July 15, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



67 



untold ages to give us the earth as it now is. 

 He has given us the science of geology, 

 which consists of a vast mass of knowledge 

 carefully systematized and of innumerable 

 deductions of interest and value. If the 

 time should ever come when, through the 

 labors of the geologist, all that can possibly 

 be learned in regard to the structure and 

 development of the earth shall have been 

 learned, the occupation of the geologist 

 wovild be gone. But that time will never 

 come. 



And so I might go on pointing out the 

 general character of the work done by dif- 

 ferent classes of scientific men, but this 

 would be tedious. We should only have 

 brought home to us in each case the fact 

 that, no matter what the science may be 

 with which we are dealing, its disciples are 

 simply trying to learn all they can in the 

 field in which they are working. As I be- 

 gan with a reference to astronomy, let me 

 close with a reference to chemistry. As- 

 tronomy has to deal with the largest bodies, 

 and the greatest distances of the univei'se ; 

 chemistry, on the other hand, has to deal 

 with the smallest particles and the shortest 

 distances of the universe. Astronomy is 

 the science of the infinitely great; chem- 

 istry is the science of the infinitely little. 

 The chemist wants to know what things are 

 made of, and, in order to find this out, he 

 has to push his work to the smallest par- 

 ticles of matter. Then he comes face to 

 face with facts that lead him to the belief 

 that the smallest particles he can weigh by 

 the aid of the most delicate balance, and 

 the smallest particles he can see by the aid 

 of the most powerful microscope, are im- 

 mense as compared with those of which he 

 has good reason to believe the various kinds 

 of matter to be made up. It is for this 

 reason that I say that chemistry is the 

 science of the infinitely little. 



Thus have I tried to show what science 



is and what it is not. Now let me turn 

 to the second question. 



In what sense is this the age of science? 

 In the first place, it is not true that sci- 

 ence is something of recent birth. Scien- 

 tific work of one kind and another has 

 , been in progress for ages— not in all 

 branches, to be sure— but nature has 

 always engaged the attention of man, and 

 we may be sure that he has always been 

 trying to learn more about it. The science 

 of astronomy was the first to be developed. 

 Astrology was its forerunner. Then cam^ 

 chemistry in the guise of alchemy. It 

 would be interesting to follow the develop- 

 ment of each, and to see how from the crude 

 observations, and imaginings of the earlier 

 generations came the clearer and broader 

 conceptions that constitute the sciences, but 

 time will not permit us to enter upon this 

 subject. I can not, however, do justice to 

 my theme without calling your attention to 

 one of the most serious obstacles that stood 

 in the way of the advance of knowledge. 



To make clear the nature of this obstacle, 

 it will be best to make a comparison. A 

 child learns a great deal in regard to his 

 surroundings in his earliest years before 

 he goes to school, and without the aid of 

 his parents. He is constantly engaged in 

 making observations and drawing conclu- 

 sions, and his actions are largely guided by 

 the knowledge thus gained. After a time 

 school life begins, and the child then begins 

 to study books and to acquire knowledge at 

 second-hand. This is an entirely different 

 process from that by which he gained his 

 first knowledge. The latter is natural, 

 the former is artificial. Then, too, he soon 

 discovers that many things he sees call for 

 explanation, and he is led to wonder what 

 the explanation is. If he has a strong 

 imagination, as most children have, he will 

 probably think out some explanation. He 

 finds that he can use his mind, and that 

 this helps him in dealing with the facts in 



