we recognize it as truth? There is the knowledge that ought to be the principal result of their studies. The young people ought to leave the high school having learned well what the principal methods are by which human knowledge is formed and to what objects, for what results, each method is applied. They ought, on leaving school, to be trained to do nothing without method, without a method chosen with discernment, according to the object to be known or the end to be attained.” This appeals to me as the application to education of the best recent thought in philosophy and logic. Now the interesting thing is that in this country, where the mass of the teachers would probably reject the theory and where supreme emphasis is being laid on the acquisition of information as the goal of educational effort, the teachers of natural science are doing the very thing the theory demands, namely, _teaching methods or processes by which one can get at the truth or test what is supposed to be the truth in natural science, and giving along with the knowledge of these processes but a modicum of information_. The _information_ acquired in a laboratory course is not sufficient to justify the time given to the course. But it is not necessary to justify it on any such ground. M. Lanson has given the theory of which this natural science laboratory work is the application. It only remains to become conscious of what it means, to extend the same method to other studies and a great revolution has been wrought in education, perhaps the greatest in the history of pedagogy. The Historical Method. No subject would be more transformed in its teaching by the introduction of method work than history. But what is history? What are the materials with which the student works and what the method by which he arrives at historical truth? What is _proof_ in historical study? The teacher of history must be able to give an answer to these questions, if he would do his work intelligently and effectively.