摘要:

REPEATEDLY in these columns we have urged a revision of traditional philsophies of education. We have own that, 1t Jesuit of ion, in manfl' ands powers by which life can be freed from ufmecessary toil, and denuded of the harmful mysticisms, superstitions, and pruderies which cramp its social, political, and ethical qualities. Far from making recommendations which would tend to a system of education built merely upon an arid, mechanical efficiency, we have insisted that a knowledge of the truth of the natural world as shown through physics, chemistry, astronomy, and like subjects, and a knowledge of the truth of man's place and relationships in the scale of life as shown through subjects such as biology, is not incompatible with, but the sound basis of, an appreciation of beauty whether enshrined in literature, art, or an ordered state which understands race experience sufficiently to be able consciously to control its future experience. So much for what might be called fundamentals. They may be regarded by an instinctively (and, in some respects, rightly) conservative academia as involving changes too sweeping to be practised until the present machinery of civilisation can absorb them. We agree that there may be something in the objection. We realise that the vast body of new knowledge which science has produced during the last twenty years or so and thrust into practical use in social, industrial, and commercial fields has not yet been grasped by legislators, teachers, and business men. We cannot avoid noticing, for example, the unconscious legal cruelty which may arise from failure to discern the dividing lines between the scopes of law, medicine, and sociology. Nor can we fail to observe how great issues which will shape the future are constantly fogged or misdirected by ignorance. The vast forces of science have not yet been co-ordinated and absorbed by the dQminating operators of our social mechanism so that the community may reap the benefit. But although it is clear that, in spite of a recent suggestion, it is impossible to call a temporary halt in the world of science, we can sympathise with the view that its discoveries and implications must be more widely understood if order is to be brought out of the present chaos.Obviously, the production of that order will be a slow progress: obviously, it must depend upon a system of education carefully planned with the view of a better social order. These are facts which must be faced steadily. But a carefully planned system of education will not, in itself, solve our difficulties. The welfare of Great Britain and its institutions rests ultimately on the success of its industry. That i another incontrovertible fact. Teachers have been reminded of it frequently; but it must be faced equally by those responsible for the successful development of industry itself. For the benefit of the mind careful to the point of fearfulness, we would point out that, in urging a revision of educational notions, we have not presented suggestions which have been unduly hurried. Those suggestions have found reflection in the reports of bodies appointed to examine important aspects of our present discontents. We have, for example, commented in previous issues upon the findings of the Hadow, Malcolm, and Balf our Committees. In all these reports the need for strengthening the link between education and industry has been emphasised. That emphasis has not come only from official committees. On all sides enlightened teachers and leaders of industry have been seeking to join forces. The Emmott Committee of Inquiry into Technical Education and Industry has been, perhaps, the venue of the most varied representatives desiring to commence the solution of this particular problem; and at the recent meeting of the British Association, education and industry was a subject to which a complete session was devoted. Papers read by educationists and industrialists showed clearly that their interdependence is realised by both sides. Especially was it made clear that educational machinery, capable of great development, already exists to supply the requirements of industry, even though no national administrative machinery, through which both sides can adequately express their needs, has yet been formulated. Clearly, however, the rapprochement of education and industry has commenced.The papers to which we have referred were well selected. From the educationist's point of view, arguments were presented for the grouping of social, industrial, and educational problems; the work, general difficulties, and possibilities of a typical technical institution were outlined; the results and advantages obtained by a college which trains engineers on a definite production basis rather than an exercise basis were described. From the industrialist's point of view, criticism of present elementary and secondary school curricula was advanced and a plea was made for a revision which might give capable managers and workers to industry no less than balanced and thought- ful citizens to society; suggestions were made as to industry's contribution of forms of essential education not always included in the formal processes of the school. Altogether, we gained a very satisfactory impression that ancient antagonisms' are disappearing, and that, since the industrialist has now realised the value commercial as well as social of education to his industry, and since the teacher at least on the technological side is prepared to shape his work in the wide interests of industry, it appeared to be but a matter of time until the resulting benefits will be enjoyed by student, worker, teacher, and employer. We must pause here, however, and examine present facts, and not be swept away from them by pleasant speeches and urbane agreements. Industry has commenced to demand men and women soundly educated and expertly trained for its tasks. The educationist has answered by producing from his universities and technical institutions the type of student the industrialist tells him, and which he believes, is required. But if industry has correctly expressed its needs, and education can fulfil those needs, there ought not to be the slightest difficulty in placing every properly qualified student. That is surely an acid test' of the relationship between school and employment.What, however, are the present facts? In chemical industry, for example, we have been told that there is an almost unlimited field for the technically trained man or woman. But those of us who have some knowledge of the number of graduates in chemistry leaving universities and technical institutions also know the difficulties they often have in securing satisfactory eniployment. How many graduates in engineering, too, have been able to secure positions in which their training can be adequately used2 On the commercial side we recall the demand made by employers for highly trained and broad-visioned employees which resulted in the institution of the Bachelor of Commerce degree; but we have not lacked evidence that possessors of that qualification have not found it easy to secure posts in competition with applicants of no other training thaii that of commercial experience since the age of fourteen years. It is not to be doubted, we think, that there are well-qualified men and women unable to find openings in industry and commerce, and although we realise that the problem of employment has many aspects, we feel bound to ask whether employers are prepared now to take advaiEitage of education's newest product. It would clearly be a doubtful move to extend the facilities for special training if the present output cannot be absorbed. Are there, then, sufficient openings at present to justify the extension of facilities for which employers ask? Do the majority of employers sufficiently realise the advantage of seeuring the well-trained recruit? The employer who has done so seems to be the established and, perhaps, leading industrialist who presents what is assumed to be a complete industrial view before public meetings and official and other committees. But what of the employers of whom we hear but little and who have not yet understood the sound benefits which can be secured from trained workers? If it be answered that all employers understand those benefits, then the difficulty of securing employment must be traced to a weakness lying elsewhere. For, clearly, while the present position continues we cannot avoid the conclusion that the weakness lies either in education or in industry. If it be in education, the employer should indicate it with all speed: if it be in the organisation and methods of industry, they must either be altered or else clear instructions, based upon them, must be submitted for the consideration of educationists. There is certainly one point arising out of the organisation of industry which was touched upon during the British Association discussion by an educational and by an industrial representative. The former referred to the growing impression that promotion to the higher posts in engineering proceeded more readily from the office than from the works, and that this industry is afready losing heavily by bribing its best boys into the administrative rather than the production side. The latter underlined the same complaint. No amount of inducement, he said, seemed able to overcome what appears to have become a distinct difference in status. This fault of shaping the bright boy to the black suit was regarded as belonging to parents and teachers rather than to employers. But are parents and teachers to receive all the blame? Is it not generally true that difference of status exists? Is it not generally true that in times of bad trade it is the production side which suffers while the administrative side enjoys something very like permanence? Can the employer help to avoid this a very real threat to the future skill and welfare of industry?We hope we shall not be misunderstood. We have sketched the need for an educational system which shall fit modern civilisation particularly through its effect of wiping away the ignorance which may fog and warp the issues which are shaping the future. We have insisted that the linking of education and industry is an essential part of that new system. We have welcomed the evidence which shows that its necessity is being more and more realised; and if we have paused to examine present difficulties which tend towards the nullification of the promise that evidence holds out, we have not done so merely to apportion blame or praise to any particular quarter. It is simply that, in our earnest desire that these new and beneficial movements shall proceed unhampered, we have attempted to indicate some barriers which need speedy removal.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120681a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

(1)SIR ARTHUR KEITH, in a foreword to his presidential address to the British Association, just published by Messrs. Watts and Co., makes a notable observation. He writes that although the outburst in the public press which followed his defence of Darwinism indicated "that Daytonism is very much alive throughout the land, and that the only science people are prepared to accept is that enshrined in the book of Genesis," yet, that he was encouraged by the reception given to his address by the leaders of religious thought. The words in which he places this upon record are sufficiently important to quote in full: "Far from being in opposition, they want to know all that can be known of the universe in which we live, and of that remarkable aberrant product of Nature which we call Man. They have grown up in the post-Darwinian period, and no longer regard the great army of science as an enemy, but as a friendly power. They realise that religion cannot stand still, that it too must evolve, and that it is the duty of theologians not toexpect scientific men to modify their facts to fit religious views, but that religion must be modified to fit man's changing needs, and to be in keeping with the truth as revealed by scientific inquiry. It may take long before we reach perfect accord, but nothing but good can come out of a working agreement effected between men who are striving for the betterment of humanity througi. an increase of well-ascertained knowledge. Religious leaders and men of science have the same ideals; they want to understand and explain the universe of which they are part; they both earnestly desire to solve, if a solution is ever possible, that great riddle: Why are we here?Sir Arthur Keith is undoubtedly justified in believing that religious leaders, so far as the natural sciences are concerned, are by no means reluctant to accept new ideas. If this is gratifying to men of science, it is equally encouraging to theologians to observe among men of science an increasing tendency to take religion seriously and to attach importance to the religious view of life. Nor is this the case only, as might perhaps have been expected, among anthropologists and psychologists, to whose subject matter religion belongs; it is no less conspicuous among physicists and biologists. (2) Among biologists, the latest example of one taking an interest in the religious problem is Prof.J. S. Huxley, who has published his views in a volume entitled "Religion without Revelation" The book is inspired by the belief that "One of the most urgent needs of humanity at the present time is a common outlook, comparabib in its comprehensiveness and wide acceptance with the common outlook, religious and philosophical, which dominated the Middle Ages." Prof. Huxley does not fail to indicate what he believes should be the foundations of a reformed theology; these will be threefold, and will consist "of agnosticism, of evolutionary natural science, and of psychology." We may presume that the word agnosticism is used in a wide and general sense to describe an attitude which is mistrustful of all dogmatic systems, positive or negative, which are prisons of the mind. With regard to evolutionary science, Sir Arthur Keith's address makes it clear that Darwin's theory of man's origin is not only unshaken but unshakeable; and we may take it that the evolutionary outlook has come to stay. As for psychology, it is clear that a systematic study of the facts of religious experience is a necessary basis of any sound theology.Our comment may suitably take the form of examining each section of the triple basis in turn. With regard to agnosticism, we are inclined to wish that Prof. Huxley had avoided the word, It conveys the impression that those who use it doubt whether any large measure of trustworthy truth is available where ultimate questions are concerned. If the historically untenable idea of a supernaturally revealed dogmatic system is to be replaced, some new theory of the attainment of religious knowledge will have to be provided. We fear that Prof. Huxley does not clearly envisage the nature of the problem with which those who believe in religion without believing in revelation are faced. That problem is the provision of an altogether new theory of revelation. With regard to evolution, the introduction of this conception into our thinking is in reality the only sure safeguard against dogmatism, and makes anything like systematic agnosticism unnecessary. Evolutionary ways of thinking have imported some measure of relativism into our ideas without endangering the indispensable' notion of objective truth, They have banished dogmatism without introducing scepticism. As Prof. Huxley puts it:"Thought evolves equally with life. Religious systems which were inevitable products of humanity's childhood or of his adolescent thinking are not for that reason final. Ideas which in their time and season meant immense advance . . may actually become harmful when circumstances alter and the old ideas are found to be hindering the progress of new and better ideas." Then, with regard to psychology, the last part of the threefold basis. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Prof. Huxley for having included an autobiographical chapter in his book. It is to be feared that some men of science have written of religion while having very little first hand experience to guide their speculations. This Is not the case with Prof. Huxley, who seems to have been through religious experiences which only differ from the normal by being more intense. Hi experience seems to have taken the form of nature-mysticism united with fervent moral idealism, but apparently unconnected with the dogmas of revealed' religion, from the teaching of which his childhood had been free. (It is to be noted, however, that he was brought up in an atmosphere of vigorous moral earnestness, quite different in character from much of the frivolous irreligion of the present day.) In view of all this, it is a little of a disappointment to find Prof. Huxley inclined to surrender his experience to the inadequate and rather shallow interpretations of the psychologist, who, to be sure, is too much with us to-day. He writes They [the religious experiences]and my reading also convinced me that the revelation of the mystic vision is revelation only in a psychological sense, not literally. There need be no supernatural being or force making the revelation; nor is the revelation one of an external reality."This last sentence, however, seems to be quite unhelpful dogmatism. It would have been more profitable, and more scientific, to inquire what kind of truth mystical insight may be expected to supply us with, whether similar in kind to that supplied by asthetic or moral insight, or otherwise. In point of fact, some philosophers, quite innocent of theological bias and without the qualification of having enjoyed Prof. Huxley's remarkable religious experience, are inclined to attribute considerable significance to such phenomena. Mr. C. D. Broad, for example, though confessedly almost devoid himself of such experiences, has expressed his belief "that they are probably of extreme importance in any theoretical interpretation of the world." It is a curious fact that about the real bone of contention between religion and science at the present time, that is, miracle, Prof. Huxley says scarcely anything. This is at present the crux. It is as it were a correlative to revelation; as this is the supernatural in the sphere of knowledge, so the miracle is the supernatural in the sphere of action. In what sense, if any, we can hold to either of these conceptions needs thinking out very carefully.(3) Dr. Hector Macpherson, in his book "The Church and Science," does devote a chapter to the miraculous. He points out that the reformers took over Aquinas's conception of miracle, which at least had the advantage of being clear and definite; it was an event having its cause outside Nature. The difficulty, of course, is that until you know the whole of Nature, you cannot tell what lies outside Nature. No man of science will consent to adopt this method of explanation, as it stultifies his methods entirely. Dr. Macpherson quotes extensively from Mr. J. M. Thompson's "Miracles in the New Testament," a book which made a considerable stir when it appeared in 1911. Mr. Thompson's view was that the doctrine of the Incarnation can stand quite independently of miracles; but as he was inhibited by the Bishop of Winchester at the time, it does not look as if his views were accepted by the ecclesiastical authorities. As a matter of fact, the book was a careful piece of textual and literary criticism of the New Testament documents concerned, and its reception showed that orthodox theology had not yet come to terms with the critical study of literary sources. In other words, the religion and science conflict has settled down at present to a controversy between scientific history and theological history.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120683a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

THIS volume is one of a series entitled "The International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method." Rivers was above all a master of method, and had he lived to write a book on method in the historical investigation of human cultures, he would have added to the already great debt anthropologists owe him. The present work is a collection of lectures and essays, dealing mainly with the constant theme of the historical school of anthropology, the unity of culture. The greater number were delivered to somewhat mixed audiences, hence there comes about an almost wearisome reiteration of the hypotheses, and perhaps apart from pan-Egyptianism some over-emphasis of the differences between the views put forth by the historical or diffusionist school and by other anthropologists. The chapters have not been arranged chronologically to show Rivers's contribution to method indeed, his first and by far his most important contribution, "A Genealogical Method of Collecting Social and Vital Statistics" (Jour. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., vol. 30, 1900), has been omitted but come under a few selected headings. The reader who bears with these disadvantages will be rewarded, not with the proof or disproof of the theories of the extreme diffusionists, but by the discovery of some of the principles and results that Rirers worked out when studying the contacts of peoples in Melanesia, where he carried out the plan he had previously elaborated for obtaining exact information; that is to say, he used the genealogical method with the study of kinship as the basis of investigation. When he examined his material he came to certain conclusions which may be looked upon as his chief methodological results, in this review arranged and to a limited extent discussed under numerical headings:(1) That social structure, the framework of society, is fundamentally important, and not easily changed except as the resu't  f the intimate blendings of peoples or of the most profound political changes, and for that reason furnishes the firmest foundation on which to base the process of analysis of culture. The relative permanence of the social structure is so great that its course of deve1opmnt may furnish a guide to the action in order of time of the different elements into which it is possible to analyse a given culture complex (pp. 135-8) . These two sentences are condensed from " The Ethnological Analysis of Culture," but the italics are my own. Yet, if I understand aright the general trend of these essays, Rivers later accepted a more extreme diffusionist view, namely, that cultural changes were introduced by the carrying about the world by small bands of foreigners of definite elements, independently of any general cultural blending. On the other hand, a collection of essays offers no such continuous structure that it is possible to be certain that Rivers had entirely realised the full significance of the acceptance of this proposition, which logically would lead to the rejection of so much of his previous work. Such wholesale modification of viewpoint seems scarcely likely, for Prof. Elliot Smith himself has said in the preface to "Social Organisation," published in 1924: "On his own admission his work on social organisation was his greatest achievement in his chosen field of investigation," so we may perhaps regard "blending " as not consciously jettisoned, though in many instances Rivers no doubt did accept the free transmission of foreign elements. As an example of the kind of difficulty referred to, it is sufficient to compare the views on the dual organisation put forward by Rivers on one hand and by Prof. Elliot Smith and Mr. Perry on the other, who regard the dual organisation of society as one of the elements of culture that arose in Egypt and was carried about the world (Elliot Smith, "Encyclopadia Britannica," vol. 30, article "Antbiopology"; Perry, Appendix 3 to Rivers's "Social Organisation "). These views may be contrasted with the treatment of dual orgariisation in the "History of Melanesian Society," for example, vol. 2, p. 250.(2) The second principle is that involved in the disappearance of useful arts; this is a feature of the degeneration of culture which plays so large a part in the scheme, and is one which had long called for examination. Here we may direct attention to one aspect of the controversy which might be overlooked by those who are only interested in the proof or rejection of the general idea, namely, that it is the common sense' view that man is guided by reason which is here refuted. In the examination of the causes of the disappearance of the canoe from the Torres Islands and 1{angareva, Rivers was led to reject material and social factors as insufficient in themselves, and he saw in the loss of the magical and religious rites accompanying the craft the loss of the craft itself. He does not, however, suggest any reason for the loss of the magic: Quite as striking as the loss of useful arts is the extraordinary persistence of elements of culture which seem to us wholly useless . . . this .combines . . . to make us beware of judging human culture by purely utilitarian standards" (p. 208). One of the difficulties here is to recognise what to the savage is a purely utilitarian standard. (3) The extent of the influence of one people upon another depends upon the difference in the level of their cultures. A very small number of immigrants of a sufficiently high culture can have a relatively enormous influence on a low culture. This is the principle relied upon for the spread of the megalithic culture in the essay entitled "Contact of Peoples," and comparison is made of European influence on peoples of the lower cultures on one hand and on those of India and China on the other.(4) The motive for migrations determines their distribution, which might otherwise appear fortuitous. Rivers accepted Mr. Perry's theory, that the motive was the search for wealth or life-giving substances: "The force was attractive rather than propulsive, viz, the love of wealth, which is still the most potent factor in immigration" (p. 171). This was probably not intended as a principle to be taken without other subsidiary factors, for though the love of wealth may always be present, immigration is periodic. Moreover, when particular instances are examined the thesis is likely to break down, as in the example afforded by the recent discussion on pearls in Man; again, it is doubtful whether the love of wealth had any considerable influence on the first great spread of Islam, though trading and slave raiding undoubtedly assisted or even led to later movements. (5) Ancient beliefs tend to be preserved with greatest fidelity not near their old home but in remote spots, among people of a simple mentality. This conclusion was drawn after the construction of a hypothetical scheme to account for belief in soul-substance' in Melanesia (including New Guinea), as well as for the burial customs of San Cristoval in the Solomon Islands. The reason adduced is the simple mentality of the people, which leads them to "accept without any great modification beliefs which take their fancy, while the absence or scarcity of later external influence prevents the modification, or even obliteration of beliefs, which are always liable to occur among more sophisticated peoples and in regions more open to the play of external influence " (p. 118). This principle, the parallel to that of the distribu tion of living animal forms from a geological centre, seems to have been elaborated independently. With all necessary reserve, the reviewer would place on record his belief that of late anthropologists have tended to un(lerestimate the fluidity of native custom and its capacity, nay its tendency, to modification within its own sphere of activity without foreign stimulus. (6) "Wherever we find diversity of funeral rites, we may safely conclude that there has been diversity of culture" (p. 163). This conclusion is drawn from the general observation that rites, ideas, and beliefs concerning the dead are among the most sacred of human reactions, and held with the greatest conservatism. The diversity f funeral rites in Australia is one of the main causes that led Rivers to suspect the complexity of Australian culture.Handled with caution, all of the above are useful principles, but the need for caution cannot be overrated. For though the difTusionist school that Rivers upholds in this volume is sometimes called the historical school, its relation to history is precarious and depends on a number of bold assumptions. The existence of the Egyptian culture is an historic fact; its connexion with the megalithic culture a courageous deduction with which archaologists in general disagree. More over, the migrations from Egypt with which the diffusionists deal are all ignored by historic records, nor has a single specimen, not even a potsherd, of Egyptian or Near Eastern manufacture been found in those localities supposed to have been most subject to Egyptian influence. The assumed motives of the migrations are yet bolder. Present customs are explained in the light of hypothetical migrations, and the megalithic culture itself explained by comparison with modern custom. The danger of the vicious circle is obvious, yet this statement should not be taken to imply that we need be satisfied with the methods of anthropology before the florescence of the diffusionists. No doubt there is much to be learnt by the careful application of Rivers's principles to some known historic movement, as, for example, the spread of Islam. The different phases in its extension could be studied; its conquests and its forms of peaceful penetration contrasted, and the varying results examined. Such an examination might even justify some of the more far-reaching speculations of the school. Above all, such studies, starting from definite historical facts, and continually checked by these, should throw light on the formation of new culture complexes, and thus to some degree act as a test of the validity of the hypothetical schemes put forward by the diffusionist school.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120685a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

PROF. ERNST COHEN of Utrecht went to Cornell University early in 1926 as the first holder of a non-resident lectureship in chemistry, supported by an endowment given for this purpose by Mr. 0. F. Baker. His introductory lecture, under the title" Qua vadimus? "has already been circulated to many workers who receive reprints from the van t Hoff Laboratory at Utrecht; but it now appears as the precursor of ten lectures on "Physico-Chemical Metamorphosis" and eleven lectures on "Some Problems in Piezochemistry." The first series of lectures deals with the transformations (and especially with the suspended transformations) of tin, antimony, cadmium, thallous picrate, cadmium iodide, and ammonium nitrate. In all these cases the author provides evidence of the difficulty of securing the complete transformation of a polymorphic solid into one of its possible forms, and the risk that, if sufficient precautions are not taken, the physical data recorded will be those of a mixture of the various forms. This risk must be admitted, but not to the extent of producing a pessimistic outlook, since inconstant results generally provide an efficient danger-signal when a condition of complete equilibrium is not being attained in any given series of experiments. The cases cited, which include those of tin pest' and explosive antimony,' are, however, of a very interesting character, and include some of the most dramatic results of the author's own researches.The second series of lectures is chiefly remarkable for the skilful handling which it discloses of the difficult problems encountered in carrying out the common operations of physical chemistry under a pressure of 1500 atmospheres. Under these conditions, determinations of reactior-ve1ocity, solubility, electromotive force, electrochemical equivalent, velocity of diffusion and viscosity, all call for the invention of appropriate apparatus, embodied in workmanlike designs, for making measurements of a high order of accuracy, whilst paying due regard to the possible effects of contamination by the fluid through which the pressure is transmitted to the system under investigation. It is therefore not an adverse criticism to say that more interest and instruction is to be found in reading how the experiments were made, than in nothing the char- acter of the numerical results that were recorded. It is, indeed, almost a disappointment to read of the unfailing regularity with which the predictions of thermodynamics were fulfilled, since a few violent exceptions would have added an element of sport to what is now an almost monotonous record of difficulties surmounted and goals attained. Those who know Prof. Cohen's linguistic and literary skill, and in particular his perfect mastery of English, together with the winsomeness of his appeal to his hearers, can paint a vivid picture of the attractiveness of the course of lectures to those who had the privilege of listening to them. The printed record will, however, be read with pleasure by a much wider circle of interested students and teachers, since it provides in a convenient and attractive form the equivalent of two monographs on subjects of wide general interest.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120687a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

IT must be something like twenty years since Mr. E, J. Lewis achieved fame as the author of an inorganic chemistty, which differed widely in character from most of the text-books that had been written previously. Mr. Lewis's book was specially designed for the needs of boys coming over from the classical side, who did not need to acquire a professional knowledge of the subject, but were expected to secure some measure of scientific culture from its study. His book proved, however, to be of wider value, in that its broad and philosophic treatment made it a suitable revision book for many students who had taken an elementary course, but without acquiring the fuller knowledge of the foundations of his faith, which one looks for in a university worker. The schoolmaster has now become an industrialist, but without losing either his literary skill or his desire to teach the rising generation. He has, therefore, in collaboration with a colleague, written a book on "The Making of a Chemical," in which he gives much excellent advice to the student who is about to enter, and hopes to find a career in, chemical industry. His advice is so good that, if it were all put into practice, the product would be almost too perfect to be useful; it has certainly had the effect of leaving the reviewer with a sense of his own unworthiness to undertake so high and holy a vocation, and to marvel at the lofty heights to which the authors of such a book must themselves have attained.On the other hand, if the reader is prepared to leave good advice to suffer its usual fate, he will find that the book contains a very useful sketch of the fundamental problems of chemical prepara tion when carried out on a large industrial scale, and a very readable summary of the typical solutions of these problems. Even more useful, perhaps, is the frequent reference to technical books, since the academic student, who knows how to track down original references with the help of Beilstein and the British Abstracts, may very easily be floored by the problem of finding out where to go for a trustworthy review of the best current practice in some branch of chemical engineering. The authors, one may suppose, have themselves tested and vindicated the usefulness of the books which they cite, arid they will have rendered a real service to the young industrial chemist if they are able to guide him in the early stages of building up a technical library of his own.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120688a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

THIS little work on fasciation contains some experimental and observational results and an incomplete bibliography of the subject. The author points out that fasciation may occur as a modification caused by excess nutrition, attacks of insects, etc., but that it is more commonly a mutation. Gelosia cristata, the cockscomb of gardens, is an example of such a species. Its origin is unknown, although it is now cultivated all over the world, but it was known to Pliny. In culture solutions lacking particular salts, no effecV was produced, except that the absence of calcium prevented flowering. Races of Celosia differed in the degree or amount of fasciation, and bad conditions reduced the number which showed it. Experiments were also made with Sambucus nigra. Fasciation may occur in stems, roots, flowers, fruits, or even stigmas. The author classifies fasciations as dorsiventral or bilateral, which ca be anatomically distinguished. Two types of shoots are also distinguished, in one of which there is flattening throughout, while in the other only the tips of the branches are flattened. Fasciation results in abnormal phyllotaxy, and a morphological study is made of this condition, especially in Sambucus and Celosia.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120689a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

IT has been said by Kant that a science is genuinely scientific in so far as it invo1ve mathematics; and interesting light is thrown on this dictum by considering it in reference to the various attempts that have been made to introduce mathematics into psychology. First came the grandiose effort of the Herbartian to depict mathematically the interaction of ideas. This failed for total lack of experimental support. Then followed the great and very successful attempt of Weber and Fechner to measure sensory discrimination. Much more recently, there has been an invocation of mathematics for the purpose of analysing mental ability. As this last attempt is now very much perturbing psychologists all over the world, let us consider it in a little more detail.In the year 1904, on the basis of a mathematical theorem coupled with some actual observation, the doctrine was advanced that the measure of any individual in any ability could be divided into two factors; the one was conixnon to all the abilities concerned; whereas the other was specific to the one ability alone. These two factors were designated by the letters g and s; and the extremely important corollary was drawn that, by averaging together many dissimilar mental performances, the influence of the S's would tend to cancel out, leaving an approximate measure of the pure g. This doctrine was very unexpected, and gave rise to an acute controversy which has continued ever since. On the mathematical side, the objections raised have one by one been either refuted as point- less, or else met by further developments. On the side of observation, the scope has been continually broadened. Originally, the work had been limited to a single experimenter dealing with little more than 100 individuals, all of whom were young boys. But already in 1912 the range had been extended to 14 experimenters treating 1463 boys and girls, men and women, sane and insane. At the present day, this number of experimenters has certainly been quadrupled, whilst the number of individuals has grown to many scores of thousands. Finally, the attempt was made by me in a book entitled "The Abilities of Man" (Macmillan, 1927) to bring all this work into one systematic whole. The interpretation of g found to account best for all the observed facts was to conceive it as measuring some general energy' responsible for all the activities of the mind. The 8's, On the other hand, were taken to be the various engines' into any of which the energy could alternatively be directed.In addition to the g which thus measured the quantity of the mental energy, there was also determined a value p which measured the degree of the inertia' of this energy; and furthermore, an o which measured the degree that the supply of the energy tended to oscillate, These three measures conjointly were said to furnish the cardinal features distinguishing the abilities of one individual from those of another. The evolution of the doctrine went further still, carrying it far beyond the whole sphere of psychology known as that of individual differences. For during the time that the facts belonging to this sphere were being investigated, those appertaining to general psychology were being treated from a fundamentally novel viewpoint (that of the doctrine known as noegenesis). The surprising result was that these two spheres, hitherto kept by psychology in disastrous divorce from one another, now fitted as hand and glove. Finally, both these spheres of cognition, that of individual differences and that of general psychology, have in the continued development of the doctrine of g and s become organically united with that other great domain of the mind which is not cognitive but conative; it does not deal with knowing, but with striving and deciding. To the g and the s's of the energy and the engines, there has now been added a w, which brings all these into action, playing thus the part of the engineer.' Accordingly, the entire movement having as its core the concept of g has constituted a great endeavour to supply psychology at last with a unified, complete, and genuinely scientific foundation. A review of " The Abilities of Man " was published in NATURE of Aug. 6, the reviewer adopting an extreme attitude in the now rapidly dwindling opposition party. For my part, I welcome this review in so far as it cx- presses the chief lines that may still be taken up against the book. But I cannot help regretting that it should present an entirely incorrect picture of what is given in the book itself. In the first place, there is the grave default that the foregoing immense scope of the work done just the scope that the book expressly set out to narrate is not even hinted to the reader of the review; and then this, on the positive side, is throughout strangely permeated with vital mis- apprehensions, as will be seen by taking each of its points in turn.1 . The beginning of it is a general complaint that the statements in the book cannot be adequately verified for lack of sufficient arithmetical data and mathematical demonstrations. Buf it must be replied that data are really furnished in very great quantity, so that any one can check the arithmetic as much as ho pleases; while all the chief mathematical demonstrations are given fully in the appendix. 2. Next, the objection is raised that the book criticises the definitions of intelligence given by other people, but fails to supply one itself. Really, the tenor of tI'e book was to suspend usage of the highly equivocal word intelligence and to show unequivocally what mental powers actually exist. Then, indications were furnished as to which of these powers might be entitled intelligence most reasonably; but the suggestion was made of abolishing the word altogether.3. After this, the reviewer commits himself to a very serious statement. The book, he asserts, hypothecates' that the measurement of an ability is a function of two factors and then proceeds to replace this general functional relation by a purely linear one. In answer, he must be referred to the actual mathematical demonstration (appendix iiiv). This really contains no such hypothesis, no such replacement, nor anything like them; but instead, a full proof that when the correlations are what has been called hierarchical,' then the measurements can be expressed as linear functions of the two factors. As much may be said of the earlier proof supplied by Garnett. 4. Neither proof implies even Taylor's theorem directly. Such an implication is only indirect and occurs only to the extent that this theorem may underlie the significance of the whole theory of correlation and even of normal' frequency. In the book I ventured to throw out the suggestion that the theorem may be thus implicated in the theory of correlation. But I do not press this matter for the present. I only mention it here as I wish to admit frankLy that the hook did not make this distinction between direct assumption and indirect implication nearly clear enough.5. The reviewer's next point is that a certain important quantity called the tetrad difference' was assumed by the book to have a normal frequency, whereas, he says, the data in the book itself prove that the distribution is not normal. In truth, the book never made any such assumption; instead, it showed graphically that the frequency is normal with good approximation. 6. He then objects that the mean tetrad difference had been made by me zero artificially. In truth, the mean of all the tetrad differences from any set of variables is zero necessarily.7. Then the reviewer lays down that the only real test provided of the agreement between theory and observation is a comparison of the probable error of the tetrad differences with their observed median value; and this test he considers not to have been passed with manifest success, since (in the case he picks out) the probable error was 0061 and the observed median 0062 (or, according to him, 0060 and 0058 respectively). The reply must be that such two values do manifestly fit each other very well indeed. In last resource, all evidence of good fit between theory and observation consists in thus simply juxtaposing the two values and seeing whether they are nearly equal. Certainly not often is the result more favourable than the above one.8. In truth, however, this is by no means the only real test possible or provided. In statistics the probable error is compared, not only with the median of the observed values, but also with each of these values separately. This is what had been done throughout the book in treating the entire mass of available data published on the subject by the multitudinous investigators (including those belonging to the opposition party itself). The result was to show that whenever any tetrad difference did become excessive, then there were always good psychological grounds for it being so; the circumstances of the case were such as to require by theory that this particular tetrad difference should not be zero. 9. The reviewer closes by remarking that a better way to approach the problem would be to consider that, if we could assume the probable errors of the different tetrad differences to be mutually independent, then " We should . . . conclude that the new . . . theory, so far from being in striking agreement with observation, signally failed." To this the answer is that, since any such assumption of independence is obviously quite wrong, the advantage of this new way of approach or even the point of suggesting that then the theory would fail is not evident.Let us, however, now consider how far the present occasion can be utilised for converting mere wrangle into scientific progress. The cardinal points (3) and (6) are matters of pure mathematics; they therefore can and should be definitely settled. Unless, then, the reviewer is convinced by the foregoing remarks, I suggest that an impartial committee be appointed to adjudicate upon these two points and to report in this journal. Asfor the machinery of appointment, perhaps it could be done by a joint meeting of representatives of the Mathematical and Psychological Sections of the British Association. Points (1), (2), and (5) are misapprehensions which a closer study of the book ought easily to remove. But should the reviewer, after having heard my own account of what I wrote and meant, still insist that his version is more correct, then these points too might be sub- mitted to the committee. As for points (7) and (9), these, I hope, are already sufficiently obvious. On the other hand, point (8), involving as it does every part of the book and the whole of cognitive psychology, does not appear to be capable of summary settlement. Since here the crux is far more psychological than mathematical, the issue must be left to the eventual consensus of the general body of psychologists.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120690a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

THE review in NATURE of Prof. Spearman's book stated precisely what was possible in a critique which must not be of inordinate length. The review of the work took what its author in his present communication considers the kernel of his researches and of his recent book, namely, the hypotheticalgands, and considered whether Prof. Spearman was justified in making such sweeping claims for the hypothesis of a general and specific factors. The reviewer held, and still holds, that whether that hypothesis be verifiable or not, the data hitherto cited in favour of it are far from demonstrating its truth. In reply to Prof. Spearman's numbered statements the reviewer wishes to make the following counter statements.(1) The general complaint that the actual data by which the conclusions in the book can be tested are not provided is correct. It took weeks of work to reproduce the frequency data for tetrads on which the chief arguments in chap. x. are based. When this was done the extent of the agreement was found to be not such as appears in the book itself. (2) The reviewer's opinion that it is easier to criticise definitions than to provide them will be amply illustrated at any rate to a physicist by a study of chaps. ix. and xxiii. of " The Abilities of Man."(3) and (4) The reviewer can only repeat his assertion that Prof. Spearman has assumed that the functional relation is a purely linear one. The direct appeal to the lowest terms of a Taylor's series is made on p. v, and an indirect appeal to lineanity in pp. ui-v of the Appendix to which Prof. Spearman now refers. The statement that Taylor's theorem underlies the whole theory of correlation is in- correct. (5) On p. 146 Prof. Spearinan has the following words, beneath a diagram showing a normal frequency curve superposed on a series of rectangles: " This time the two distributions, curve arid rectangles, far from being totally discrepant as before, display instead one of the most striking agreements between theory and observation ever recorded in psychology" (Reviewer's italics). The author's words clearly denote that the curve corresponds to theory and the rectangles to observation. If they do not, what is the theory' which so strikingly corresponds to observation? It cannot be the two numbers given under the diagram, for one of them depends again on the normal curve.If the frequency be not a normal curve but a curve which really depends on the individual series of tetrads, what is the meaning of talking about discrepancy' between other tetrad distributions and the normal curve? A discrepancy' can only exist if a theory be known, and if Prof. Spearman's theory be not that of the normal curve, he has no measure of discrepancy. What is his theory'? (6) The reviewer did not object to Prof. Spearman making his mean of tetrads zero, by taking each one first positive and then negative, but what he pointed out was that having done this and got a symmetrical curve, Prof. Spearman in every case was depending upon the value of a single constant of this artificially symmetrical distribution to test the accordance of theory and observation. No frequency distribution is defined by a single constant(7) This should read of course the " only real test provided by Prof. Spearman; there are many other possible tests, so soon as we know definitely what his theory of tetrad distribution really is. The terms probable error and observed median' appeal directly to the theory of a normal distribution. Values such as 0060 and 0058 may or may not be in agreement. It depends entirely on what the probable error of their determination may be. Read in hectometres, the average statures of Englishmen and Frenchmen are 0017 and 0016 respectively Do these " manifestly fit each other very well indeed " ? Prof. Spearman writes " In last resource, all evidence of good fit between theory and observation consists in thus simply juxtaposing the two values and seeing whether they are nearly equal. Certainly not often is the result more favourable than the above one." The reviewer ventures to think this remark is erroneous. The true statistical theory consists (i) in deducing a correct arithmetical result from the data, (ii) in propounding a correct and comprehensive theory, and (iii) in testing by the theory of errors whether the deviation between observation and theory is or is not probable on the basis of random sampling. In all three points, in the opinion of his reviewer, Prof. Spearman has failed. His arithmetic is not always, but is often incorrect his theory of what the variation of the tetrad distribution should be is incorrect and he never concerns himself with the probable error of the difference between his theory and his observations. In the case of the statures cited above, the probable error of the difference is of the order 00002, and this is precisely what occurs in a number of Prof. Spear- man's cases three (and sometimes two !) significant figures are not adequate to reach the probable error of the difference, even if that difference were based on a satisfactory mathematical theory. (9) The answer here is a perfectly definite one. Prof. Spearman looks at two numbers or at a graph and asserts, apparently by mere inspection, that they are in good approximation.' The reviewer holds that no such inspection is of any real scientific value; a numerical test of some kind to measure the extent of this agreement must be applied. Where in mere inspection does Prof. Spearman introduce the fact that his tetrads are correlated ? How does he allow for it in running his eye over the graph ? Is he not judging, as we suspect he must, that his curve fits well his rectangles, however those rectangles have ari8em ? To test this we supposed those rectangles not to have arisen from tetrads, and we find the fit for such a system of frequency is bad, not good. How does Prof. Spearman, by aid of a special . factor, determine that owing to correlation the eye alone can judge between the two cases and assert that the fit of curve and rectangles is good for tetrads, but would be bad for a series of intelligence quotients on different individuals?Are we prevented from applying a test of goodness of fit to measurements on a colony of statoblasts because there exists a high degree of hereditary correlation between its individuals ? The reviewer wrote in his notice of "The Abilities of Man" that the pages of NATURE could not provide adequate space for a full mathematical and statistical criticism of Prof. Spearman's hypothesis. The first part of such a criticism is now at press, and will be published shortly. [Prof. Spearman has left England for the United States and will not return until January next. He desires it to be known, however, that he proposes to pursue the conflicting statements in this correspond- enee by means of independent adjudication, as suggested in the concluding paragraph of his letter. ED. NATURE.]

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120691a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

THE nature or origin of the zodiacal light is regarded as more or less of a mystery. Some have thought that the phenomenon may indicate the existence of a diffused ring of small particles in equilibrium and in nature somewhat like those of Saturn's rings, though more scattered and existing in very small amount compared thereto. This hypothesis assumes a stability which it is difficult to accord to such a ring.If we assume, however, that the coronal streamers from the sun, which apparently extend without limit of distance into space, are partly composed of or accompanied by fine particles propelled by the pressure of light, or even of fine solids from condensa. tion of vapours arising from the solar atmosphere and expanding into a vacuum external thereto, we may form a hypothesis which seems to be consistent with the facts. The fine condensed particles would move into a vacuous space in substantially straight lines and would reach enormous distances from the solar body. As the spectrum lines of iron are prominent in solar light, it might be expected that in the space surrounding the sun fine particles of iron would constitute, in part, at least, those escaping streamers from the solar atmosphere. These particles would surround the earth and be extended in all directions therefrom. If they be of the same or of similar nature to those which in my experiments are seen to line up in a magnetic field (the observations on the novel magneto- optical effect described in NATURE of June 23, 1921, p. 520), then the zodiacal light, which is seen best at places near the equator and at times of vernal and autumnal equinoxes, might be explained as follows: The magnetic field lines of the earth joining the north and south areas outside the earth would, at the equator, lie sensibly parallel to the earth's axis, but at a great height, on the average, above the surface of the earth. This is illustrated in the subjoined diagram (Fig. 1), which indicates the general trend of the earth's magnetic field (one side only) all around the earth in the space about it.The dots in Fig. 2 do not represent floating particles, but are intended to show only that if one could look at a po1e of the earth from a great distance and see a section through the equatorial plane, the lines of force of Fig. 1 might be indicated as dots in the equatoriil plane. Now let the sun's rays be from below; it will be seen that they intersect the direction of the magnetic lines at nearly right angles. Now, further, let us by some means render visible in the polar beam the magnetic field about the earth; it will become apparent that it will be best seen by observers after twilight at night and before twilight in the morning best at the time of the equinoxes and best in the tropical night. On the average, the observer placed at about a or b looking upward, will be well placed for such observation, and the column of light will extend from c to d on the evening side, and from e to f on the Morning side, or over an angle of about 60V altitude, more or less. It may, therefore, appear as a plausible hypothesis that the luminous effect known as the zodiacal light or the Gegenschein may be of the same nature as that observed in the combination of magnetic field, light beam, and iron smoke from an arc, as described in 1921 in NATURE. If the zodiacal light is polarised in the same way as the light from the iron smoke is polarised, and undergoes the same variations by variations in the direction of viewing it, these circumstances might assist in identification.There has been no opportunity to make any observations on this point. As the luminosity of the zodiacal light is low, although coming from a great depth of space around the earth, there would not need to exist, for pro- ducing the effect, more than an exceedingly small density in the iron par- tides concerned, a density perhaps millions of times less than in my original experiments on the magneto-optical effect. It has been shown also that the orientation which is the cause of increased luminosity in the light beam is producible by a very weak magnetic field. That the direction of viewing is transverse to that of the light beam, and that the magnetic field lines are. transverse both to the directions of viewing and the light beam, are significant facts. More and varied observations and experiments are certainly warranted in this fascinating field [see NATURE of Oct. 22, p. 581].It will be seen that the hypothesis presented does not require any ring formation around the earth. It requires only that the general space surrounding the sun and planets contain an exceedingly small density of diffused iron particles, capable of being affected or oriented when in the magnetic field surrounding the earth, in which case they reflect the light of the sun to observers on the earth who are in favoured relation to them. Moreover, it may well be that the magnetism of the earth would tend to concentrate such iron particles, if any, in the space around it. If we have found a clue to the observed effects, further observations and investigations may confirm or oppose the hypothesis presented.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120692a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature

摘要:

WHILE appreciating M. Deslandres's concluding paragraph of his letter in NATURE of Oct. 8, and reverting first to the problem of the equal spacing of magnetic disturbances, synchronous with corresponding spacing of solar longitudes, I am afraid my studies, to which he kindly alludes inComptes rendusfor Sept. 1926, came to a stop for reasons of the statistical material I up to then could work upon, failing me. Nor can I dispose of the required magnetic recording apparatus of the kind used at Meudon, and I was wholly confined to the Greenwich spot records, and to my own observations of eruptive phenomena either at the limb or on the disc. The first diagrammatic representation of this phenomenon which I made covers the minimum period, section from July 1913 to Dec. 31, 1914, and I found that my method for a maximum activity period resulted in great diagrammatic complication, not to say confusion. All the same, I felt from the first convinced that I was by no means dealing with an accidental phenomenon, and I am therefore very hopeful that the method used at Meudon will ultimately be completely successful.M. Deslandres's proposition of an interior solar sphere, rotating like a solid, is very fascinating, and has, as an a priori assumption, many points of merit, but on the other hand also raises other difficulties. One of these is how to reconcile the equatorial acceleration with a deeper seated level, which rotates with equal angular speed in all latitudes. What becomes of the striking independence of activity for the two hemispheres, when for months at a stretch scarcely a spot, or a substantial prominence, appears in the north, or in the south ? Certainly the observational fact remains, that pronounced activity may be con- fined for long periods within a very limited range of longitude and latitude; but even then great variations occur, which seem to preclude the idea of stationary eruptive, even intermittently eruptive, volcanoes. Diagrams I have made, covering many years, show these latitude changes for successive rotations perfectly plainly. At Stonyhurst they carry on a method of tabulation, which shows the changes in longitude and latitude on the same diagram. Can M. IJesiandres offer a physical explanation of these changes, retaining the interior sphere which in his opinion gives birth to the solar spot and rotates as a solid would ? M. Deslandres refers to the difficulty of explaining the much lower temperature of solar spots. Nothing has occurred since I began to observe the sun thirty years ago, which upset my initial conviction that the evidence of the spectroseope in this respect is mislead- ing. It should be rememberect that when examining the sunspot spectrum, we allow combined light to pass into the instrument, not only that radiated by the spot-umbra and lower down, but also from great altitudes above the spot, all in the direct line of sight. Now my contention is that heaped up above the spot- umbra and its vicinity there are the gases of the uppermost and coolest layers of the sun's atmosphere, as in fact the photographic representations of the solar vortices intimate. These photographs receive their design from the dark absorptively acting filaments at great altitude, converging and descending towards the spot in precisely the same way as the cloud trunk does in the terrestrial tornado, or in the water- spout phenomenon. The trunk of the solar tornado can be seen directly in many cases of active solar spots and gives rise to the claw effect so well illustrated in W. C. D. Whetham's book, " The Recent Develop- ment of Physical Science," but the spectroscopic explanation is erroneous, as given on page 308. All this points directly to the screening from the terrestrial observer of the umbral level by a concentration of relatively cool gaseous masses above the spot. I have yet to see the observational, or physical, refutation of the late Mr. Wilson's temperature measurements of solar spots carried on at Daramona in 1895, which indicated the spot radiation at the limb to be relatively higher than when the spots were central. I submit that if M. Deslandres dismisses the theory of sunspots being cooler than their surroundings, at the level of the photosphere, he will find several problems easier of comprehension and explanation.Nor do many phenomena in connexion with prominences admit of the dogma, that the sun is a truly gaseous body. Such types of eruptive prominences as the fascinating, clean-cut parabolic jets, are irreconcilable with a genuine gaseous state, and point at best to a quasi-gaseous-cum-quasi-liquid interior condition. The magnetic field seems to me to be induced mechanically by the whirling vortex, and I have seen on more than one occasion on the sun's limb an exact and complete representation of the con- verging luminous H filaments, as represented in Dr. StOrmer's theoretical diagram, page 31, No. 109, of the Mount Wilson Contributions, these luminous lines strikingly representing the magnetic lines of force. The creation of a magnetic field about sun- spots by the vortex appears to me a direct result of the violent temperature changes which are going on. Thus, for example, the conduction of hot steam into cool water means abrupt condensation and is accompanied by strong electric effects, particularly notice- able when the vessel containing the cool water is fairly well insulated. I have often wondered why this simple experiment has not been followed up and made use of industrially. Once electric effects are admitted in connexion with, and due to violent temperature changes, it does not appear very difficult to understand the possibility of attraction and repulsion effects also.

ISSN:0028-0836    

DOI:10.1038/120693a0

出版商:Nature Publishing Group    

年代:1927

数据来源: Nature