278 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVIII. No. 452. 



men of to-day are struggling hard and suc- 

 cessfully to break down previously existing 

 artificial walls separating different sciences, 

 and to secure a continuous open and free 

 field of inquiry. The most active sciences of 

 the day have bifold names — astro-physics, 

 physical chemistry, geo-physics, physiological 

 chemistry, psycho-physics, social psychology, 

 to take the first names that suggest themselves. 

 Pick up the first authority that comes to hand 

 upon the science of language: we read that 

 language has two sides, meaning and form; 

 that the explanation of meaning is a matter 

 of psychology and of logic, while the prob- 

 lems of form are treated by phonetics and 

 phonology which are a combination of physics 

 and physiology. Turn to the committee's clas- 

 sification and we find that the science of lan- 

 guage is officially recognized as a science of 

 ' purposes,' not ' phenomena,' and hence ex- 

 cludes psychology. It is a science of individ- 

 ual purposes, and hence excludes logic. As 

 a science of purposes, not phenomena, it also 

 excludes physics or physiology or any combi- 

 nation of them. The case is typical, and' con- 

 clusive of the fated practical inefficiency of 

 a plan which attempts to arrange sciences — 

 i. e., branches of inquiry — according to a 

 priori logic. The ' chance combinations of 

 the university catalogue ' in the laying off of 

 the fields of inquiry may not conform to any 

 existing ' ground plan ' of metaphysical logic ; 

 but they have at least the modest merit of 

 representing the vital activities of those en- 

 gaged in the cooperative pursuit of truth and 

 the building up of the working system of 

 human knowledge. 



The dilemma that presents itself after read- 

 ing the article is the following: Either the 

 scheme is one for presentation and discussion 

 in literary and philosophical journals, not 

 intended to have any influence upon the prac- 

 tical conduct of the Congress, or else it repre- 

 sents a theory of the constitution and divisions 

 of human knowledge to which the various sec- 

 tions and subsections are really expected to 

 conform themselves. In the first case, it is 

 impossible to see why, in the Atlantic article, 

 so much stress is laid upon the philosophical 



basis and aim of the Congress, upon the 

 fact that it is an arrangement based not 

 upon considerations of practical convenience, 

 but upon a logic of knowledge. In the second 

 case, the effect upon the Congress itself can 

 only be disastrous. The imagining of some 

 one invited to speak who does not accept the 

 scheme, either in general or in its bearings 

 upon the particular group of sciences which 

 he is called upon to discuss, will serve as a 

 convenient symbol for presenting the prac- 

 tical logic of the situation. Is he to decline 

 because he can not accept the preordained 

 formulations of the committee? If so, is 

 such a result regarded as desirable from any 

 point of view ? Or is he to accept and to pro- 

 ceed with a complete ignoring of the ' ground 

 plan ' set forth ? If so, what is the significance 

 of the ' ground plan,' and how does the scheme 

 in any way differ from one which should have 

 based itself purely upon an empirical group- 

 ing of current lines of research made upon 

 the basis of convenience? 



John Dewey. 

 The Univeksitt op Chicago. 



concerning the word barometer. 



To THE Editor of Science: In the issue of 

 April 3, Dr. H. C. Bolton, quoting from 

 Birch's edition of Boyle's Works, 1744, finds 

 the word ' barometer ' first used by Boyle in 

 1667, and he concludes that he probably used 

 it as early as 1665. 



In the issue of May 1, Mr. A. L. Botch shows 

 that Boyle did use the word as early as March 

 24, 1665. 



I have before me the works of Robert 

 Boyle, the title page of which tells us that 

 the work was * Printed for A. Millar, opposite 

 Catharine Street in the Strand MDCCXLIV.' 

 This edition is in five folio volumes and con- 

 tains a preface by Thomas Birch dated Lon- 

 don, November 16, 1743. It is not, however, 

 the ' Birch ' edition quoted by Dr. Bolton, as 

 the page references do not coincide. 



I find Dr. Bolton's quotations given on page 

 28 of Vol. III., and on p. 449 of Vol. II. The 

 paper quoted by Mr. Eotch appears twice, 

 first in Vol. V., p. 130, under the title as given 

 by Mr. Eotch; second in Vol. II., p. 543, un- 



