HISTORY OF SCIENCE AS AM ERROR BREEDER 439 



THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AS AN ERROR BREEDER 



By Professor G. A. MILLER 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 



WHILE the role of the history of science as an error exterminator 

 is much more significant than its role as an error breeder, it 

 is necessary to consider it in both of these lights in order to understand 

 its bearings completely. If a comparatively harmless pest destroys 

 pests which are more harmful than itself, it is desirable to consider the 

 injuries which it inflicts as well as the services which it renders. The 

 services that the history of science renders as an error exterminator 

 have received much attention, especially in recent years, but its mis- 

 chievous role as an error breeder seems to have received only little 

 public notice, hence it may be profitable to consider here some striking 

 evidences of this role. 



In these days of great specialization in science, it is scarcely neces- 

 sary to emphasize Sir W. Hamilton's dictum "the greater the extension 

 the smaller the intension." All scientists are aware of the fact that 

 it is a very difficult matter to secure a deep and satisfactory intellec- 

 tual penetration even in a comparatively small domain of science. If 

 one desires to obtain a comprehensive view of the fundamental devel- 

 opments in a larger domain, such as chemistry or mathematics, one 

 has to take much for granted that has been said by others but has not 

 been fully verified by oneself. This method of procedure has to be 

 followed still more by those who strive to secure comprehensive views 

 as regards the fundamental developments in science as a whole. 



The highly commendable attitude of mind which seeks to under- 

 stand the broad lessons taught by science as a whole and to secure a 

 comprehensive view not only of the scientific work now being done in 

 various countries but also of the work done during the preceding ages 

 presents a great contrast when compared with that actuating the extreme 

 specialist when working in a field which he has made his own. It is 

 true that the historian of science is not always actuated by the former 

 attitude of mind. He, too, has his special problems and ponders pro- 

 foundly over some of the elements in his work. As regards these 

 particular elements he stands on a par with the specialists in other 

 fields. 



The historian of science is compelled, however, when he is called 

 upon to treat science as a whole, or even a large domain thereof, to 

 take much for granted which he cannot verify on account of lack of 



