The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-12-07
SCIENCE IN THE NEWSPAPERS.

Inc december American Naturalist taxes
the public press of the United States severely
to task for not presenting more scientific mat
ter to its readers. 1t says:
although it is necessary for the leaders of
the press to cater to the public taste, it is not
the less true that they are the educators of the
public, and their responsibility is great.
When we consider the extent and number OF
the fields of useful human activity, the
amount of space gwen to criminals is phenom
email. These people have the right to consider
themselves next to candidates for high Office,
the best advertised part of the community.
and if they do not become popular heroes and
heroines it is because the people are better
than their educators of the press.
We cannot assent to the general charge
made by the editors Of the American Natural
list. Professors E. D. Cope and A. s. Pack
ard are great leaders and teachers in science.
The former is not probably excelled among
the living for knowledge, aud for original re-
search in biology, using that term in the full
ness of its meaning-the study of life, includ
ing man. They are men of pure life and mo-
tive, and are conducting scientific journal
which stands at the head and is the best rep
resentative of scientific research published in
guage But these learned scientists live in
Philadelphia, and, of course, their
opinion is founded largely on observations
in the local papers Of that and adjacent East
ern cities They cannot, therefore, safely
make themselves the censors of the editors
and writers for the entire press of the United
States. The Journal begs leave to differ from
the opinion of the Naturalist, which, in this
case, is evidently the opinion of Professor
Cope for the article bears his ear-marks, as
may be seen in the following quotation:
During the last twenty years truths have
been brought to light which will revolutionize
all but the most essential principles of the
thought of the world, which, as is believed
by political economists, social organizations
and, therefore, governments depend. But
what newspaper ever announced the elabora-
ton of the gastr&a theory of Hackel, or the
celom theory of the Hertwigsf Who of them
knows anything about the theory of degener-
acy of Dohrn and Balfour, or the hypothesis
of the origin of the vertebrates of Zemper9
Which of them ever presented to its readers
the solution of the problem Of the origin of the
existing vertebrates and the descent of man,
as presented by the American paleontol-
OgistsP'
In answer to this, Mr. Cope says the popu-
lar editor will smile incredulously, and ask
what the people want to know or do know
about gastleas, and vertebrates and cseloms
We think the question is very pertinent. What
do they know, what do they want to know, and
we will add, what can they learnt They
know very little; they want to know all that
can be known; they can learn only that which
they are taught and which is presented in
simple language, such as they can understand.
The difficulty is that most of the great science
students and theorists are using a language
and nomenclature that is Greek to the lay
men. When Mr.. Spencer defines life as 'fhe
definite combination of heterogeneous changes
both simultaneous and successive in cor
respondence with external coexistences and
sequences" it is plain enough to those who
have read the 200 pages of his Principles of
Biology which precede the definition. Wal
deyers definition Of cancer as an "atypcal
epithelial neoplasm" is satisfactory to the edu-
Gated physician, but it is little too fine for
the general public. The trouble is that most
teachers and writers on science take no pains
to make their work popular and simple. Louis
Agassiz brought to his work earnest convic-
ton, scientific accuracy and a style and
language so simple as to hold and entrance
the common hearers and readers, and his
theological Sketches" and Methods of Study
in Natural History" are, and were, immensely
popular
No one knows better than Nh. Cope the
difference between purely technical and sci
entifc, as compared with simple, and gen
orally ineligible style, and there is no
better illustration of each than in his earlier
and later reviews Of the modern doctrine Of
evolution
We do not wish to decry scientific and tech
nical nomenclature. The advance of science
has created q new language, OF rather has an
glicised and applied the Greek to its necessi-
ties. Robinson Crusoe in words of one
syllable is not what we want. We need the
simplicity and plainness of Faraday, of Agas-
siz and of Hugh Miller brought into scientific
discussion. The newspapers are published in
English. and whenever the broad gauge editor
finds anything in science, whether applied or
pure, that is plainly and simply put, ne is not
slow to make use of it.
We fully agree with Mr. Cope that gas
traas, and coeloms and zygospheus and
corpora strata are not moro difficult to under
stand, either as to the thing or the name of it,