ES. 
1887] Methods of Instruction in General Geology. 617 
geology tempts a superficial treatment, and the teacher of geology 
needs to be specially on his guard lest he fall into the discussion 
of mere generalities. When we discuss the principles of geology 
we must generalize more or less. The facts are so many and so 
various that it is necessary to state in condensed form the laws 
which may best express the characteristics common to a great 
number of facts or phenomena. But when the geologist general- 
izes he is in greater’ danger than teachers of other sciences of 
being tempted to sacrifice science to the popular interest in 
wonders and curiosities. 
The intimate relation borne by geology to the other sciences 
demands a broader knowledge than is required in them. 
The geologist must apply to the solution of his riddles the 
laws of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and mineralogy, 
and this brings with it the temptation to confine his instruction 
to the announcement of the theories, while referring the student 
to the special science concerned for the real solution of his 
problems. 
Again, we may observe that geology, lying between the more 
thoroughly specialized sciences of modern times and the phi- 
losophies and purer literary branches of learning, has not alto- 
gether lost the effects of the scholastic methods of the literary 
school, nor has it fully attained the perfections of the scientific 
school. 
Literary scholarship has for its ideals the skilful use of lan- 
guage as a means of expressing thought, of thinking and of in- 
terpreting thought. The subject-matter of this scholarship, as 
we scientists look at it, is language; and therefore the learning or — 
mere memorizing of words and forms of verbal expression, in- - 
cluding terse formulas and abstract statements, is valuable in itself, 
and is directly in the line of attainment of that kind of skill sought 
after i in literary study.. But verbal expression and definition is of 
_ secondary importance to the scientific scholar. To know simply 
names and definitions, laws, and, I may add, statistics, without the 
discriminative power of the eye, or ear, or touch, does not make 
a scientist. This acquirement bears no closer relation to scientific 
knowledge than the reading of an English translation of Czsar’s 
Commentaries bears to a knowledge of Latin. We would never 
~ think of calling him a classical scholar who was unable to read 
the original text. No more should we regard him a geologist, 
