Abstract
ACTUALLY we are now talking about biological method. In his last letter (NATURE, July 28, p. 680) Sir Archdall Reid makes three appeals to me. My own contribution to the discussion has been confined to a defence of systematic biology, and I have no authority to answer for any “sect of biologists.” But surely most of us accept the principles of scientific work that he lays down; most of us realise that our interpretations are mere working hypotheses; and most of us are always on the look-out by observation or experiment for those crucial facts which shall confirm or upset our hypotheses. My own difficulty has been either to devise a question that should be universally accepted as crucial, or, having devised one, to elicit the relevant facts. Biologists who can experiment with their material are certainly in a better position to perform both these operations than is one who can only observe portions of extinct animals. The distinguished author whom Sir Archdall Reid quotes merely uses a little more force in making essentially the same remark. But he can defend himself—if he cares to.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BATHER, F. Biological Terminology. Nature 107, 778 (1921). https://doi.org/10.1038/107778a0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/107778a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.