practice has been followed, as a rule, in 

 teaching natural science in schools. At various times during 

 recent years — at the Educational Conference held at the 

 Health Exhibition in 1884, and at the British Association 



meeting in 1885 — I have protested against the prevailing 

 system of teaching chemistry, etc., to boys and girls at school 

 as though the object were to train them all to be chemists; 

 and I have also protested against the undue influence exer- 

 cised by the specialist, — an influence which he has acquired 

 in consequence of the inability of the head of the school to 

 criticise and control his work. I refer here as much to the 

 examiner as to the teacher ; indeed, more. It appears to me 

 to be our duty to regard all questions relating to school edu- 

 cation from a general point of view, to consider what is most 

 conducive to the general welfare of the scholar ; and in allow- 

 ing the specialist access to the school, the greatest care must 

 be taken that the subject treated of is dealt with in a manner 

 suited to the requirements of the scholars collectively. It is 

 only in the case of technical classes that supreme control can 

 be vested in the specialist. 



In order that we may be in a position to usefully criticise 

 the educational work which is being done, and the proposals 

 brought forward, it is essential to arrive at a clear under- 

 standing of the objects to be achieved. Much of the work 

 in a school is done with the object of cultivating certain arts 

 (mechanical arts, we may almost call them), — the art of 

 reading, the art of writing, and the art of working elemen- 

 tary mathematical problems, until the operations involved 

 are efiiciently performed in an automatic manner. An ele- 

 mentary acquaintance with these arts having once been 

 gained, all later studies may be said to originate naturally 

 in them, — both those which lead to the acquisition of 

 knowledge, and those which have for their ultimate object 

 the development and training of mental faculties. The 

 character and extent of these later studies is subject to great 

 variation, according as individual requirements, opportuni- 

 ties, and mental peculiarities vary ; but the variation is not 

 usually permitted to take place until a somewhat late period 

 in the school career. We recognize, in fact, that in the case 

 of every individual the endeavor must at least be made to 

 develop the intellectual faculties coincidently in several di- 

 rections. The question at issue at the present moment, I 

 take it, is the number of main lines over which we can and 

 are called on to travel. Hitherto only two have been gen- 

 erally recognized. — the line of literary studies, and the line 

 of mathematical studies; but those of us who advocate the 

 claims of natural science assert that there is a third, and that 

 this is of great importance, as-a large proportion of the work 

 of the world is necessarily carried on over it. We assert, in 

 fact, that however complete a course of literary and mathe- 

 matical studies may be made, it is impossible by attention to 

 these two branches of knowlege to educate one side of the 

 human mind, — that side which has been instrumental in 

 erecting the edifice of natural science, and in applying sci- 

 ence to industry: the use of eyes and hands. I never tire 

 of quoting from Kingsley's lecture to the boys at Welling- 

 ton College (Letters and Memories of his Life, 3d abridged 

 edition, p. 146, Kegan Paul & Co.): it puts the case into a 

 nutshell : — 



"The first thing for a boy to learn, after obedience and 

 morality, is a habit of observation, — a habit of using his 

 eyes. It naatters little what you use them on, provided you 

 do use them. They say knowledge is power, and so it is, 

 but only the knowledge which you get by observation. 

 Many a man is very learned in books, and has read for years 

 and years, and yet he is useless. He knows about all sorts 

 of things, but he can't do them. When you set him to work, 

 he makes a mess of it. He is what you call a pedant, be- 

 cause he has not used his eyes and ears. . . . Now, I don't 



