A DIFFERENCE

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1922, Page 9

A DIFFERENCE

SCIENCE AND HISTORY

CRITICISM OF THE MASTER OF BALLIOL

"DEFECT OF THE ENGLISH MIND."

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON, 10th January.

At tha Science Masters' Association the Master of Balliol (Mr. A.. L. Smith) delivered an address on science and history, which, -while full of points calculated to give rise to hard thinking, created much laughter. He said that science could, and ought to be, one of the humanities; but that, since science was able to predict and history could not, he was unable to allow that history was science. There was considerable disproportion between the encouragement given to both science and history and to classical subjects. Thirty-seven scholarships at Oxford for ' all branches of natural science, as against 108 for Greek and Latin, was fairly disproportionate. The cause of science had been hampered by the position which was assigned by the teaching profession and in the schools to the science master. He ranked very little above the French master— (laughter) —and lower than that in their recollection they could not go. (Renewed laughter.) The cause had been hindered by the impenitent imbecility of some highly placed personages who told the • Commission of Science that the teaching of science w«s not needed in the Army either for officers or other ranks. (Laughter.) ' One objection urged against the teaching of science was tho amount of time required. He did not think that objection was very -valid. At Oxford they were quite prepared to' cut off some of the time wasted in the most unnecessary part of classical work. Some of the time passed in somnolent inattention in large public schools might also be utilised in science teaching, which was interesting to the boys. Such teaching in science would tend to cure the greatest defect of the English mind. The Germans had got a:respect for knowledge, and they often respected it in a rather blundering way. (Laughter.) Englishmen did not respect knowledge as such. They must get rid of the idea that there was conflict between practice and theory. This idea was ludicrous because no one could do anything without some knowledge o£ .what he Was doing. There was, perhaps, some justification for the English contempt of experts-(laughter)-but they had to get rid of being proud of muddling through, for in the war we nearly did not muddle through. In England there was too much emphasis placed on bookish education; the real doing of the thing was important. A Frenchman had asked why children were so interested and interesting, amd why grown-ups were so dull. The answer given was education." (Laughter.) Children wanted to see things and .to 1 know why the "blessed thing went off and got me in the eye." (Laughter.) Natural curiosity would be a great help if it were used and encouraged.- Science could be made part of a humane education. THE FACTS OF SCIENCE. -We said that truth, always prevailed in the end; but sometimes it was "in the end." . A great lawyer once said that the advantage of Jiis profession in drawing up wills was that the mistakes were only found out thirty years after he hadl been, as he elegantly phrased, "turfed." ( Laughter.) If they, applied the test to the clerical profession —but lid must be allowed to break off. (Loud laughter.) •The most, adroit Parliamentary dfebater could not get.over> the facts, of science, which, was rather' a comforting .reflection.. (Laughter.). There were many things we only submitted to and accepted 1, because we did not see them with seeing eyes. The- war made the people of this country realise the value of life owing to the waste of it. 'The;loss of 100,000 infant lives each year'had come home to them in a new'way. (Cheers.) Another great value of science, only lately realised, was the manner in which it might be treated on the biographical side. He instanced the "Life" of Pas-., teur, which' was instinct with personality. Such a side could always be made attractive to the young, who loved; character, the sense of drama, the human struggle, and: the continuity of human effort slowly building up the continuity of things. As one living among young people^—undergraduates—he knew that they were apt to think that the whole world was born when they were bom. , (Laughter.) LESSONS OP HISTORY. History was the training of the jmagination, which most people seemed to think was something not quite respectable and a little flighty. (Laughter.) The first lesson was to warn us against false assumption, such as • receiving a staTt on landing at Calais to hear the children speaking French. 1 (Laughter.) When a hoy found that Cromwell was constantly reading the Bible he 'quite properly exclaimed, "Confounded hum-' bug"—(laughter)—not realising that the Bible was the only piece of English literature available in Cromwell's day. History trained the judgment, and children had judgment, though they needed to have it trained. Younu people were apt to be too hasty in their generalisations. They liked to go about with a bludgeon "as if they they were young Macaulays 'or sucking Froudes. The study of history checked that. History showed how good came out of evil, .but how disastrous it was to do evil in the hope that good would follow. History also gave the power of estimating evidence.. History was now critical, which had led people to complain of losing all the good stories.. One complaint was that King Alfred was the person who discovered you could not burn your cako at both ends and eat it. (Laughter.) That recalled to his mind how a professor asked a pupil what King Alfred would think of Home Rule. The boy replied that if King Alfred were alive he would be too old to take an interest in politics. (Laughter.) The cakes, etc., had . not really gone. As : legends they had even greater ■. value than I what they had when they we're accepted as history. ■ . -

The master remembered hearing ' a young man on leaving a lecture at Oxford exclaim airily : "Well, the Church was always the enemy of education, was it not?" He was a little surprised, and did not quite know at that time—it was a little after midnight—(laughter)—how to deal with it. He pointed to, the colleges and asked the i'oung man who he thought built them? He replied: "Oh, I see what you mean." That was a very stupid generalisation in a : place like Oxford.' (Laughter.) Generalisations got punished if they were too hasty, and that was very desirable for young people. Another creat thing about history was hopefulness. Very often there was a curious tendency in schoolboys, and even girls, to a kind of stupid mock cynicism. They said that public men were always the same—humbugs. (Laughter.) "Always" was rather strong, even to the present situation. (Laughter.) SOUTH AFRICA AND IRELAND. In studying history they saw how evil might lead to good. Out of the war in South Africa, whiclv was an evil thing, had come the Union of South Africa, which was going to be of very great importance to the world. He* might be touching on controversial ground, but

could anyone read the history of Ireland as an historical student without very mingled feelings? A great admiration for the early history heroes and poets of the country and remorse for wasted opportunity ; but, on the whole, the feeling was hopeful, and it was not undesirable to cherish it, if we could, at the present moment. (Cheers.) History was essential to citizenship. They must teaph the child that the smallest individual life belonged to the national life, which was so great and age-long. The war had very much intensified the sense of the membership of the community, and the great post-war problems could only be solved by the greater deepening of that sense. HISTORY NOT SCIENCE.

With regard to the claim that there should be a science of history, it was true that in the last .500. years history had developed a new phase, and had passed from the romantic to the scientific stage. It no longer dealt with dramatic incident, stirring scenes, and delineation of individual character. Its aim was to be critical and sceptical; to penetrate causes, to analyse affairs; and to know the irievitableness of their results. But could historical generalisation enable them to predict future events? Science ought to be able to predict, but if anyone could predict the history of any country in the next ten years he would be ready to listen to him. Science could predict, but history could not, and until that happened he could not allow that history was science. (Loud cheers.)