Science in Australia.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 202, 29 September 1888, Page 2

Science in Australia.

[fbom OUB OWN COBRESPONDENT.] Sydney,.Sept 15. The meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science is an event that will be remembered as the inaugu. ration of an important movement. Society looks to Science with a devotion that is almost pathetic, and any crude or recklesg scheme or theory which usurps the sacred name is sure of an eager reception by credulous thousands. Society is right in this, that Science means knowledge, and right knowledge is indispensable to right action. Right action again is indispensable to prosperity and happiness, whether of the individual or the community. Therefore, although the fundamental position is often ignored the popular reverence for science has a sound basis, though unfortunately, few people know enough or care enough to separate trua science from charlatanry or pedantry. The one robs the community whilst impudently pretending to benefit it. The other is absolutely and totally useless. However, to cut short further moralising I may say that the Australian Science of the preien’t day was very fairly represented by the Association. Every colony sent its most eminent men and over a hundred papers on almost every conceivable subject under the sun were read. Mr 11. C. Russell, our Government astronomer, presided, and prominent parts were taken by Sir James Hector, and others. Picnics, excursions, garden parties, and entertainments of all sorts have been numerous, and the eight hundred and odd members who were present will have no occasion to complain of the hospitality of Sydney. As a scientific gathering for the display of knowledge and the exchange of kindly courtesies it has been an immense success, which is perhaps all that could reasonably bo expected of it.

But is it really all that ought to be expected ? Are we not told that Science is to be the saviour of modern generations? If anyone cherishes in reality a hope which is often made the subject of glowing images and metaphors he won’t get much encouragement from an attentive consideration of the programme. There was a time when the Churoh made similar claims to those which are now advanced on behalf of what styles itself “ Science.” And by way of carrying out their high mission we are told that learned theologians disputed for years aa to how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, and topics of similar importance. Our modern schoolmen don’t do this, it is true. They investigate tha " pineal eye," the " stelosppngus flabolliformia,” or other breakjaw topics which are as far from the warm throbbing heart of humanity as anything that the theologians ever devised. Social subjects, it is true, were dealt with, but, generally speaking, it was in an amateurism, vague, sentimental, halfhearted kind of way, from which no good results either can be, or are expected, Conscientious labour and careful induction of course bring their own reward to thi worker, whatever the subj-ct on which he ic engaged. But those ivho are concerned with the condition of the body politic, its count, less and remediable ills, look upon many of the subjects dear to “Science” as mare elaborate trifling.