Meaning: This quote by Ronald Fisher, a prominent mathematician, highlights his concern about the direction of modern scientific teaching. Fisher criticizes the tendency to neglect the "great books," which likely refers to classic works in the field of science and mathematics, in favor of emphasizing relatively unimportant modern work. He also expresses his apprehension about the presentation of vast amounts of detail, often of dubious truth and questionable significance, which tends to obscure fundamental principles.

Fisher's critique aligns with a broader debate about the balance between traditional foundational knowledge and contemporary advancements in scientific education. The "great books" mentioned in the quote could refer to seminal works by influential scientists and mathematicians such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, or Euclid. These timeless works are revered for their enduring significance and foundational principles that have shaped the understanding of their respective fields. By neglecting these foundational texts, Fisher suggests that modern scientific teaching may be missing out on essential theoretical frameworks and historical context necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Moreover, Fisher's concern about the emphasis on relatively unimportant modern work raises questions about the prioritization of contemporary research and findings over the timeless principles and theories established by the great thinkers of the past. While staying current with the latest developments is undoubtedly crucial in scientific education, Fisher's critique suggests that an excessive focus on contemporary work may come at the expense of a deep understanding of fundamental principles and historical context.

The quote also touches upon the issue of presenting masses of detail in a way that obscures principles. This critique reflects a broader concern about the overwhelming volume of information available in modern scientific education. With the explosion of scientific knowledge and research, educators may feel pressured to cover a vast array of details, often at the expense of clarity and coherence. Fisher's warning about the "doubtful truth and questionable weight" of this information underscores the importance of critical evaluation and discernment in scientific education. It is essential to distinguish between established principles and speculative or unverified claims, especially in an educational context where students are forming their foundational understanding of the subject.

Fisher's perspective on scientific teaching aligns with a traditionalist approach that emphasizes the importance of foundational knowledge and principles. While modern advancements and contemporary research are undoubtedly valuable, Fisher's critique serves as a reminder of the enduring relevance of classic works and fundamental principles in scientific education. By neglecting the great books and overemphasizing relatively unimportant modern work, educators run the risk of obscuring essential principles and historical context, potentially undermining the depth and coherence of scientific understanding.

In conclusion, Ronald Fisher's quote encapsulates his concern about the direction of modern scientific teaching, highlighting the potential neglect of foundational texts, the overemphasis on relatively unimportant modern work, and the presentation of overwhelming masses of detail that obscure fundamental principles. This critique prompts reflection on the balance between traditional foundational knowledge and contemporary advancements in scientific education, as well as the importance of discernment and critical evaluation in navigating the vast sea of scientific information. By engaging with Fisher's insights, educators and students can strive to foster a more balanced and nuanced approach to scientific teaching that integrates timeless principles with contemporary advancements, ensuring a comprehensive and coherent understanding of the subject.