72 



THE SCIENTIFIC TYPE OF MIND 



A writer in a recent number of The Unpopular Review scored 

 scientists severely, daiming that they were less logical in their 

 thinking processes, and less clear and direct in expression than 

 men of equivalent training in literature, languages, etc. 



Is this true? I do not know. I only know that many of the 

 ninety-odd papers I heard presented during the Philadelphia 

 mid-winter meeting of the American Association for the Advance- 

 ment of Science and its affiliated societies were not papers that 

 I would choose to present in refutation of such charges. And 

 yet we were all men and women trained in science, most of us 

 holding graduate degrees, or else titles granted for research or 

 indicative of executive and administrative ability! 



What was wrong? Several things: (i) The titles did not suf- 

 ficiently indicate the content or trend of the contributions. 

 This is illustrated by such titles as "The Genus 7m," "The 

 Purification of a City Water Supply," or "Experimental Work in 

 Child Psychology." The authors failed to realize that such topics 

 do not sufficiently indicate the line of discussion — a great dis- 

 advantage when several conflicting sections are simultaneously 

 offering programs of interest to each of us. Within the usual 

 fifteen-minute limit, not all phases of a topic can be included, 

 and each auditor has a right to know beforehand whether "The 

 Genus Iris,'" for instance, means a morphological characteriza- 

 tion of the genus, a discussion of the iris hybrids now under 

 cultivation, or perhaps an attack on the validity of the name 

 Iris, and a substitution of another name approved by the Vienna 

 rules. 



(2) Authors failed to distinguish between subject matter as 

 such, and mere technique. Papers that promised to be real or 

 important additions to our knowledge were too often almost 

 entirely details concerning methods or mechanical procedures. 

 Such matter should be frankly labeled "A New Method of — ," 

 "Differential Diagnosis in — ^," or "The Comparative Efficiency 

 of — ," etc. To do otherwise, implies an extreme lack of consider- 

 ation for the audience, or a most unenviable "fuzzy mindedness" 

 in the writer. The discussion which follows the paper gives op- 



