LEROY C. COOLEY. *2~> 



History offers itself as a guide. But to follow history 

 to the end, in either literature, art or science, would 

 overtask a single evening. I know not in which direc- 

 tion one could make the greatest distance, nor in which 

 his search would be most fruitful ; but, for obvious rea- 

 sons, I have chosen to consider 



THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE. 



In the outset, I must tell you what I understand 

 science to be. I regard it as something more than is im- 

 plied in the usual definition of it. One form of that de- 

 finition runs in this wise : "Science is knowledge duly 

 arranged and referred to general truths and principles, 

 on which it is founded and from which it is derived." 

 ( Webster). But I think that this definition represents 

 science very much as the instantaneous photograph rep- 

 resents the racehorse — all the life, and motion, and 

 energy are left out. It portrays the science which is at 

 rest in books or in the memories of men, but not the 

 science which is abroad and active in the world. Science 

 is not static but dynamic. It is a thing which lives and 

 grows. It draws its nourishment from all material 

 sources ; it drops its fruits into all the activities of hu- 

 man life, and continually exhales new elements into the 

 atmosphere of human thought. 



I therefore propose this definition : True science is a 

 living, growing organism, whose body is the aggregate 

 of knowledge pertaining to nature, whose spirit is the 

 love of truth for its own sake, and whose purpose is the 

 elevation of mankind. But this definition is truly de- 

 scriptive of only what may be called modern science — 

 of science dating from about the beginning of the seven- 

 teenth century. Down to that time science has been un- 

 dergoing a process of gradual development. It was not 

 simply growing, as science now grows, by imbibing new 

 facts and principles, but its body was only just becoming 



