Decline of Science in England [21]
and surmount these habits, that his admission to the offices of science can be attended with any advantage to it.
Another objection deserving notice, although not applying exclusively to the military profession, is, that persons not imbued with the feelings of men of science, when they have published their observations, are too apt to view every criticism upon them as a personal question, and to consider that it is as offensive to doubt the accuracy of their observations as it is to doubt their word. Nothing can be more injurious to science than that such an opinion should be tolerated. The most unreserved criticism is necessary for truth; and those suspicions respecting his own accuracy, which every philosophical experimenter will entertain concerning his own researches, ought never to be considered as a reproach, when they are kept in view in examining the experiments of others. The minute circumstances and apparently trivial causes which lend their influence towards error, even in persons of the most candid judgment, are amongst the most curious phenomena of the human mind.
The importance of affording every aid to enable others to try the merits of observations, has been so well expressed by Mayer, that I shall conclude these remarks with an extract from the Preface to his Observations:
"Officii enim cujusque observatoris ease reor, de habitu instrumenti sui, de cura ac precautione, qua usus est, ad illud recte tractandum, deque mediis in errores ejus inquirendi rationem reddere publice, ut aliis quoque copia sit judicandi, quanta fides habenda conclusionibus ex nostris observationibus deductis aut deducendis. Hoc cum minus fecissent precedentis saeculi astronomi, praxin nimis secure, nimisque theoretice tractantes, factum inde potissimum est, ut illorum observationes tot vigiliis tantoque labore comparatae tam cito obsoleverint." P. viii.
There are certain duties which the Royal Society owes to its own character as well as to the public, which, having been on some occasions apparently neglected, it may be here the proper place to mention, since it is reasonable to suppose that attention to them is within the province of its Secretaries.
The first to which I shall allude is the singular circumstances attending the fact of the Royal Society having printed a volume of Astronomical Observations which were made at the Observatory of Paramatta (New South Wales), bearing the title of "The Third Part of the Philosophical Transactions for the Year 1829."
Now this Observatory was founded at the private expense of a British officer; the instruments were paid for out of his purse; two observers were brought from Europe, to be employed in making use of those instruments, at salaries defrayed by him. A considerable portion of the observations so printed were made by these astronomers during their employment in his service, and some of them are personally his own. Yet has the Royal Society, in adopting them as part of its Transactions, omitted all mention, either in their title-page, preface, or in any part of the volume, of the FACT that the world owed these valuable observations to the enlightened munificence of Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Brisbane; whose ardent zeal in the pursuit of science induced him to found, at his own private expense, an establishment which it has been creditable to the British Government to continue as a national institution. Had any kindred feelings existed in the Council, instead of endeavouring to shift the responsibility, they would have hastened to rectify an omission, less unjust to the individual than it was injurious to English science.
Another topic, which concerns most vitally the character and integrity of the Royal Society, I hardly know how to approach. It has been publicly stated that confidence cannot be placed in the written minutes of the Society; and an instance has been adduced, in which an entry has been asserted to have been made, which could not have been the true statement of what actually passed at the Council.
The facts on which the specific instance
Another objection deserving notice, although not applying exclusively to the military profession, is, that persons not imbued with the feelings of men of science, when they have published their observations, are too apt to view every criticism upon them as a personal question, and to consider that it is as offensive to doubt the accuracy of their observations as it is to doubt their word. Nothing can be more injurious to science than that such an opinion should be tolerated. The most unreserved criticism is necessary for truth; and those suspicions respecting his own accuracy, which every philosophical experimenter will entertain concerning his own researches, ought never to be considered as a reproach, when they are kept in view in examining the experiments of others. The minute circumstances and apparently trivial causes which lend their influence towards error, even in persons of the most candid judgment, are amongst the most curious phenomena of the human mind.
The importance of affording every aid to enable others to try the merits of observations, has been so well expressed by Mayer, that I shall conclude these remarks with an extract from the Preface to his Observations:
"Officii enim cujusque observatoris ease reor, de habitu instrumenti sui, de cura ac precautione, qua usus est, ad illud recte tractandum, deque mediis in errores ejus inquirendi rationem reddere publice, ut aliis quoque copia sit judicandi, quanta fides habenda conclusionibus ex nostris observationibus deductis aut deducendis. Hoc cum minus fecissent precedentis saeculi astronomi, praxin nimis secure, nimisque theoretice tractantes, factum inde potissimum est, ut illorum observationes tot vigiliis tantoque labore comparatae tam cito obsoleverint." P. viii.
There are certain duties which the Royal Society owes to its own character as well as to the public, which, having been on some occasions apparently neglected, it may be here the proper place to mention, since it is reasonable to suppose that attention to them is within the province of its Secretaries.
The first to which I shall allude is the singular circumstances attending the fact of the Royal Society having printed a volume of Astronomical Observations which were made at the Observatory of Paramatta (New South Wales), bearing the title of "The Third Part of the Philosophical Transactions for the Year 1829."
Now this Observatory was founded at the private expense of a British officer; the instruments were paid for out of his purse; two observers were brought from Europe, to be employed in making use of those instruments, at salaries defrayed by him. A considerable portion of the observations so printed were made by these astronomers during their employment in his service, and some of them are personally his own. Yet has the Royal Society, in adopting them as part of its Transactions, omitted all mention, either in their title-page, preface, or in any part of the volume, of the FACT that the world owed these valuable observations to the enlightened munificence of Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Brisbane; whose ardent zeal in the pursuit of science induced him to found, at his own private expense, an establishment which it has been creditable to the British Government to continue as a national institution. Had any kindred feelings existed in the Council, instead of endeavouring to shift the responsibility, they would have hastened to rectify an omission, less unjust to the individual than it was injurious to English science.
Another topic, which concerns most vitally the character and integrity of the Royal Society, I hardly know how to approach. It has been publicly stated that confidence cannot be placed in the written minutes of the Society; and an instance has been adduced, in which an entry has been asserted to have been made, which could not have been the true statement of what actually passed at the Council.
The facts on which the specific instance