404 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLII. No. 1082 



result which I have tried to place before 

 you, that there are no special peculiarities 

 inherent in the scientific mind, and he ex- 

 presses this conclusion in the following 

 words : 



But, I hear some one say, these qualities are not 

 the peculiar attributes of the man of science, they 

 may be recognized as belonging to almost every- 

 one who has commanded or deserved success, what- 

 ever may have been his walk in life. That is so. 

 That is exactly what I would desire to insist, that 

 the men of science have no peculiar virtues, no spe- 

 cial powers. They are ordinary men, their char- 

 acters are common, even commonplace. Science, as 

 -Huxley said, is organized common-sense, and men 

 lot science are common men drilled in the ways of 

 eommon-sense. 



This saying of Huxley's has been re- 

 peated so often that one almost wishes it 

 were true, but unfortunately I can not find 

 a definition of common-sense that fits the 

 phrase. Sometimes the word is used as if 

 it were identical with uncommon sense, 

 sometimes as if it were the same thing as 

 common nonsense. Often it means iin- 

 trained intelligence, and in its best aspect 

 it is, I think, that faculty which recognizes 

 that the obvious solution of a problem is 

 frequently the right one. When, for in- 

 stance, I see, during a total solar eclipse, 

 red flames shooting out from the edge of 

 the sun, the obvious explanation is that 

 these are real phenomena caused by masses 

 of glowing vapors ejected from the sun ; and 

 when a learned friend tells me that all this 

 is an optical illusion due to anomalous re- 

 fraction, I object on the ground that the ex- 

 planation violates my common-sense. He 

 replies by giving me the reasons which 

 have led him to his conclusions, and, 

 though I still believe that I am right, I have 

 to meet him with a more substantial reply 

 than an appeal to my own convictions. 

 Against a solid argument common-sense 

 has no power and must remain a useful 

 but fallible guide which both leads and mis- 

 leads all classes of the community alike.' 



If we must avoid assuming special intel- 

 lectual qualities when we speak of groups 

 of men within one country, we ought to be 

 doubly careful not to do so without good 

 reason in comparing different nations. So- 

 called national characteristics are in many 

 cases matters of education and training; 

 and, if I select one as an example, it is be- 

 cause it figiires so largely in public discus- 

 sions at the present moment. I refer to 

 that expedient for combining individual ef- 

 forts which goes by the name of organiza- 

 tion. An efficient organization requires a 

 head that directs and a body that obeys ; it 

 works mainly through discipline, which is 

 its most essential attribute. Every institu- 

 tion, every factor, every business establish- 

 ment is a complicated organism, and no 

 country ever came to prominence in any 

 walk of life unless it possessed the ability to 

 provide for the efficient working of such 

 organisms. To say that a nation which has 

 acquired and maintained an empire, and 

 which conducts a large trade in every part 

 of the world, is deficient in organizing 

 power is therefore an absurdity. Much of 

 the current self -depreciation in this respect 

 is due to the confusion of what constitutes 

 a true organization with that modification 

 of it which to a great extent casts aside dis- 

 cipline and substitutes cooperation. Though 

 much may be accomplished by cooperation, 

 it is full of danger in an emergency, for it 

 can only work if it be loyally adhered to ; 

 otherwise it resembles a six-cylinder motor 

 in which every sparking-plug is allowed to 

 fix its own time of firing. Things go well 

 so long as the plugs agree; but there is 

 nearly always one among them that persists 

 in taking an independent course and, when 

 the machine stops, complains that the 



1 Since writing the above, I find on reading Pro- 

 fessor J. A. Thomson's "Introduction to Science" 

 a similar criticism of Huxley's dictum. Professor 

 Thomson's general conclusions are not, however, 

 in agreement with those here advocated. 



