Still another attempt to discriminate between scientific and non-scientific phases of geologic effort has been the assumption by certain scientific organizations with reference to standards of admission,—that work done for practical purposes may be regarded as scientific only if it leads to advancement of the science through the publication of the results. There is by no means any general agreement as to the validity of this distinction. On this basis, some of the most effective scientific work which is translated directly into use for the benefit of civilization is ruled out as science, because it is expressed on a typewritten rather than on a printed page.
While applied phases of the geologist's work may be truly scientific in the broader sense, it is undoubtedly easy in this field to drift into empirical methods, and to emphasize facility and skill at the expense of original scientific thought. The practice of geology then becomes an art rather than a science. This remark is pertinent also to much of non-applied geologic work in recent years. A considerable proportion of this empirical facility is desirable and necessary in the routine collection of data and in their description; but where, as is often the case, the geologist's absorption in such work minimizes the use of his constructive faculties, it does not aid greatly in the advancement of science.
Geology is by no means the only science in which there has been controversy as to the relative merits of the so-called pure and applied phases; but as one of the youngest sciences, which heretofore has been pursued mainly from the standpoint of "pure science," it is now, perhaps more than any other science, in the transition stage to a wider viewpoint. In the past there was doubt about the extension of chemistry toward the fields of physics and engineering, and of physics toward the fields of chemistry and engineering, and of both physics and chemistry toward purely economic applications; but out of these fields have grown the great sciences of physical chemistry, chemical engineering, and others,—and few would be rash enough to attempt to draw a line between the pure and applied science, or between the scientific and non-scientific phases of this work. This general tendency means a broadening of science and not its deterioration.
COURSE OF STUDY SUGGESTED
There are almost as many opinions on desirable training for economic geology as there are geologists, and the writer's view cannot be taken as representing any widely accepted standard. On the basis of his own experience, however, both in teaching and in field practice, he would lay emphasis on the fundamental branches both of geology and of the allied sciences,—general geology, stratigraphy, paleontology, physiography, sedimentation, mineralogy, petrology, structural and metamorphic geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology. After these are covered, as much attention should be given to economic applications as time permits. The time allowance for training, at a maximum, is not sufficient to cover both pure and applied science. Subsequent experience will supply the deficiencies in applied knowledge, but will not make up for lack of study of basic principles.
It is safe advice to a student wishing to prepare for economic geology that there is no royal road to success; that his best chance lies in the effort to make himself a scientist, even though he cover only a narrow field; that if he is successful in this, opportunities for economic applications will almost inevitably follow. To devote attention from the start merely to practical and commercial features, rather than to scientific principles, brings the student at once into competition with mining engineers, business men, accountants, and others, who are often able to handle the purely empirical features of an economic or practical kind better than the geologist. In the long run the economic geologist succeeds because he knows the fundamentals of his science, and not because he has mere facility in the empirical economic phases of his work. Of course there are exceptions to this statement,—there are men with a highly developed business sense who are successful in spite of inadequate scientific training, but such success should be regarded as a business and not a professional success.
Geology is sometimes described as the application of other sciences to the earth. This statement might be made even broader, and geology described as the application of all knowledge to the earth. In the writer's experience, the best results on the whole have been obtained from students who, before entering geology, have had a broad general education or have followed intensively some other line of study. Whether this study has been the ancient languages, law, engineering, economics, or other sciences, the results have usually been good if the early training has been sound. To start in geology without some such background, and without the resulting power of a well-trained mind, is to start with a handicap in the long race to the highest professional success. It follows, then, that intensive study of geology should in most cases not begin until late in the undergraduate course, and preferably not until the graduate years. Two or three years of graduate work may then suffice to launch the geologist on his career, but so great is the field, and so rapid the growth of knowledge within it, that there is no termination to his study. It is not enough to settle back comfortably on empirical practice based solely on previously acquired knowledge. Each problem develops new scientific aspects. It is this ever renewing interest which is one of the great charms of the science.
However, whether the student has a general training in geology, a specialized knowledge of certain branches, or takes it up incidentally in connection with engineering and other sciences, he will find opportunities for economic applications. The frequent success of the mining engineer in the geological phases of his work is an indication that even a comparatively small amount of geological knowledge is useful.
The writer is inclined to emphasize also the desirability of what might be called the quantitative approach to the subject,—that is, of training in mathematics and laboratory practice, which gives the student facility in treating geologic problems concretely and in quantitative terms. Geology is passing from the descriptive and qualitative stages to a more precise basis. For this reason the combination of geology with engineering often proves a desirable one. It is not uncommon for the student trained solely in the humanities and other non-quantitative subjects to have difficulty in acquiring habits of mind which lead to sufficient precision in the application of his science. He may have a good grasp of general principles and be able to express himself well, but he is handicapped in securing definite results. This does not necessarily mean that a large amount of time should be given to study of quantitative methods; exact habit of mind is more important in the early stages than expert facility with methods.
The teacher of economic geology finds his data so voluminous that it is difficult to present all the essential facts and yet leave sufficient time for discussion of general principles or for drill in their constructive application. It is difficult to lay down any rule as a guide to the proper division of effort; but from the writer's point of view, it is a mistake to attempt to crowd into a course too many facts. At best they cannot all be given; and in the attempt to do so, the student is brought into a passive and receptive attitude, requiring maximum use of his memory and minimum use of his reasoning power. Presentation of a few fundamental facts, combined with vigorous discussion tending to develop the student's ability to use these facts, and particularly tending to develop a constructive habit of investigation, seems to be the most profitable use of time during the course of training. The acquirement of facts and details will come fast enough in actual practice.