APKIL 14, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



579 



mass and their comfort, but on the few men 

 of talent and their incomparable value to so- 

 ciety." The essence of this position is the 

 same as Dr. Minot's^ exact well-proven prem- 

 ises, a distrust of observation and the con- 

 viction that scientists seldom err except in 

 their measurements. This leads to long-range 

 deductions and a neglect of verification within 

 the field, where the conclusions are drawn. 



Such methods reflecting the growing tend- 

 ency in science to disregard observation force 

 those who use it to rise in its defence. A con- 

 troversy of this kind could not have arisen 

 earlier because no one then questioned the 

 validity of observation. If, however, science 

 has come to mean exact measurement and 

 laws of thought are formulated in harmony 

 with the new view, observation must also have 

 its laws restated or its results will be ques- 

 tioned not in a few fields but in every part of 

 scientific research. 



When we seek to demark the field of ob- 

 servation from that of experiment, it will be 

 seen that experiment is carried on under local 

 specific conditions. Only when an object is 

 isolated and its environing conditions defi- 

 nitely fixed can the accurate measurements be 

 made upon which the success of an experiment 

 depends. Observations, however, are made 

 under complex conditions and usually they 

 cover a large area of space or time. The es- 

 sence of an observation is to fix on some mark 

 or characteristic of an object through which 

 it may be recognized. Reasoning through ob- 

 servation joins two such marks in the relation 

 of cause and eilect. If " X " is always fol- 

 lowed by " Y " the object of which " X " is a 

 part is the cause of the object or event of 

 which " Y " is a mark. In observation wholes 

 are thought of in terms of some of their defi- 

 nite marks and thus reasoning becomes a con- 



' I refer to such sentences as these : " A broad 

 examination of the method of science reduces 

 itself to the study of the general principles of 

 securing accuracy." " It must be doubted very 

 seriously whether the study of logic is really 

 essential for the right training of an investi- 

 gator." " It is my belief that the logical work of 

 scientific men is usually well done and is the 

 part of their work which is the least faulty." 



necting of these marks in some casual rela- 

 tion. In contrast to this procedure the " X " 

 and the " Y " of an experiment are isolated 

 from the wholes to which they ordinarily be- 

 long. Their qualities and relations can thus 

 be accurately measured and described. 



If this is the difference between observation 

 and experiment, the mode of thinking used by 

 the workers in the various sciences can also be 

 contrasted. There are four types of reason- 

 ing whose peculiarities depend upon the use 

 made of observation and experiment. The 

 first group affirms that science is measure- 

 ment and thus rules out observation. This 

 grouB of thinkers is of recent origin because 

 the means of accurate measurement are a re- 

 cent discovery. It is no wonder that Dr. Minot 

 found books on logic useless, for early logic 

 gave rules for observation and deduction but 

 did not recognize measurement as a means of 

 investigation. Now we have whole sciences 

 within which measurement is the main source 

 of progress whose workers are so effectively 

 organized that observers of the older type are 

 frowned down or excluded. A social caste is 

 thus formed who set up standards of their own 

 and who issue a " Who is Who " of learned 

 men from which they exclude those using ob- 

 servation as a method of research. 



The second method has become popular 

 through the discussions of heredity that Dr. 

 Weismann began. This assumes that if we 

 have two series of events both measurable and 

 certain the first is not only the cause but the 

 sole cause of the second. If, for example, 

 there is a definite alteration of the hand it must 

 have been caused by an antecedent modifica- 

 tion of the germ cell of the organism. All ob- 

 servations of the hand and all other sources of 

 modification except those of germ-cells are 

 shut out and a bold deduction is put in their 

 place. The method of this group thus in- 

 cludes nothing but measurement and bold 

 unverifiable deductions. They are playing 

 havoc in the social sciences because their de- 

 ductions become the basis of biologic sociology. 



If we pass from the sciences using experi- 

 ment and measurement to the social sciences 

 that depend on observation, we likewise find 



