Kitabı oku: «The Scientific Basis of National Progress, Including that of Morality», sayfa 9

The chief method of discovering new truth is that of observation, experiment, and study, and further mental treatment of the results. The most systematic methods also of evolving new truths are those employed by scientific men in making discoveries, and when any person arrives at a new idea, he usually (either consciously or unconsciously) employs them.

The acquisition of new knowledge must of necessity precede its diffusion. Immediately a new truth, especially an important one, is discovered, its influence begins to permeate the existing mass of knowledge in various directions, causing us to view many of our old ideas in a new aspect; giving rise also by comparison and inference, and by processes of combination, permutation and analysis of ideas, to a multitude of other new truths, usually less important ones, which themselves also affect previous knowledge in similar ways, and by analogous treatment give rise to additional new conceptions.

But although we evolve truthful new conceptions from previous ones by these purely mental methods, there is a limit to the number capable of being evolved from a limited stock of ideas, because the number of combinations and permutations of such a stock, though usually large, are themselves limited. The number however is large in proportion to the degree of essential importance of the ideas, and is greatest when we employ those of the fundamental principles of nature, already referred to; for instance a greater number of new ideas have been evolved by means of appropriate mental processes from the law of gravitation and from that of electro-magnetism than from any minor truth in science. Persons therefore who are the least familiar with great demonstrable principles are usually the least able to conceive new truthful ideas of intrinsic importance, or to draw new verifiable inferences of much theoretical value.

Every inventor and student knows that he continually requires new materials of thought, and if he does not obtain them, an obstacle, like a wall of adamant, rises before his mind in all directions, and prevents his forming new ideas. That also which is true of each individual is true of the collection of individuals, mankind; if new truths are not obtained, the thoughts of men flow in circles, and mental progress ceases. The mental characteristics of sequestered communities in remote isolated districts, are examples of this fact. The influence of printing, railways, telegraphs, postal communication and other scientific developments, in aiding mental progress, afford other illustrations. A multitude of facts of this kind, and many others, leads us to the conclusion that each new idea requires a cause to produce it, and that human knowledge is subject to the great law of causation; also that the creation of an idea out of nothing would be a miracle, a phenomenon without a cause. Our present knowledge was not created by us, but was originated by previous knowledge and experience, including of course inherited impressions. Even in what is termed the "noblest effort of the mind," an act of reasoning or inference, we do not create an idea, but only render explicit in a new form of words, ideas already implicitly contained in the words of the propositions employed, as may easily be rendered manifest by mechanical means in Jevons's "Logical Machine;" a proper inference never contains more than its data. In the so-called "creation" of ideas by the imagination also, the new ideas are evolved from old ones, and rendered explicit by mental processes of analysis, combination, permutation, &c. Our scientific inventions also, being mental conceptions, an unlimited number of them cannot be made by means of a limited stock of old knowledge. It was in consequence of this limit, viz., the impossibility of actually creating ideas out of nothing, that human knowledge was not more advanced by metaphysical speculations until science with its experiments and observations came to its assistance. These various facts prove the statement made in the Preface of this book, that present knowledge only enables mankind to maintain its present state.

Not only the mental, but also the physical advance of mankind is essentially dependent upon the discovery of new truths. Men's physical actions are determined not alone by their inherited and acquired tendencies and the influence of external nature upon them, but also by their ideas; as a man thinks, so also to a large extent does he act. Nations who do not adopt new ideas do not either mentally or physically advance, but change only so far as their immediate surroundings change; the Chinese are a remarkable example of this; even the tendencies which men inherit, were largely produced in their ancestors by the influence of ideas. The great fact of the essential dependence of human progress upon new knowledge, is a truth, the importance of which to man cannot be over-estimated, and is one which statesmen, ministers of religion, and philanthropists should seriously study.

Much of the apparent advance of this nation however is not real. The great bulk of our newly published knowledge, even that which is scientific, and considered by the public to be new, consists, not of new truths, but of old ones dressed in new forms of expression: —

 
"The tale repeated o'er and o'er,
With change of place and change of name.
Disguised, transformed, and yet the same
We've heard a hundred times before." —Longfellow.
 

It falls to the lot of but comparatively few men to discover or evolve important new truths. The great majority of learned men also, have through all historic time been occupied, and are still, not in evolving new ideas, but in re-expressing old ones in different forms of words; the literary spirit, is in civilised nations, almost universal. In ordinary writings it is a rare circumstance to meet with an important and really new idea; it is usually in books written by men who are acquainted or imbued with the great principles and truths of science, that the newest demonstrable ideas are most frequently found. The difference between evolving new ideas, and re-expressing and permutating old ones; largely characterises the dissimilarity of the scientific and the literary and theological minds. All however are necessary to the welfare of mankind, the former to advance and the other to maintain the condition of man. If all were not necessary they would probably not exist.

There are two great artificial divisions of scientific knowledge also, upon the development of which national progress largely depends, viz., knowledge of inanimate matter and knowledge of man; the latter we have largely cultivated but the former we have greatly neglected: – and even our study of man has been largely one-sided and literary. It is far less important to know what is man, than to know what are the great principles which underlie the actions of all living creatures, and in obedience to which man is compelled to work out his destiny in the Universe and the infinite future.

It is evident from this, that much of the mental activity around us is not progress, but rather a process of maintaining present state, a prevention of decline, a continually going round and round in conventional varied step, a kind of intellectual mill. Under these circumstances it is not the original discoverer, but he who in this occupation, can best express old ideas, in the most varied forms and choicest language, who is most generally considered to be the greatest intellectual chief.

Although originality even in literature and art is very imperfectly encouraged in this country, both art and literature are much more readily understood and appreciated than scientific research, and treated as if they were more important. Whilst most persons can understand and appreciate the gift of a work of art to a public art collection, few can understand or properly value the discovery and gift of a new scientific truth of far greater intrinsic value to the public stock of knowledge; the treatment received by Priestley and other discoverers in comparison with that of local donors, sufficiently illustrates this. Even publishers of lucrative newspapers prefer to give prizes and pay liberally for sensational tales, than to pay for articles on the public advantages of new scientific knowledge.

CHAPTER IV.
The Promotion of Scientific Research

Nearly the whole of the most distinguished mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, and physiologists of Great Britain, also the Earl of Derby, the Marquis of Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote and many other eminent men, have given evidence before the Royal Commissioners on "Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science"²³ to the following effect: —1st. That the promotion of original scientific research is neglected in this country. 2nd. That such research is encouraged more by the State in Germany than here. And 3rd. That much greater encouragement of it by our Government, by the Universities and the Public, is highly necessary to our commercial prosperity. They have also stated in evidence their opinions as to the best ways in which they consider it may be assisted. The additional fact that all the greatest scientific men who have ever existed have pursued research, and sacrificed much for it, is a practical proof that they also approved of its encouragement.

That research should be promoted is further the opinion of many men learned in politics, literature, art, and science. The views expressed in numerous letters on the subject, received by me from Members of the Privy Council, and of both Houses of Parliament, and from other eminent persons, confirm this. It has also been adopted as a chief part of the programme of the "Association for the Organization of Academical Study."²⁴

"M. de Candolle, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Science, Paris, is a strong advocate for the encouragement of a class of sinecurists like the non-working Fellows of our Colleges, who should have leisure to investigate and not be pestered by the petty mechanical work of continued teaching and examining." "The modern ideas of democracy are adverse to places to which definite work is not attached, and from which definite results do not flow. This principle is a wise one for the mass of mankind; but is utterly misplaced when applied to those who have the zeal for investigation, and who work best when left quite alone."

The correctness of the principle of promoting research is also recognised by our Governments in their yearly grants of money to the Royal Society, and to the Royal Irish Academy²⁵ to aid research, also by the Council of the Chemical Society, which has established a fund for the same purpose; and by the British Association in their annual grants for the promotion of scientific enquiry. The Fishmonger's Company also presented to Mr. W. R. Parker, F.R.S., the sum of £50, followed by an annual gift of £20 for the three years, to assist him in bearing the expenses of his researches on the skulls of vertebrate animals. And the British Pharmaceutical Conference voted the sum of £80 from the Bell and Hills fund, during the period of three years, in aid of research in connection with pharmaceutical science. A small fund for the purpose of research exists also at the Royal Institution. Fellowships also with a similar object have been founded at the Victoria University. Dr. Priestley also was aided in his researches by contributions from a small circle of friends. In recognition of the same principle, nearly all of the most eminent scientific men on the Continent have been assisted by their respective Governments. The total amount of aid to research in this country is however very small, and to one acquainted with the great commercial and other any valuable results of such labour, it is simply astounding that we have not systematically organized a powerful means of promoting discovery.

A few scientific persons however still continue to oppose aid to research; quite recently, scientific investigators have been spoken of as a class of "men amusing themselves without any result whatever."²⁶ That idea however abundantly refuted in the foregoing pages. It has also been remarked²⁷ that "practically, endowment of research comes to the creation of positions where there is payment without corresponding labour." "In England above all countries in the world, there will always be plenty of amateurs ready and willing to assist in research, and it is notorious that in England, almost without exception, all the great advances in science have been made by such amateurs. Therefore I do not think it at all desirable that the British tax-payer should be required to put his hand in his pocket to provide salaries for gentlemen who might be working rightly or wrongly. He could not control them, and while there are such a body of amateurs in the country, I think the researches may be very well left to them."

The first of these statements is not correct; the endowment of research does not amount to "payment without corresponding labour." Scientific discoverers have always been distinguished as a body of men intensely devoted to their labours, and willing to perform much work for small payment. Most of the great advances in science also in England, have been made not by "amateurs," but by men of great experience, such as Newton, Herschel, Priestley, Davy, Faraday, Graham, and many others. Endowment of research is not desired for wealthy amateurs, but for investigators of proved ability and small pecuniary means and who require assistance. Such men, although not infallible, are the least likely to "work wrongly," and much less likely to do so than amateurs. Many scientific investigators also of repute, object to give their services wholly to a wealthy nation, because they cannot afford to do so, and because it is only just that the nation should make them some pecuniary return for their skill and labour. The great evils in this country requiring new knowledge to remedy them²⁸ also prove that there are not "plenty of amateurs ready and willing to assist in research here," or that "the researches may be very well left to them."

Whilst some investigators have had abundant means to carry on research, and have excelled in that occupation, many of the most eminent have been persons of limited circumstances; and their insufficient pecuniary means has often restricted their degree of success. The argument also that insufficiency of means stimulates research, is only employed by persons who are not making investigations under such a condition.

The President of the Royal Society, Dr. Spottiswoode, in his recent address²⁹ also remarked: – "The question has been raised whether it be wise, even in the interests of science, to encourage any one not yet of independent income, to interrupt the main business of his life. It is too often assumed that a profession or a business may be worked at half speed, or may be laid down and taken up again, whenever we like. But this is not so, and a profession temporarily, or even partially laid aside, may prove irrecoverable, and the temptation to diverge from the dull and laborious path of business may prove to have been a snare." Each of these remarks appears to be made upon the assumption that it is still a doubtful question whether persons qualified for research should be encouraged or not to abandon occupations they reluctantly follow, and for which they are less fitted, in order to become scientific discoverers. As it is a fact that the welfare of this country is suffering through deficiency of encouragement of research, it is certainly desirable to encourage, by every proper means, qualified persons to occupy themselves in such labour. Some of the greatest discoveries have been made by men "not yet of independent income," for instance, those made by Scheele, Priestley, Dalton, Faraday, W. Herschel, and many others.

The late Astronomer Royal, also,³⁰ who has made many researches, and was a scientific official paid by the State, says: – "I think that successful researches have in nearly every instance originated with private persons, or with persons whose positions were so nearly private that the investigators acted under private influence, without incurring the danger attending connection with the State. Certainly I do not consider a Government is justified in endeavouring to force, at public expense, investigations of undefined character, and, at best, of doubtful utility; and I think it probable that any such attempt will lead to consequences disreputable to science. The very utmost, in my opinion, to which the State should be expected to contribute, is exhibited in the large grants intrusted to the Royal Society. The world, I think, is not unanimous in believing that they have been useful." He then enumerates what he considers "the proper foundations of claims upon the State," which he illustrates, and substantially includes in and limits by, the kinds of scientific research done under his direction at the Royal Observatory. He further adds – "The Royal Observatory was founded expressly for a definite utilitarian purpose (the promotion of navigation) necessarily connected with the highest science. And this utilitarian purpose has been steadily kept in view for two centuries, and is now followed with greater vigour than ever before. To its original plan have also been added – but still in the utilitarian sense – the publication of time, the broader observation of terrestrial magnetism, and local meteorology." His views therefore appear to be, that State aid to research should be limited to utilitarian objects; and that it is with propriety given to his own department, which is connected with the State. It has however been abundantly proved that nearly all the great scientific utilities of every-day life, had their origin in the pursuit, not of utilities, but of pure truth, and that immediate usefulness is neither the most successful nor the highest motive in scientific research, nor should research be limited by so narrow a condition. The investigations also made by the aid of Government Grants possess the usual degree of definiteness and of utility of such labours, and it cannot be reasonably expected that the world would be unanimous respecting any measure, especially respecting a subject so little understood by the public as the Endowment of Research.

If investigators were to limit their researches to utilities, or what appeared to be such, scarcely any essentially new experiments or new discoveries of importance would be made. No attempts would be made to discover essentially novel facts, nor would many trials be made to test fundamental abstract questions which affect the very basis of scientific knowledge. The principles of electro-magnetism, of magneto-electric action, and of the magnetic rotation of polarized light, were each discovered by means of perfectly novel experiments, in which immediate utility was not the motive.

It is worthy of notice that of the very small proportion of scientific investigators who disapprove of State aid to Research, nearly every one already possesses sufficient pecuniary means to carry on investigations, and therefore cannot adequately appreciate the position and necessities of investigators having only small incomes. In some cases also the objections to aid investigators come from scientific men who have attempted to make discoveries but have not succeeded.

Dr. Robinson of Armagh, a well-known investigator, has very properly pointed out³¹ what has been done in this country towards giving assistance to those engaged in the pursuit of science, and mentions the Observatories maintained by the Universities and by the Nation. He says also that if anything more were to be done in increasing the amount of grants of money to assist scientific work, he thinks "it might be best applied in establishing in the great commercial centres of the realm, physical and chemical laboratories such as that which the Duke of Devonshire has established at Cambridge, provided with the most refined apparatus, and accessible to all who are considered privileged by a competent tribunal." He also says "when there is found a man so far surpassing his fellows in any department of science that he may be expected to do work beyond their power, he ought to be made independent of any other pursuit, so that none of his time and energy may be lost, such a case is exceptional, and when it occurs it should be exceptionally provided for."

Original research will for a long time to come, be opposed by a large section of the non-scientific public: – by the numerous persons whose source of income depends upon the ignorance of their fellow-men: – by those who are deficient of faith in demonstrable truth, and fear that their most cherished beliefs are endangered by it: – and by many of those who are insufficiently acquainted with it to perceive its great value to mankind.

With regard to the fears of many objectors that the Endowment of Research would lead to jobbery and abuses, and thus retard the progress of discovery instead of promoting it; it is evident that such a risk is an inseparable concomitant of every remunerated office and is not peculiar to that of research, and must therefore be accepted as unavoidable and be provided against in the usual ways. It does not however appear probable that the risk in this respect is at all greater than that already existing and provided against in many other appointments.

Many persons, not clearly perceiving the difference between pure research and other scientific occupations, suppose that because science is encouraged in various ways in this country; and because sums of money are occasionally given to scientific institutions, and some scientific men are evidently receiving good incomes, that discoverers are remunerated, but this is a great mistake; there is probably not a scientific man in the kingdom who is wholly employed in such work in abstract physics or chemistry, and paid for his entire skill, time, and labour. Wherever payment is made for scientific labour, it is nearly always for that performed with a view to some immediate practical application. Inventors and expositors are remunerated, but discoverers are not.

At the present time in this country scientific men are paid for teaching, lecturing, writing popular scientific articles, compiling scientific books, editing scientific journals, making chemical analyses and experiments for manufacturers, companies, and others, for practical purposes, or to obtain evidence for legal cases, giving evidence on scientific subjects in courts of law, with consultations and advice to manufacturers and others, superintending scientific commercial undertakings, &c. Some also unfortunately obtain an income and cheap publicity by the empirical contrivance of selling to tradesmen, their scientific opinions in the form of testimonials which are extensively advertised at the cost of the purchasers. But not one of these occupations constitutes pure research, or is an immediate source of new discoveries. Payment is made for all kinds of scientific labour which will immediately benefit individuals or corporations, but very little for pure investigation, and nearly every inducement exists to attract men of science from pursuing such labour.

It might be supposed that investigators would patent or sell their discoveries; but discoveries in pure science cannot usually be patented or sold, because they have not been converted by invention into commercial commodities. New scientific truth is utterly unsaleable; no one will purchase it. Whilst the real or intrinsic value of it is great, its extrinsic value is small and is the sum of money it will sell for in the market. No one would have purchased Oersted's great discovery of electro-magnetism. It would also be less to public advantage if investigators were to neglect discovering new knowledge in order to apply that knowledge to practical uses. It requires a different training of mental power to discover new truths, than to utilize them by means of invention, teaching or lecturing; and men who can invent and instruct are far more numerous than those who are able to discover. Discoveries are also generally much more valuable than inventions, because a single discovery (that of gutta percha for example) not unfrequently forms the basis of many inventions. Discoverers not unfrequently meet with new facts which they perceive might be applied to valuable technical uses, but they hesitate to patent them because the process of invention, taking out a patent, seeking a manufacturer to work it, and protecting their patent from piracy, would occupy a large portion of their time, and take them away from research. Sir D. Brewster got no money by patenting his kaleidoscope because the patent was instantly pirated in all directions.

Some persons have suggested that scientific men should keep their discoveries secret, but this would usually be a greater disadvantage to the investigator even than publishing them, and no one would then derive any benefit; discoveries also, being often capable of numerous applications, and not being in a saleable shape, cannot usually be monopolised by any one. New scientific knowledge is like a powerful light, it cannot be hidden. Discoveries are eminently national knowledge, and research should therefore be national employment.

Other persons suppose that investigators should be satisfied with the fame of their discoveries, and not require any payment; but this is a most unfair supposition, because no man can live without means, and every useful person deserves to be paid for his labour. Ought the late Duke of Wellington to have been satisfied with the fame alone of his exploits, without being paid any salary? Ought a Bishop to be content with the renown of his eloquence, without receiving any payment for his services? Genius alone is appropriately rewarded by fame, but time, unusual skill, labour and expenditure, should be repaid by money.

It has been suggested that an investigator, if he is a man of practical ability, is very often put into an office, the duties of which he can efficiently discharge, and yet have leisure for original research, as in the case of the late Dr. Graham, the eminent Master of the Mint,³² our Astronomers Royal, &c., and thus obtain his reward. But this is a very imperfect plan, because research is very difficult, and to be carried out effectually, requires the whole of a man's time and attention; the investigator would also be taken from more important work to do that which is of less value to the nation, and which might be performed by a more suitable person; appointments also of the kind referred to are much too few in number. Such a plan as this, of relegating important national work to odd hours spared from official duties, is a makeshift, and quite unworthy of this nation. Entire occupation in research, combined with efficient publication of the results, is the only satisfactory plan of procedure.

Probably one of the most satisfactory ways of rewarding scientific discoverers and serving national interests at the same time, would be to create salaried professorships of original research, and appoint discoverers of repute to fill them.

The time is near at hand when this nation will be compelled by the injurious consequences arising from its neglect of scientific research, to acquire a knowledge of the relations of science to national existence and welfare, and to adopt some means of encouraging discovery. The greatest difficulty, probably, which has to be overcome, is not so much how to obtain funds for the purpose, as how to employ them successfully, and especially how to prevent their getting into the hands of unsuitable persons. But, as methods have been found of remunerating all other classes of persons, ways may be devised of remunerating scientific investigators. It is only because the case is novel that it seems difficult; it is probably no more intrinsically difficult to establish a professorship of research than to found an ecclesiastical benefice.

The great difficulty of determining from what source discoverers should be paid for their labours, arises from the fact that all classes of the community share in the benefit. It is evident they should in some measure be paid from a source towards which all classes either directly or indirectly contribute, and therefore from some public fund. The persons who first use scientific knowledge are the compilers of scientific books, and teachers of science; but these only disseminate the knowledge, and do not derive from it any great pecuniary advantage, they are only the agents for supplying the knowledge to others. The persons who first convert such knowledge into valuable commercial commodities are inventors and manufacturers who have received scientific education or advice; but those who derive the greatest pecuniary benefit from it, and who should therefore either directly or indirectly pay in the largest degree for it, are the great manufacturers, capitalists, and landowners. Whilst the question is being settled as to what class of persons shall primarily bear the expense of research, discoverers themselves are suffering great injustice, and our manufactures and commerce are passing into the hands of foreign nations. What the amount of loss and disadvantage suffered by this nation, through want of encouragement of scientific enquiry is, cannot be estimated, but it is certainly enormous. Had even a very moderate amount of payment been made for such labour, and the expenses out of pocket paid in full, the amount of research performed would have been greatly increased.

Under present circumstances, many promising young men, fitted to become good investigators, have been driven out of science altogether. I have found by long experience and persistent enquiry, that there are many young men distributed over this country, who are very desirous of engaging in scientific research, and likely to make good investigators, but are entirely prevented by the non-remunerative character of the labour, every one wishes to know "what will it lead to"? Even amongst our most able discoverers, scarcely one who has not possessed private means has continued research beyond the middle age of life, because such labour enables no provision to be made for old age; and all those who have left have devoted themselves to less important but more lucrative occupations. Most of these gentlemen have been obliged to abandon research at a period of life when their faculties were in the most perfect state for continuing it.