The Hokitika Guardian THURSDAY, JULY 6th, 1922. DEMOCRACY AND SCIENCE.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian THURSDAY, JULY 6th, 1922. DEMOCRACY AND SCIENCE.

In the course of a lunch hour talk to business men at Christchurch the other day, Mr 11. M. Lamp; spoke on the above subject very interestingly. His remarks are well worth reproducing for gene nl consideration. Mr Laing said that two of the most potent forces in civilisation were democracy and science. They influenced each other in many " ,l js, and if they conflicted, our progress must be the slower. The essential spirit 3 f democracy was brotherhood, and if a man did his best for hi s fellowmen, up to his own limits, ho was furthering the ends of democracy, Progress*

required' that democratic movements should lie more deeply imbued with the scientific spirit. Science was not necessarily mechanistic, ns many thought. The first object of a scientist was to get facts, and from them to deduce laws. After that he attempted to theorise, and from those theories was learned control, so that it could truthfully lie said that science was a power wiili limitless possibilities. All our

modi re discoveries depended upon pure science. Nothing was. apparently so useless as scientific pursuit. For instance there seemed little use in counting the number of hairs on a mosquito’s ba k. hut such investigations had helped to make the Panama possible, and to open up Africa. The world, largely did not kllow its great scientists. Most people, if a sited wtio invented wireless, would reply “Marconi” but it was not Marconi, hut a German. Dr Hertz. Marconi had not established the scientJi principles of wireless, lie had just developed its commercial possibilities!. 'SimiWly, AA'illard Gibbs, of Yale was a greater figure amongst American scientists than Edison. First class scientific winkers after nc-w knowledge were of the utmost value to-the Slate, and it was 11 tragedy when one of them died. A mail like Sir Ernest Rutherford, for instance was too valuable to lie used in any other way, but in scientific research. Such men should lie given good salaries to do just exactly what they wished to do. Moll of second class minds, and “adapters” etc—men of the third class might he expected to do more for the State. Science was for life, and not life for science. Science enriched life and revolutionised thought. Up to the mid■il- ages A: istntle "a- looked upon as tin- one .-.ole, final authority in .science, yet lie considered that a 1001 b stone fell 100 times as fast, as a lib stone.

■ -aver had come the application of steam to machinery, which had revolutionised the employment of mankind. Mr Laing traced various subsequent developments iii commerce, until now, lie said, there were millions living on investments alone, and there was also the working class. All were the product of scien:e. Scientific developments tended to obliterate international distinction, m.I scientific knowledge tended every- " here to increase education. It was continually changing employment and ' demanding more and more knowledge; it had modified our modern civilisation. Ls o.iject was to get as near as possible to truth, ami until democracy was imbued with a similar spirit, it was not likely to make much progress. The pai tv principles which coloured newspaper icports and the party system in Parliament were utterly contrary to the spirit ill science. The scientist always endeavoured to tell the whole truth as far as lie knew it, and democracy had to learn what principle lietore it became true democracy. Personally he would advise the socialist to study carefully the best capitalists’ honks and'vice versa. Scientific knowledge was open to the whole world and from it democracy had much to learn.