of the blood;
Darwin's theory was insistently repudiated and rejected by many scientific
men of his day; Galilo, Columbus, Boillard, the discoverer of the
convolution of Broca, and Stevenson, the inventor of the steam locomotive
engine, failed to convince the recognized authorities of their times.
Gall, who localized the motor functions of the brain, a discovery
universally accepted by all brain physiologists today, was laughed out of
court by men of the highest scientific authority, who, by experiments,
"proved" that he was wrong. So great a mathematician and scientist as
Professor Simon Newcomb made the emphatic remark that the dream of flight
in a heavier-than-air machine was absurd and would never be realized. The
difficulty with all these conclusions lay in the fact that the
much-vaunted "proof" was negative in character. Nothing is easier--or more
fallacious, logically--than to "prove" that a thing is _not_ so. The
difficulty lies in proving that it _is_ so; therefore, logically sound.

According to logicians, conclusions based upon negative premises are
inherently unsound. In order to reach reliable conclusions, we must first
have _all_ of the essential facts in the case. We question seriously
whether this was possible in the course of such a brief investigation as
Dean Schneider made. Scientific selection of employees according to the
science of character analysis by the observational method was first
proposed in the summer of 1912, so that Dean Schneider has had only three
years, during which he was much occupied with other duties, in which to
make his observations. We only wish here to raise the question as to
whether, in that short time, he could obtain all of the facts necessary
for reaching a final conclusion. At any rate, other scientists have spent
at least fifteen or twenty years in the examination of the same facts
before reaching their conclusions.

The method employed as outlined in the paragraph quote does not seem to
fulfill all of the necessary requirements of a careful and complete
scientific investigation. Take, for example, the test of "directive
money-making executives." Would Dean Schneider, or any other engineer,
permit a layman, no matter how well qualified otherwise, to examine twenty
or thirty different pieces of engineering work for the purpose of
determining whether or not they "conform to any law." We acknowledge Dean
Schneider's ability as an engineer and as an educator, but until he h