Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 19.djvu/800

780 And as practical men were, in this instance, incompetent judges of the value of scientific facts, so were men of science at fault when they missed the discovery of anæsthetics. Year after year the influences of laughing-gas and of ether were shown: the one fell to the level of the wonders displayed by itinerant lecturers, students made fun with the other; they were the merest practical men, men looking for nothing but what might be straightway useful, who made the great discovery which has borne fruit not only in the mitigation of suffering, but in a wide range of physiological science.

The history of science has many similar facts, and they may teach that any man will be both wise and dutiful if he will patiently and thoughtfully do the best he can in the field of work in which, whether by choice or chance, his lot is cast. There let him, at least, search for truth, reflect on it, and record it accurately; let him imitate that accuracy and completeness of which I think we may boast that we have, in the descriptions of the human body, the highest instance yet attained in any branch of knowledge. Truth so recorded can not remain barren.

In thus speaking of the value of careful observation and records of facts, I seem to be in agreement with the officers of all the sections; for, without any intended consent, they have all proposed such subjects for discussion as can be decided only by well-directed facts and fair direct inductions from them. There are no questions on theories or mere doctrines. This, I am sure, may be ascribed, not to any disregard of the value of good reasoning or of reasonable hypotheses, but partly to the just belief that such things are ill-suited for discussion in large meetings, and partly to the fact that we have no great opponent schools, no great parties named after leaders or leading doctrines about which we are in the habit of disputing. In every section the discussions are to be on definite questions, which, even if they be associated with theory or general doctrines, may yet be soon brought to the test of fact; there is to be no use of doctrinal touchstones.

I am speaking of no science but our own. I do not doubt that in others there is advantage in dogma, or in the guidance of a central organizing power, or in divisions and conflicting parties. But in the medical sciences I believe that the existence of parties founded on dominant theories has always been injurious; a sign of satisfaction with plausible errors, or with knowledge which was even for the time imperfect. Such parties used to exist, and the personal histories of their leaders are some of the most attractive parts of the history of medicine: but, although in some instances an enthusiasm for the master-mind may have stirred a few men to unusual industry, yet very soon the disciples seem to have been fascinated by the distinctive doctrine, content to bear its name, and to cease from active scientific work. The dominance of doctrine has promoted the habit of inference, and repressed that of careful observation and induction. It has encouraged