was debated. Then the theory of "fomites" arose, and underwent
investigation. Finally, the spread of the disease through the mosquito
was proposed for the solution. And while books of reference were
examined and new observations were collected in great number, such
work was not undertaken by the investigators primarily for the sake of
increasing their general knowledge, but with reference to the
particular issue at hand.

The important question now is, Is this, in general, the way in which
the ordinary student should work? Of course, he is much less mature
than the scientist, and the results that he achieves may have no
social value, in comparison. Yet, should his method be the same? At
least, should his study likewise be under the guidance of specific
purposes, so that these would direct and limit his reading,
observation, and independent thinking? Or would that be too narrow,
indeed, exactly the wrong way? And, instead of limiting himself to a
collection of such facts as help to answer the few problems that he
might be able to set up, should he be unmindful of particular
problems? Should he rather be a collector of facts at large,
endeavoring to develop an interest in whatever is true, simply because
it is true? Here are two quite different methods of study suggested.
Probably the latter is by far the more common one among immature
students. Yet the former is the one that, in the main, will be
advocated in this book as a factor of serious study.

_2. The supplementing of thought as a second factor in study._

Dr. Reed in this case went far beyond the discoveries of previous
investigators. Not only did he conceive new tests for old hypotheses,
but he posited new hypotheses, as well as collected the data that