ENDS AND MEANS
in just as much of the theory underlying his practice as
will enable him to do the job better. Very rarely does he
develop into the scientist, and few indeed are the fruitful
generalizations which we owe to such men. In general,
the advances in scientific theory have been made by men
of another type—men who did not concern themselves
professionally with technical problems, but who merely
looked at them as outsiders and then proceeded to generalize
and rationalize what was merely particular and empirical.
Between the practical man and the man who is interested
in scientific theories of the universe at large a gulf is fixed.
They belong to different types. The attempt to liberalize
technical education by means of the principle which intel-
lectuals use to integrate their experience is foredoomed
to failure.
Man is the only subject in which, whatever their type
or the degree of their ability, all men are interested. The
future engineer may be unable and unwilling to go far in
the study of the laws of the material universe. There will
be no difficulty, however, in getting him to take an interest
in human affairs. It is, therefore, in terms of human affairs
that his technical education can best be KberaEzed. There
would be no difficulty in integrating any technical subject
into a comprehensive scheme of relations within our human,
ethico-psychological framework. The technical course
would be accompanied by a course explaining the effects,
as measured in terms of good and evil, well-being and
suffering, of the technique in question. Our hypothetical
young man would learn, not only to be a mechanician,
but also to understand the ways in which machinery
affects, has affected and is likely to affect, the lives of
men and "women. He could begin with the effects of
machinery upon the individual—such effects as are dis-
cussed, for example, in Stuart Chase's essay in contemporary
history, Men and Machines, or in the Hammonds* account
200