I'KACTICK \'S. T1IKOKY ID:! 



thill we i Mil \- honestly mill with good reason differ with sonic of hi> 

 views, why should we condemn tlieni all? 



The -eientifie writer hus been accused of confusing the uovire student, 

 of trying to overturn established customs and combat competent and 

 trustworthy authorities. He is charged with trying to im- 

 press us with his superior knowledge at the expense of our peace of 

 mind and ultimate success. His use of technical terms or groups of 

 words that concretely express bis real meaning and are incapable of ex- 

 pressing anything else meets with cavil from those who would substi- 

 tute common-place terms and expressions that seldom have the same 

 meaning with different people who use them or read them, and still 

 more seldom express the exact and not-to-be-misunderstood truth. 



Has any "scientist" that has yet appeared succeeded in causing as 

 much perplexity in the mind of the poultry student as has been produced 

 by the cock-sure opinions of a multitude of "practical" writers, hardly 

 two of whom can agree regarding the every-day commonplaces of practi- 

 cal poultry keeping? 



Our own limitations or the necessary limitations of our environment ; 

 our indifference, slothfulness, or, worst of all, our prejudices, that 

 cause us to read hastily and draw hasty conclusions from slight evidence ; 

 our anxiety to present what we think that we know rather than seek to 

 learn what others know cannot reasonably be charged up to the list of 

 faults with which some so love to endow the scientific investigator. 



When one who, by virtue of his previous work and present position, 

 is in actual business competition with any educational poultry effort, 

 prostitutes his position by seeking to throw clow r n a real or fancied 

 rival, the garb of the demagogue will not conceal the motive. 



The work of any scientist that ever lived contains error. The humble 

 may detect it. or it may elude all but superior knowledge. Almost any 

 sincere writer's style, or absence of style, may be offensive to some 

 readers, but we should not condemn the thought because we do not like 

 its delivery. 



The ultra-prartical man is in evidence everywhere. He gropes in the 

 dark for years for things that lie right at hand. The mechanical arts 

 and sciences furnish most prolific illustrations of the absolute inability 

 of the average practical mechanic to take the initiative in any step to- 

 ward improvement in machines or methods. 



Many of our most valuable inventions in mechanics have been devised 

 by men </nd women, who were not mechanics. Furthermore they have 

 taught the mechanics, often much against their will, how to use them. 



It is claimed that one of the most valuable improvements in use on all 

 of our railroads was first conceived in the mind of a lady passenger who 

 did not know the throttle from the steam gauge. The writer once saw 

 a locomotive tried that was a radical departure from existing types. 



