[66]Chamberlin, T. C., and Salisbury, R. D.,Geology, vol. 1, 1904, pp. 555-556.
[66]Chamberlin, T. C., and Salisbury, R. D.,Geology, vol. 1, 1904, pp. 555-556.
[67]Schultz, Robert S., Jr.,Bull. Am. Inst. Mining and Metallurgical Engrs.In preparation.
[67]Schultz, Robert S., Jr.,Bull. Am. Inst. Mining and Metallurgical Engrs.In preparation.
Economic geology is now an established and well-recognized profession, but there is yet nothing approaching a standardized course of study leading to a degree in economic geology. There are as many different kinds of training as there are institutions in which geology is taught. Within an institution, also, it is seldom that any two persons take exactly the same groups of geologic studies. This situation allows wide latitude of training to meet ever changing requirements, but in other respects it is not so desirable.
In no institution are all the applied branches of geology taught. There is constant pressure for the introduction of more applied courses; this seems to be the tendency of the times. The economic geologist, fresh from vivid experiences in his special field, is often insistent that a new course be introduced to cover his particular specialty. Any attempt, however, to put into a college course a considerable fraction of the applied phases of geology would mean the crowding out of more essential basic studies. To yield wholly to such pressure would in fact soon develop an impossible situation; for, on the basis of time alone, it would be quite impossible to give courses on all of the applied subjects in a training period of reasonable length.
On the other hand, the failure to introduce a fair proportion of applied geology, on the ground that the function of the college is to teach pure science and that in some way economic applications are non-scientific, seems to the writer an equally objectionable procedure,—because it does not take into account the unavoidable human relations of the science, which vivify and give point and direction to scientific work. The development of science in economic directions does not necessarily mean incursion into lessscientific or non-scientific fields. It is true that many of the economic applications of geology are so new and so constantly changing that they are not yet fully organized on a scientific basis; but this fact is merely an indication of the lag of science, and not of the absence of possibilities of developing science in such directions. There is today a considerable tendency among geologists of an academic type, whose lives have been spent in purely scientific investigation and teaching, to assume that anything different from the field of their activities is in some manner non-scientific, and therefore less worthy. Many economic geologists have been made to feel this criticism, even though seldom expressed openly. For the good of geologic science, this tendency seems to the writer extremely unfortunate. The young man entering the field of economic geology should be made to understand that his is the highest scientific opportunity; and that if parts of his field are not yet fully organized, the greater is his own opportunity to participate in the constructive work to be done.
Under war requirements many geologists were called upon to extend their efforts to bordering fields of endeavor. In some quarters these activities were regarded as non-scientific, and as subtracting from efficiency in purely geological work,—and yet out of this combined effort came a wider comprehension of new scientific fields, between the established sciences and between sciences and human needs. It is inevitable that in the future these fields, now imperfectly charted, will be occupied and developed, perhaps not by the men who are already well established in their particular fields of endeavor, but by coming scientists. In this light, it was a privilege for geologists to participate in the discovery and charting activities of the war.
Still another attempt to discriminate between scientific and non-scientific phases of geologic effort has been the assumption by certain scientific organizations with reference to standards of admission,—that work done for practical purposes may be regarded as scientific only if it leads to advancement of the science through the publication of the results. There is by no means any general agreement as to the validity of this distinction. On this basis, some of the most effective scientific work which is translated directly into use for the benefit of civilization is ruledout as science, because it is expressed on a typewritten rather than on a printed page.
While applied phases of the geologist's work may be truly scientific in the broader sense, it is undoubtedly easy in this field to drift into empirical methods, and to emphasize facility and skill at the expense of original scientific thought. The practice of geology then becomes an art rather than a science. This remark is pertinent also to much of non-applied geologic work in recent years. A considerable proportion of this empirical facility is desirable and necessary in the routine collection of data and in their description; but where, as is often the case, the geologist's absorption in such work minimizes the use of his constructive faculties, it does not aid greatly in the advancement of science.
Geology is by no means the only science in which there has been controversy as to the relative merits of the so-called pure and applied phases; but as one of the youngest sciences, which heretofore has been pursued mainly from the standpoint of "pure science," it is now, perhaps more than any other science, in the transition stage to a wider viewpoint. In the past there was doubt about the extension of chemistry toward the fields of physics and engineering, and of physics toward the fields of chemistry and engineering, and of both physics and chemistry toward purely economic applications; but out of these fields have grown the great sciences of physical chemistry, chemical engineering, and others,—and few would be rash enough to attempt to draw a line between the pure and applied science, or between the scientific and non-scientific phases of this work. This general tendency means a broadening of science and not its deterioration.
There are almost as many opinions on desirable training for economic geology as there are geologists, and the writer's view cannot be taken as representing any widely accepted standard. On the basis of his own experience, however, both in teaching and in field practice, he would lay emphasis on the fundamental branches both of geology and of the allied sciences,—general geology, stratigraphy, paleontology, physiography, sedimentation, mineralogy, petrology, structural and metamorphic geology,physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology. After these are covered, as much attention should be given to economic applications as time permits. The time allowance for training, at a maximum, is not sufficient to cover both pure and applied science. Subsequent experience will supply the deficiencies in applied knowledge, but will not make up for lack of study of basic principles.
It is safe advice to a student wishing to prepare for economic geology that there is no royal road to success; that his best chance lies in the effort to make himself a scientist, even though he cover only a narrow field; that if he is successful in this, opportunities for economic applications will almost inevitably follow. To devote attention from the start merely to practical and commercial features, rather than to scientific principles, brings the student at once into competition with mining engineers, business men, accountants, and others, who are often able to handle the purely empirical features of an economic or practical kind better than the geologist. In the long run the economic geologist succeeds because he knows the fundamentals of his science, and not because he has mere facility in the empirical economic phases of his work. Of course there are exceptions to this statement,—there are men with a highly developed business sense who are successful in spite of inadequate scientific training, but such success should be regarded as a business and not a professional success.
Geology is sometimes described as the application of other sciences to the earth. This statement might be made even broader, and geology described as the application of all knowledge to the earth. In the writer's experience, the best results on the whole have been obtained from students who, before entering geology, have had a broad general education or have followed intensively some other line of study. Whether this study has been the ancient languages, law, engineering, economics, or other sciences, the results have usually been good if the early training has been sound. To start in geology without some such background, and without the resulting power of a well-trained mind, is to start with a handicap in the long race to the highest professional success. It follows, then, that intensive study of geology should in most cases not begin until late in the undergraduate course, and preferably not until the graduate years. Two or three years of graduate work maythen suffice to launch the geologist on his career, but so great is the field, and so rapid the growth of knowledge within it, that there is no termination to his study. It is not enough to settle back comfortably on empirical practice based solely on previously acquired knowledge. Each problem develops new scientific aspects. It is this ever renewing interest which is one of the great charms of the science.
However, whether the student has a general training in geology, a specialized knowledge of certain branches, or takes it up incidentally in connection with engineering and other sciences, he will find opportunities for economic applications. The frequent success of the mining engineer in the geological phases of his work is an indication that even a comparatively small amount of geological knowledge is useful.
The writer is inclined to emphasize also the desirability of what might be called the quantitative approach to the subject,—that is, of training in mathematics and laboratory practice, which gives the student facility in treating geologic problems concretely and in quantitative terms. Geology is passing from the descriptive and qualitative stages to a more precise basis. For this reason the combination of geology with engineering often proves a desirable one. It is not uncommon for the student trained solely in the humanities and other non-quantitative subjects to have difficulty in acquiring habits of mind which lead to sufficient precision in the application of his science. He may have a good grasp of general principles and be able to express himself well, but he is handicapped in securing definite results. This does not necessarily mean that a large amount of time should be given to study of quantitative methods; exact habit of mind is more important in the early stages than expert facility with methods.
The teacher of economic geology finds his data so voluminous that it is difficult to present all the essential facts and yet leave sufficient time for discussion of general principles or for drill in their constructive application. It is difficult to lay down any rule as a guide to the proper division of effort; but from the writer's point of view, it is a mistake to attempt to crowd into a course too many facts. At best they cannot all be given; and in the attempt to do so, the student is brought into a passive and receptive attitude, requiring maximum use of his memory and minimum useof his reasoning power. Presentation of a few fundamental facts, combined with vigorous discussion tending to develop the student's ability to use these facts, and particularly tending to develop a constructive habit of investigation, seems to be the most profitable use of time during the course of training. The acquirement of facts and details will come fast enough in actual practice.
The variety, amount, and complexity of the data available in geology tend in themselves toward generalizations in teaching—toward the deductive rather than the inductive method. A certain amount of generalization is desirable, but its over-emphasis develops bad habits of mind on the part of the student, and requires radical readjustment of his ideas in subsequent field investigations. To retain a proper emphasis on inductive methods, it is necessary to limit the amount of data presented. Good results have been obtained by using the "case system," now common in the teaching of law—that is, by starting with a specific fact or situation as a basis for developing principles.
Another advantage in the restriction of data is the opportunity thus afforded for spending more time in the study of original reports rather than of the short textbook summaries. The student thus learns where the best primary sources of information are, how to find them, and how to extract essentials from them.
Field work is an essential part of any course of geologic training. Not only should it be taken at every opportunity during the regular school year, but no summer should be allowed to pass without geologic practice in the field. Opportunities for such work are offered in the summer field courses given by various institutions. In recent years it has usually been possible, also, for the student with elementary training to take part in summer geological survey work for state, national, or private organizations. In fact, after two or three years of geologic training, it is comparatively easy for the student to earn at such intervals during the year a fair fraction of his year's expenses.
The ideal arrangement, from the writer's viewpoint, would be about an equal division of time between indoor and outdoor study.The alternation from one to the other supplies a much needed corrective to clear thinking. It is impossible to bring all the subject materials into the classroom and laboratory; such study must inevitably be more or less deductive and generalized. If the student at frequent intervals is not able to acquire and renew a mental picture of field conditions, there is likely to be a faulty perspective even in regard to principles, and a considerable gap between the theoretical and applied phases of his knowledge. It may be possible in the classroom, for instance, to discuss faults in great detail with the aid of maps, diagrams, and pictures; and yet it is extremely difficult to get a real three-dimensional conception of the problems without actually standing on the ground.
With the increasing size and efficiency of human operations has come an inevitable tendency to specialization. Where, in the past, the necessary geologic work might be passably done by the mining engineer, the local superintendent or operator, it is now being intrusted to specialists. Even within the more strictly engineering phases of the mining engineer's work, there is the same tendency toward specialization; his work is being divided up among the electrical engineers, the mechanical engineers, the hydraulic engineers, and others. The opportunities for geologic work, therefore, are distinctly in the direction of specialization. The student in determining the field he shall enter needs to take this fact into account and to prepare accordingly, but not at the sacrifice of the broad basal training. Only a small part of the specialization can be accomplished in college. The remainder will come with experience.
In the future there is likely to be increasing specialization among the different educational institutions in the phases of applied geology which are taught. Geographic location has a good deal to do with this tendency. Where an institution is located near a coal or oil field, it is likely, as a matter of course, to specialize to some extent in the application of geology to these resources. Or, the specialization may arise from the fact that the teachers have had special training in certain phases of applied geology, and such training naturally and properly determines the emphasis to be placed.Courses in engineering geology are finding a natural development in the leading engineering colleges.
In view of the fact that it is impossible for any one institution to cover all phases of applied geology, because of lack of time, and in view of the fact that even if this were attempted the results would be very unequal, because of the varied experience of teachers or because of geographic location, it would seem wise definitely to recognize these limitations and for each institution to play up the work it can do best. With freedom of migration among universities, a student by moving from place to place can thus secure any combination of specialized courses which best fits his requirements.
There has been some agitation in recent years for standardization of courses in economic geology, and for the granting of a special degree in evidence of the completion of such a course. The principal argument for this procedure is that it would tend to insure a better average of training and would draw a line between worthy geologists and a host of ill-trained pseudo-geologists. The earth is so accessible, and its use so varied, that geology is handicapped perhaps more than any other science by persons who really have no valid claim to a scientific title.
The writer doubts whether a special degree in economic geology would go far toward improving this situation. Even if the courses were the same in different institutions, the manner of treatment and the ability of the teachers would be so varied that in the future, as in the past, anyone inquiring into the real standing of a geologist would be likely to consider his individual training rather than the degree attached to his name. There would be no guarantee that institutions not qualified to give the degree might not do so. However, the principal objection in the writer's mind to a degree of economic geology is the assumption that it is possible for anybody, in the present stage of knowledge, to formulate a standardized course adequate or best to meet the varied requirements. Considering the breadth and the variety of the field, any such attempt at standardization would have to be highly arbitrary. Once established, it would be a hindrance to the natural development of new courses to meet the ever changingrequirements. When, if ever, the science of economic geology becomes fully organized, a standardized course may be possible. In the present stage of the science, more elasticity is required than seems to be possible in any of the courses proposed.
One of the purposes of the introduction of a degree of economic geology, to separate the sheep from the goats, may be accomplished in another way,—namely, by the establishment and maintenance of high standards of admission and high aims on the part of the various professional societies having to do with geology and mining. If this is done, membership in such societies may be regarded as evidence of sound training and achievement. To some extent this procedure may relieve the pressure on universities for uniformity of courses and degrees, leaving them free to develop in such manner as seems best. Scientific organizations, overlooking the entire field, are in a position to take into account the greatest variety of factors of training and experience in selecting their members. Failure of any university course to make men eligible for such recognition will obviously react on the course in a desirable way.
It has been the aim in this book to present a general view of the fields of activity of the economic geologist; and the list of chapter headings in itself summarizes the variety of his opportunities. The rapidly increasing use of earth materials promises far greater calls for geologic aid in the future than in the past. The profession is in its infancy.
Opportunities for employment are ordinarily found in three main directions—in educational institutions, in the federal and state geological surveys, and in private organizations. Connection with the United States Geological Survey excludes participation in private work, and in recent years even in teaching. In the state surveys there is ordinarily more latitude in this regard. In the educational institutions, it is rather the common procedure for the instructor to secure his field practice and experience through private agencies, or through part time connection with state surveys,—an arrangement with advantages to all concerned. The educational institution secures the benefit of the field experiencewhich it cannot afford to provide, and is enabled to hold geologists at salaries far below their earning capacity. The geologist gains by the opportunity to alternate between office and field study, and to correct his perspective by the constant checking of theory with field conditions. The combination tends to keep the clearly scientific and the applied phases in a proper relative proportion; it minimizes the danger of drifting into purely empirical field methods on the one hand, and of losing touch with actualities on the other. Geologists devoting their attention solely to field work often complain that they do not have time to digest and correlate their results, nor to keep up with what others are doing. On the other hand, geologists without current field practice are likely to develop too strongly along subjective, deductive, and theoretical lines. The teacher gains in freshness and force in the presentation of his subject in the classroom, and the very effort necessary for presentation requires better analysis and coördination of his field observations. The private or state organization gains in this combination by drawing on the general and varied knowledge which has necessarily been accumulated for teaching and investigative purposes.
Temperament and circumstances will determine in which of these directions the student will turn. However, in view of the present natural tendency to be attracted by the large financial rewards in the commercial field, it may not be out of place to emphasize the fact that these rewards are perhaps more likely to be gained through perfected training and experience in state and national surveys and in educational institutions, than through early concentration in the commercial field. In any case, the financial side will take care of itself when sufficient knowledge and proficiency have been attained in any branch of the science.
The world is the geologist's laboratory; it is the only limit to his activities. The frontiers are near at hand, both physically and intellectually. There are few fields so attractive from the scientific standpoint. There are few in which the successful prosecution of the science can be of so much direct benefit to civilization and can yield such large financial rewards. If, in addition, the opportunities for travel and adventure are taken into account, what profession promises a more interesting and useful life?
So far we have discussed geology as a profession. It has provedits value also as a training for administrative and other public careers. The profession contributes its full share of men to these activities. The practice of geology deals with a wide variety of factors, and requires the constant exercise of judgment in balancing, correlating, and integrating these factors in order to reach sound conclusions. This objective treatment of complex situations is valuable training for the handling of human affairs.
Ethical questions involved in the practice of economic geology have called out much discussion, and, in some cases, marked differences of opinion among men equally desirous of doing the right thing. In the plain choice between right and wrong, there is of course no difference of opinion. Unfortunately in many of the questions which arise the alternatives are not so clearly labeled.
The lure of discovery and quick returns always has, and doubtless always will, draw into the field large numbers of persons without sound ethical anchorage or standards. Fortunately, these are not the persons in control of the mineral industries; they are mere incidents in the great and stable business built up by legitimate demands for raw materials.
The view is sometimes expressed that the geologist should hold himself aloof from the business or applied phases of his profession, because of the danger of being tainted with commercialism. This argument would apply to the engineer as well as to the geologist. To carry such a procedure through to its logical conclusion would mean substantially the withdrawal of scientific aid from industry,—which, to the writer, is hardly a debatable question. Circumstances are trending inevitably to the larger use of geologic science in the commercial field. The problems of ethics cannot be solved by staying out. The economic geologist is rather called upon to do his part in raising the standards of ethics in that part of the field in which he has influence. This he can do by careful appraisal of all the conditions relating to a problem which he is asked to take up, and by refusing to act where questionable ethical standards are apparent or suspected. He must understand fully the purposes for which his report is to be used; merely as a matter of professional self-interest, there is no other course open to him. In afield in which there is so much danger from loose ethical conceptions, the premium on rigid honesty and nice appreciation of professional ethics is proportionately higher. The extreme care taken in this matter by acknowledged leaders in the profession of economic geology should be carefully considered by the young man entering the profession. There is a reason.
In other chapters reference is made to certain special ethical questions, such as the use of geology in mining litigation (pp. 349-355), and the necessity of the geologist's recognizing his own limitations (pp. 92-94), but no attempt has been made to cover the variety of such questions that may come up. It is safe to assume that no special ethical code can be made sufficiently comprehensive, detailed, and elastic to cover all the contingencies which are likely to be met in the practice of economic geology; nor is it likely that any such code, if attempted, would be any improvement on the spirit of the Golden Rule. Simple decency and common sense in their broader implications are essential to the practice of the profession.