Just a few words about the considerable danger in the testimony
presented by persons of one-sided education. Altogether uneducated
people warn us in their own way, but people who have a certain amount of
training, in at least one direction, impress us to such a degree that we
assume them to be otherwise also educated and thus get involved in
mistakes.
It is hard to say correctly what constitutes an educated man. We demand,
of course, a certain amount of knowledge, but we do not know the
magnitude of that amount of knowledge, and still less its subject
matter. It is remarkable that our time, which has devoted itself more
than all others to natural science, does not include knowledge of such
science in its concept of the educated man. Some ignorance of history,
or of the classics, or even of some modern novels, failure to visit the
theaters and the picture exhibitions, neglect of French and English,
etc., classifies a man at once as lacking essential “culture.” But if he
knows these things, and at the same time exhibits in the most naïve way
an incredible ignorance of zoölogy, botany, physics, chemistry,
astronomy, etc., he still remains “an educated man.” The contradiction
is inexplicable, but it exists, and because of it, nobody can definitely
say what is meant by a one-sided education. The extent of one-sidedness
is, however, illustrated by many examples. We mention only two.
Linnaeus’ own drawings with remarks by Afzelius show that in spite of
his extraordinary knowledge of botany and his wonderful memory, he did
not know a foreign language. He was in Holland for three years, and
failed to understand even the Dutch language, so very similar to his
own. It is told of Sir Humphrey Davy, that during the visit to the
Louvre, in Paris, he admired the extraordinary carving of the frames of
the pictures, and the splendid material of which the most famous of the
Greek sculptures were made.
Now, how are we to meet people of this kind when they are on the witness
stand? They offer no difficulty when they tell us that they know nothing
about the subject in question. Suppose we have to interrogate a
philologist on a subject which requires only that amount of knowledge of
natural science which may be presupposed in any generally educated
individual. If he declares honestly that he has forgotten everything he
had learned about the matter in college, he is easily dealt with in the
same way as “uneducated people.” If, however, he is not honest enough
immediately to confess his ignorance, nothing else will do except to
make him see his position by means of questions, and even then to
proceed carefully. It would be conscienceless to try to spare this man
while another is shown up.
The same attitude must be taken toward autodidacts and dilettantes who
always measure the value of their knowledge by the amount of effort they
had to use in getting it, and hence, always overestimate their
acquirements. It is to be observed that they assert no more than their
information permits them to, and their personality is easily
discoverable by the manner in which they present their knowledge. The
self-taught man is in the end only the parvenu of knowledge, and just as
the parvenu, as such, rarely conceals his character, so the autodidact
rarely conceals his character.
There is an additional quality of which we must beware--that is the
tendency of experts to take pride in some different, incidental, and
less important little thing than their own subject. Frederick the Great
with his miserable flute-playing is an example. Such people may easily
cause mistakes. The knowledge of their attainment in one field causes us
involuntarily to respect their assertions. Now, if their assertions deal
with their hobbies many a silly thing is taken at its face value, and
that value is counterfeit.