542 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. I. No. 20. 



and in assuming the metaphysical or intro- 

 spective type to be tlie only one worthy of 

 consideration. In the phrase ' devotees of 

 science ' there is a gleam of true meaning, 

 for in its social quality, its instinctiveness, 

 science is akin to religion. One might term 

 science an intellectual religion and not go 

 wide of the mark. While it may be argued 

 that pliilosophy in the traditional sense does 

 not sanction progress, it cannot be argued 

 that science withholds either sanction or its 

 encouragement. Science is social thoiight 

 reflected back into the mind of individuals ; 

 metaphysics is individual thought radiated 

 outward upon society. The sanction for 

 social progress is therefore derived rather 

 from society as a whole than from individual 

 introspection. For this reason the intellec- 

 tual sanction is all the more forceful and 

 takes its place beside the moral sanction 

 offered by religion. There need then be no 

 fear that progress is iutrinsically irrational, 

 and there may be a science of religion, as 

 there is a religion of science. It is the 

 function of the scientific method to organize 

 for victorious contest the battalions of the 

 intellect, while religion may bring on the 

 moral forces. Therefore it appears that 

 progress is an open-minded movement on- 

 ward, of which we are all a part, and to 

 which reason, under the sway of the scien- 

 tific method, gives sanction no less than 

 does emotion. 



Conway MacMillan. 

 Univeesity of Minnesota. 



THE LIQUEFACTION OF GASES.— A CONTRO- 

 VERSY. 

 The scientific world has been treated 

 during the last few weeks to one of those 

 happily to-day rather infrequent contro- 

 versies which are always unseemly, the 

 more so when the parties are men of emi- 

 nent scientific reputation. Polemics in 

 science may sometimes be entertaining, 

 but are always unprofitable and tend to 



bring discredit upon the particijjants, if 

 not on their work. The recent discussion* 

 on the subject of liquefaction of gases is no 

 exception to the rule. 



Prof. Dewar, in defending his failure to 

 give Prof. Olszewski due credit, has made 

 what might have been looked on as a pardon- 

 able omission appear almost as intentional 

 deceit. In taking up the cudgels in Prof. 

 Olszewski's defense. Professor Muir has 

 seemed to make an unjust and almost spite- 

 ful attack upon Professor Dewar ; while Pro- 

 fessor Olszewski, whose work was already 

 too well and favorably known to need any 

 defense, has added nothing to his reputation; 

 indeed, he has rather laid himself open to the 

 charge he prefers against Professor Dewar, 

 inasmuch as in his article ia the Engineei'- 

 ing and Mining Journal he makes but 

 slighting reference to the work of Pictet and 

 Cailletet, and the name of "NVroblewski is 

 but once, and that incidentally, mentioned. 

 The following is a summary of the more im- 

 portant work of these investigators in this 

 field: 



In 1877 two independent experimenters 

 almost simultaneously succeeded in con- 

 densing to liquids the so-called permanent 

 gases. Cailletet, the French ironmaster at 

 Chantillon-sur-Seine, xised a hydi-aulic press, 

 and obtained the necessary lowering of tem- 

 perature by suddenly diminishing the pres- 

 sure on the compressed gas. A mist ap- 

 pears in the glass tube containing the gas, 

 and, except in the case of hydrogen, con- 

 denses to small drops. Pictet, at Geneva, 

 used the pressure occasioned by the genera- 

 tion of the gas in wrought iron cylinders, 

 and cooled his steel condensing tube with 

 liquid carbon dioxid. In experimenting 

 with hydrogen, Pictet obtained an opaque 

 steel blue liquid, which appeared to solidify 



* On the Liquefaction of Gases. Chailes Olszew- 

 ski, James Dewar, M. M. Pattison Muir, Nature, Jan. 

 10, 1895, and following numbers. Letters to the 

 Editor. Also in The Phihsophica! Magazine. 



