. T0 the Experiment Station Building. 11 ‘
 i The substantial difference between the man of science and the ,
' practical man busy about many things is the recordiwhich the scientist V I T
» makes of his observation. If he is anything, he is a note—taker and a
i record-keeper. It is his long suit. He trusts nothing to memory, for i
i he knows it to be both fleeting and inaccurate. We could well wish that ,
l he were a better statistician and were able to tell us bye and bye all that l
, his notes really mean, but he does record his observation the best he can
I and files it away for what it is worth. .
i His methods are those of the common observer, but they are refined
i and his record is better made. Like any other observer, he may be `
‘ mistaken in what has actually happened, but he has at least simplified
i his problem. At every stage of the study he has his own old notes and 4 3
he has the literature of the world besides. Here is where he has the  
advantage of the ordinary observer who trusts to memory, and is thus , E
able to beat him at his own game of experience. But his methods are ·/  
q no different; there is nothing uncanny or supernatural about his proce- i
  dure, and these two men need each other mightily, day by day—this man 5
  in the laboratory and that one upon the farm. . l
  The scientist posesses one and only one other distinct and peculiar I
. advantage over the practical man, but it is tremendously potent in its i
results. He has at his command certain implements and agencies of the ·  
* laboratory that the farmer as such does not possess. He has the miscro- ,
scope with which he sees what to the farmer was and would have remain- ;
ed a hidden world. With this he learned that the tubercles upon the i
roots shelter living organisms. He has at his hand a vast range of chem-  
ical reagents by which he can set up artificial activities quite outside the   _
range of farm experience. He has, in other words, the opportunity of {
vastly enlarging the range of his observation as well as of greatly i
simplifying its conditions. ·  
But again it all ends in experience. However, in his case, unlike ,
that of the practical man, the record is more complete and many more - *
cases are covered. The chance of the scientist, therefore, for finding i
the correct cause of an event is vastly increased over that of the practi— _
cal man; but again I assert that their methods are the same and that _
they must be friends. The difficulty with the practical man is that his .{
experiences are too limited in range and time, and too complicated in ·
character; and if he stops to become a scientist, he will starve in his I `
business, because real investigation is enormously costly. He may need if-·
the demonstrator if he is unable to take new truth at nrst hand, but the i i
World as a whole needs above all other men just now the skillful, reliable, i` i
and well-equipped investigator. IQ ’
. DEMAND FOR DEMONSTRATION.   Q_
We have learned a few things by the hard work of many patient V  
scientists. Agood beginning has been made. Shall we now stop and