THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OE JUNE 8

BY WILLIAM B. THOMAS,

Jamestown College, Jamestown, N. Dak.

Since eclipses recur in a cycle of eighteen years, eleven and one-third days, nearly, the solar eclipse of June 8 is regarded as a repetition of that of May 28, 1900. Since, however, this eighteen-year period, the Saros of the Chaldeans, is not an exact dividend of the days in the year combined with the moon's motion, each succeeding appearance of the corresponding eclipse comes some eleven days later in the year; but since the earth has completed .32 of a new rotation, in other words has spun off a third of an additional day before the conditions making the eclipse arrive, at the end of the Saros, each recurrence is seen some 120° of longitude farther west than the one preceding. When it is added that every third Saros brings a specific eclipse approximately to the same longitude, it will be seen that anyone who will apply the sense of the facts just given, as far as they go, is predicting an eclipse, in a rough way.

The general conditions of the event being now given, the eclipse of June 8 may be examined. If the rotational motion of the earth were to cease for the afternoon of that date, at about 3:35, counted as Chicago time (or 4:35 counted as "daylight-saving-time" at Chicago), from a very high aeroplane, properly situated, a shadow, moving from thirty to forty miles a minute in the general direction, southeast, might be seen starting to flit over the continent. It would enter off Washington and leave the continent off Florida. We are supposing the earth to stop, but the usual phenomena of time and daylight to go on. This could not be, and, in reality, the minute of arrival, anywhere, of this unusual shadow is complicated by factors, such as the latitude of the observer, his nearness to the exact center of totality, and, of course, the rotational motion of the earth. The shadow moves forward like that of a cloud seen over a hilly countryside, but in a manner calculable mathematically. The general data of eclipses are well enough known. For example, Oppolzer's lists trace all eclipses occurring for over eight centuries. The following years will bring total eclipses visible in the United States, namely: 1918, 1923, 1925, 1945, 1954, 1979, 1984, and 1994. Obviously, all these are not that of 1918 repeated. The same definite locality will not observe a total eclipse oftener than once in 360 years. The Naval Observatory publishes in the Nautical Almanac exact circumstances

of eclipses each year. Owing to the line of totality, full calculations, this year, are given for Denver, Col., with local circumstances for seventy-seven other points. These circumstances, as they are called, are concerned with the time, magnitude, and angle of the shadow at the beginning, middle, and end. The region of totality must be considered favorable this year. The eclipse may be observed at places easily accessible, and the uncalculable meteorological factor stands a good chance of being auspicious. The corresponding eclipse of 1900 appearing about 8 o'clock in the morning, in the Rocky Mountain district, was seen as a partial eclipse in a perfectly clear sky. The various matters of addition to theoretical knowledge which await the coming of a total eclipse render it sure that even war conditions will not prevent a careful scrutiny of this phenomenon, the present June, and the leaving of records for the future. Quite obviously, since science is progressive, equipment for study was never before quite so perfect for the making of an observation. The minute or two of totality shown in the Almanac on page 561 as occurring on the central line will be a time of close watching and careful comparison.

The area of totality for a total solar eclipse being narrow and variable, each observer who cares to do so may calculate for himself such items as (1) position of point of contact, (2) time of maximum eclipse, and (3) magnitude of maximum eclipse. A glance about page 729 of the Almanac will show the laboriousness of this work. It will readily appear that it is done largely by division of labor and the sharing of results. The reader, however, cannot inform himself of the processes employed better than by a following of the descriptions given in standard texts on the subject, and especially in the Nautical Almanac. What are known as the Besselian elements are used; in other words, the problem is stated geometrically, these elements of the problem are supplied by the Almanac, and calculations are then made. The formulas employed, respectively, for the items enumerated above will illustrate the method, though they will not be fully intelligible without reference to page 728 of the Almanac. They are:

THE DOCTRINE OF FORMAL DISCIPLINE.
BY NATHAN A. HARVEY,

Michigan State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Mich.

I have been much interested in the attempted defense of the doctrine of formal discipline by Professor Young in the January and February numbers of SCHOOL SCIENCE. I refer to the articles upon "Transfer of Training," and the "Disciplinary Value of Studies."

Professor Young objects to the statement of the doctrine in the writings of many opponents of it, saying that "Even opponents seldom set up a careful definition of the doctrine, and when a definition is set up, it is done with the avowed purpose of knocking the doctrine down" (p. 132). Then Professor Young asks, "Was there ever anyone who seriously held this prostrate doctrine?" Also, Professor Young seriously objects to Heck's statement, with its implications and its illustration of the release of water through different pipes from a common reservoir. In a comment upon Bagley's statement of it, he reiterates the question, "Who ever held such views?"

I am inclined to believe that Heck's statement is fairly representative of the doctrine, although I would prefer to use my own statement. It is exceedingly dangerous for a man to quote from his own writings, but I am going to venture to do so in this case. In a book, Principles of Teaching, which I sincerely hope Professor Young will never see, I have used such expressions as these: "Some persons have undertaken to establish mental discipline as the true purpose (of education). It is believed that the real purpose of education is not the accumulation of knowledge but the training of the mind. The mind, through its processes of learning, becomes able to do what otherwise would be impossible for it" (p. 70). "They affirm that it is not the knowledge of the subject which is the matter of special importance, but that in the study by which the knowledge of the subject is gained, power and ability to do mental work in any direction is acquired" (p. 71). "The psychological theory, under the influence of which this idea of mental discipline has been developed, assumes that the mind has certain powers which need to be cultivated" (p. 71). "It assumes (the theory of mental discipline), as a fundamental postulate, that power gained in the study of one subject is capable of being applied to the study of any other subject" (p. 73).

If this is a man of straw, I should like to exhibit some of the straw of which the man is made.

1. All studies give useful information, and all studies can be so pursued as to aid in the development of mental power. And however valuable the knowledge gained, the growth of power should be the chief aim of all our school work.1

2. Any power under the control of the will may be cultivated, or trained.2

3. The powers are trained in one way, and in one way only; viz., by wise use.3

4. Any power of the mind grows strong by the activity of that power against appropriate resistance."

5. The several powers are developed by occasioning the natural activity of each. Exercise strengthens faculty."

6. In the primary school period, perception is trained by handling and observing objects; memory incidentally by all the work of the grade, and in special ways by memorizing gems of literature; imagination by tales and descriptions, and such designs and constructions as are employed in the kindergarten; the thinking faculty by use of simple judgment and reasons; proper emotion is fostered in many ways adapted to the dispositions and needs of the child; the will is strengthened by the restraints and demands of the school room."

The Inductive

7. (During the high school period.).. reason is trained by inductions in science and history, the deductive reason by mathematics, the finer emotions are developed in the study of literature."

8. Now mental activity is, strictly speaking, one and indivisible. The mind is not a complex substance, composed of parts, but single and one.8

9.

The simple truth (with large implications) is that each soul is one thing, a unity, an essence, spiritual in its nature, and thereby absolutely indivisible.

10. Remaining always a one thing, this one thing is developed

Hewett, Pedagogy, p. 41. Dr. Hewett was President of the Illinois State Normal University, an influential teacher, whose teachings are still exercising a marked influence upon educational practices, and who reflected in a very complete way, the psychological opinions of his time.

Hewett, Pedagogy, p. 45.

Hewett, Pedagogy, p. 45.

"Salisbury, Theory of Teaching, p. 241. Mr. Salisbury was President of the State Normal School at Whitewater, Wis., a very influential teacher, whose book is still widely used, and who represented in rather a satisfactory manner, the psychological opinion of his day.

$Salisbury, Theory of Teaching, p. 245.

Baker, Elementary Psychology, p. 163. Mr. Baker was President of the University of Colorado, a Past President of the National Education Association, member of the Committee of Ten, and knew the psychological and educational theories of his day.

"Baker, Elementary Psychology, p. 164.

Haven, Mental Philosophy, p. 29. This was a very representative and popular textbook on psychology.

Jones, Education as Growth, p. 23. President Jones was Superintendent of Schools in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and President of the Michigan State Normal College. He represented well a very large body of educational theory and practice.

and made greater and more worthy or powerful, through the proper exercise of these capacities; and the process by which such increase of power, or worthiness, is gained, is properly called education, whether attained in school, or in other disciplines of life.10

11. I believe that four years of high school Latin is best for the ordinary high school boy or girl, because of the mental training involved."1

12. May I repeat

a student properly trained in the Greek and Latin languages, and in mathematics,...comes to the university equipped to attack successfully whatever is offered him.12

I have selected the above extracts from the first half-dozen books picked up from my table. I believe that a very brief search through the library would enable me to multiply the number of similar quotations by a hundred. It seems to me that there is abundant material in these few quotations to justify every phrase in the statement of the doctrine of formal discipline outlined above. It appears also, that there is in these few quotations a sufficient answer to Professor Young's rather contemptuous inquiry, "Who ever believed that?"

The doctrine of formal discipline is still influential. It is believed in by many persons. It is, however, inconsistent with the Herbartian doctrine of apperception, and anyone who adheres to the apperception doctrine cannot adhere to the doctrine of formal discipline. It is also inconsistent with the doctrine of localization of function, and if the doctrine of localization of function has been established, the doctrine of formal discipline has been disproved.

The doctrine of formal discipline assumes that the mind is a thing, with certain powers that can be strengthened by exercise. Modern psychology knows nothing of this powerpossessing thing, and consequently the doctrine of formal discipline falls with the assumption which is necessary to it.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence from experimental studies to justify our belief that the doctrine of formal discipline has been disproved by experiment. The results are not so convincingly complete as to amount to demonstration, nor sufficiently strong to convince a person who is unwilling to give up the doctrine, that he must do so. Certainly, however, the result of experiment lends no comfort to the advocates of the doctrine, and all psychological tendencies are against it.

10Jones, Education as Growth, p. 23.

"Francis Ramalay, University of Colorado Bulletin, 1914, Vol. XIV., No. 9, p. 33. 12 John B. Ekeley, University of Colorado Bulletin, 1914, Vol. XIV, No. 9, p. 18.