50 Years Ago

As an introduction, I should like to touch on something which is not a unique feature of the subject of discourse. However, this is as good an excuse as any to look at the disturbing fact that communications between scientist and scientist are in a state of overgrowth or 'overpublication', while in contrast to this the writings ... addressed to the non-expert are, so some believe, somewhat neglected or 'underpublished'. Of course, one does not condemn the vastly increased potentialities (5–10 times that of 1945) for scientific printing space, but the sometimes indiscriminate multiplication of the printed words, formulae and illustrations leads to overburdening of libraries, to a nightmarish frustration of the research worker who never catches up with his reading, and willy-nilly to an encouragement of unfinished and mediocre material to be published.

From Nature 26 June 1965

100 Years Ago

All good nomenclature should be unambiguous, and, if possible, self-explanatory. The terms masse volumique, volume massique, and stéradian have both these desirable qualities; no one with a knowledge of physics and French could make any mistake as to the exact meaning of the first two, and the meaning of the third should be at once self-evident to anyone who knows the definition of a solid angle. I should not expect a chemist or a botanist to have anything but a hazy idea of the meaning of puissance massique, but even to an ordinary French engineer it should convey its meaning instantly. An expression of this kind, far from being an “eccentricity,” is a triumph of nomenclature. It is possible to mould language by logic; it is the only way to mould language that shall be truly scientific.

From Nature 24 June 1915

Footnote 1