November 19, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



729 



with whicli they are associated possessed a 

 practical knowledge of scientific work and 

 methods. Without such experience the exec- 

 utive is at the mercy of every assertive 

 paradoxer and can not discriminate between 

 impracticable devices and the judgment of sci- 

 ence upon them. While, therefore, the coun- 

 try has at its disposal the work — either volun- 

 tary or nearly so — of experts in all branches 

 of applied science, it can not use these serv- 

 ices to the best advantage unless the depart- 

 ments concerned with them have scientific men 

 among the permanent officials; and that is 

 not the case at present. 



The unbusinesslike methods of government 

 departments have received severe criticism 

 lately, but nothing has been said about the 

 unscientific method of appointing committees 

 of experts without well-qualified officers to 

 direct or coordinate their work. The reason 

 is that, with scarcely an exception, no daily 

 paper has any one on its staff possessing the 

 most elementary knowledge of the meaning of 

 scientific research. Our guides and counsel- 

 lors, both on the political platform and in the 

 periodical press, can scarcely be expected to 

 interest themselves greatly in subjects beyond 

 their mental horizon, so when scientific mat- 

 ters are involved they confine themselves to a 

 few platitudes, or say nothing at all. They 

 are unable to distinguish a quack from a lead- 

 ing authority in science, and prefer to exer- 

 cise their imaginations upon sensational an- 

 nouncements, rather than discuss the possi- 

 bilities of sober scientific discovery. In all 

 that relates to the interests of science — and 

 that means in the end the interests of the na- 

 tion — the men who influence public opinion 

 and control the public services are mostly un- 

 enlightened and therefore unsympathetic. 



The tacit assumption that public commit- 

 tees or departments concerned with scientific 

 problems must have at their head officers of 

 the army, navy, or civil service is responsible 

 for delay in taking advantage of available ex- 

 pert knowledge and for the neglect to make 

 effective use of science in national affairs, 

 whether in times of war or peace. Just as a 

 member of the government may serve in turn 



as president of the Board of Education, Board 

 of Agriculture, Board of Trade, or any other 

 department, without possessing any special 

 qualifications to comprehend the work of 

 either, so a public official may be placed in a 

 position to dominate activities of which he 

 can not understand the significance. Some 

 day we hope that this mad system wiU be 

 swept away, and that the men who exert con- 

 trol in all government offices will be those 

 whose training or experience make them most 

 capable of doing so effectively. — Nature. 



SCIENTIFIC BOOKS 

 A Budget of Paradoxes. By Augustus De 

 Morgan. Eeprinted, with the author's addi- 

 tions, from the Athenosum. Second edition 

 edited by David Eugene Smith. Two 

 volumes, L, viii4-402 pp.; II., 387 pp. 

 The Open Court Publishing Co., 1915. Price 

 $3.50 per volume. 



The similarity between the work of David 

 Eugene Smith and Augustus De Morgan in 

 the field of popularizing mathematics has long 

 been familiar to students of the history of 

 science. This similarity has extended to many 

 details ; both men have participated in the pub- 

 lication of elementary text-books of excellence, 

 both are known as editors of the mathematical 

 department of encyclopedias and dictionaries, 

 both have been energetic collectors of mathe- 

 matical books and other mathematical material, 

 and both have been distinguished by a wide 

 and human interest in all phases of mathe- 

 matical development. Hence it is eminently 

 fitting that as editor of this new edition of 

 " A Budget of Paradoxes " we should have 

 Professor Smith, who not long ago continued 

 so ably in the "Eara Arithmetica," De 

 Morgan's bibliographical work, represented by 

 "Arithmetical Books from the Invention of 

 Printing to the Present Time" (London, 

 1847). 



The first question which occurs to the casual 

 reader whose eye catches the title is regarding 

 the significance of the word " paradox." De 

 Morgan answers this [I., 2] in a manner that 

 even to-day has meaning for many who publish 

 books. " A great many individuals, ever since 



