Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) by Herbert Spencer (best mobile ebook reader TXT) 📖
![](/uploads/posts/books/2/3/7/4/1/herbert-spencer-essays-on-education-and-kindred-subjects-fiscle-part-11.jpg)
- Author: Herbert Spencer
Book online «Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) by Herbert Spencer (best mobile ebook reader TXT) 📖». Author Herbert Spencer
Altogether Unwarrantable, But It Is Radically Inconsistent With His Own
Scheme Of Divisions. At The Outset He Says--And As The Point Is
Important We Quote From The Original--"Pour La _Physique Inorganique_
Nous Voyons D'abord, En Nous Conformant Toujours A L'ordre De Généralité
Et De Dépendance Des Phénomènes, Qu'elle Doit Être Partagée En Deux
Sections Distinctes, Suivant Qu'elle Considère Les Phénomènes Généraux
De L'univers, Ou, En Particulier, Ceux Que Présentent Les Corps
Terrestres. D'où La Physique Céleste, Ou L'astronomie, Soit Géométrique,
Soit Mechanique; Et La Physique Terrestre."
Here Then We Have _Inorganic Physics_ Clearly Divided Into _Celestial
Physics_ And _Terrestrial Physics_--The Phenomena Presented By The
Universe, And The Phenomena Presented By Earthly Bodies. If Now
Celestial Bodies And Terrestrial Bodies Exhibit Sundry Leading Phenomena
In Common, As They Do, How Can The Generalisation Of These Common
Phenomena Be Considered As Pertaining To The One Class Rather Than To
The Other? If Inorganic Physics Includes Geometry (Which M. Comte Has
Made It Do By Comprehending _Geometrical_ Astronomy In Its
Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 104Sub-Section--Celestial Physics); And If Its Sub-Section--Terrestrial
Physics, Treats Of Things Having Geometrical Properties; How Can The
Laws Of Geometrical Relations Be Excluded From Terrestrial Physics?
Clearly If Celestial Physics Includes The Geometry Of Objects In The
Heavens, Terrestrial Physics Includes The Geometry Of Objects On The
Earth. And If Terrestrial Physics Includes Terrestrial Geometry, While
Celestial Physics Includes Celestial Geometry, Then The Geometrical Part
Of Terrestrial Physics Precedes The Geometrical Part Of Celestial
Physics; Seeing That Geometry Gained Its First Ideas From Surrounding
Objects. Until Men Had Learnt Geometrical Relations From Bodies On The
Earth, It Was Impossible For Them To Understand The Geometrical
Relations Of Bodies In The Heavens.
So, Too, With Celestial Mechanics, Which Had Terrestrial Mechanics For
Its Parent. The Very Conception Of _Force_, Which Underlies The Whole Of
Mechanical Astronomy, Is Borrowed From Our Earthly Experiences; And The
Leading Laws Of Mechanical Action As Exhibited In Scales, Levers,
Projectiles, Etc., Had To Be Ascertained Before The Dynamics Of The
Solar System Could Be Entered Upon. What Were The Laws Made Use Of By
Newton In Working Out His Grand Discovery? The Law Of Falling Bodies
Disclosed By Galileo; That Of The Composition Of Forces Also Disclosed
By Galileo; And That Of Centrifugal Force Found Out By Huyghens--All Of
Them Generalisations Of Terrestrial Physics. Yet, With Facts Like These
Before Him, M. Comte Places Astronomy Before Physics In Order Of
Evolution! He Does Not Compare The Geometrical Parts Of The Two
Together, And The Mechanical Parts Of The Two Together; For This Would
By No Means Suit His Hypothesis. But He Compares The Geometrical Part Of
The One With The Mechanical Part Of The Other, And So Gives A Semblance
Of Truth To His Position. He Is Led Away By A Verbal Delusion. Had He
Confined His Attention To The Things And Disregarded The Words, He Would
Have Seen That Before Mankind Scientifically Co-Ordinated _Any One Class
Of Phenomena_ Displayed In The Heavens, They Had Previously Co-Ordinated
_A Parallel Class Of Phenomena_ Displayed Upon The Surface Of The Earth.
Were It Needful We Could Fill A Score Pages With The Incongruities Of M.
Comte's Scheme. But The Foregoing Samples Will Suffice. So Far Is His
Law Of Evolution Of The Sciences From Being Tenable, That, By Following
His Example, And Arbitrarily Ignoring One Class Of Facts, It Would Be
Possible To Present, With Great Plausibility, Just The Opposite
Generalisation To That Which He Enunciates. While He Asserts That The
Rational Order Of The Sciences, Like The Order Of Their Historic
Development, "Is Determined By The Degree Of Simplicity, Or, What Comes
To The Same Thing, Of Generality Of Their Phenomena;" It Might
Contrariwise Be Asserted, That, Commencing With The Complex And The
Special, Mankind Have Progressed Step By Step To A Knowledge Of Greater
Simplicity And Wider Generality. So Much Evidence Is There Of This As To
Have Drawn From Whewell, In His _History Of The Inductive Sciences_, The
General Remark That "The Reader Has Already Seen Repeatedly In The
Course Of This History, Complex And Derivative Principles Presenting
Themselves To Men's Minds Before Simple And Elementary Ones."
Even From M. Comte's Own Work, Numerous Facts, Admissions, And
Arguments, Might Be Picked Out, Tending To Show This. We Have Already
Quoted His Words In Proof That Both Abstract And Concrete Mathematics
Have Progressed Towards A Higher Degree Of Generality, And That He Looks
Forward To A Higher Generality Still. Just To Strengthen This Adverse
Hypothesis, Let Us Take A Further Instance. From The _Particular_ Case
Of The Scales, The Law Of Equilibrium Of Which Was Familiar To The
Earliest Nations Known, Archimedes Advanced To The More _General_ Case
Of The Unequal Lever With Unequal Weights; The Law Of Equilibrium Of
Which _Includes_ That Of The Scales. By The Help Of Galileo's Discovery
Concerning The Composition Of Forces, D'alembert "Established, For The
First Time, The Equations Of Equilibrium Of _Any_ System Of Forces
Applied To The Different Points Of A Solid Body"--Equations Which
Include All Cases Of Levers And An Infinity Of Cases Besides. Clearly
This Is Progress Towards A Higher Generality--Towards A Knowledge More
Independent Of Special Circumstances--Towards A Study Of Phenomena "The
Most Disengaged From The Incidents Of Particular Cases;" Which Is M.
Comte's Definition Of "The Most Simple Phenomena." Does It Not Indeed
Follow From The Familiarly Admitted Fact, That Mental Advance Is From
The Concrete To The Abstract, From The Particular To The General, That
The Universal And Therefore Most Simple Truths Are The Last To Be
Discovered? Is Not The Government Of The Solar System By A Force Varying
Inversely As The Square Of The Distance, A Simpler Conception Than Any
That Preceded It? Should We Ever Succeed In Reducing All Orders Of
Phenomena To Some Single Law--Say Of Atomic Action, As M. Comte
Suggests--Must Not That Law Answer To His Test Of Being _Independent_ Of
All Others, And Therefore Most Simple? And Would Not Such A Law
Generalise The Phenomena Of Gravity, Cohesion, Atomic Affinity, And
Electric Repulsion, Just As The Laws Of Number Generalise The
Quantitative Phenomena Of Space, Time, And Force?
The Possibility Of Saying So Much In Support Of An Hypothesis The Very
Reverse Of M. Comte's, At Once Proves That His Generalisation Is Only A
Half-Truth. The Fact Is, That Neither Proposition Is Correct By Itself;
And The Actuality Is Expressed Only By Putting The Two Together. The
Progress Of Science Is Duplex: It Is At Once From The Special To The
General, And From The General To The Special: It Is Analytical And
Synthetical At The Same Time.
M. Comte Himself Observes That The Evolution Of Science Has Been
Accomplished By The Division Of Labour; But He Quite Misstates The Mode
In Which This Division Of Labour Has Operated. As He Describes It, It
Has Simply Been An Arrangement Of Phenomena Into Classes, And The Study
Of Each Class By Itself. He Does Not Recognise The Constant Effect Of
Progress In Each Class Upon _All_ Other Classes; But Only On The Class
Succeeding It In His Hierarchical Scale. Or If He Occasionally Admits
Collateral Influences And Intercommunications, He Does It So Grudgingly,
And So Quickly Puts The Admissions Out Of Sight And Forgets Them, As To
Leave The Impression That, With But Trifling Exceptions, The Sciences
Aid Each Other Only In The Order Of Their Alleged Succession. The Fact
Is, However, That The Division Of Labour In Science, Like The Division
Of Labour In Society, And Like The "Physiological Division Of Labour" In
Individual Organisms, Has Been Not Only A Specialisation Of Functions,
But A Continuous Helping Of Each Division By All The Others, And Of All
By Each. Every Particular Class Of Inquirers Has, As It Were, Secreted
Its Own Particular Order Of Truths From The General Mass Of Material
Which Observation Accumulates; And All Other Classes Of Inquirers Have
Made Use Of These Truths As Fast As They Were Elaborated, With The
Effect Of Enabling Them The Better To Elaborate Each Its Own Order Of
Truths.
Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 105
It Was Thus In Sundry Of The Cases We Have Quoted As At Variance With M.
Comte's Doctrine. It Was Thus With The Application Of Huyghens's Optical
Discovery To Astronomical Observation By Galileo. It Was Thus With The
Application Of The Isochronism Of The Pendulum To The Making Of
Instruments For Measuring Intervals, Astronomical And Other. It Was Thus
When The Discovery That The Refraction And Dispersion Of Light Did Not
Follow The Same Law Of Variation, Affected Both Astronomy And Physiology
By Giving Us Achromatic Telescopes And Microscopes. It Was Thus When
Bradley's Discovery Of The Aberration Of Light Enabled Him To Make The
First Step Towards Ascertaining The Motions Of The Stars. It Was Thus
When Cavendish's Torsion-Balance Experiment Determined The Specific
Gravity Of The Earth, And So Gave A Datum For Calculating The Specific
Gravities Of The Sun And Planets. It Was Thus When Tables Of
Atmospheric Refraction Enabled Observers To Write Down The Real Places
Of The Heavenly Bodies Instead Of Their Apparent Places. It Was Thus
When The Discovery Of The Different Expansibilities Of Metals By Heat,
Gave Us The Means Of Correcting Our Chronometrical Measurements Of
Astronomical Periods. It Was Thus When The Lines Of The Prismatic
Spectrum Were Used To Distinguish The Heavenly Bodies That Are Of Like
Nature With The Sun From Those Which Are Not. It Was Thus When, As
Recently, An Electro-Telegraphic Instrument Was Invented For The More
Accurate Registration Of Meridional Transits. It Was Thus When The
Difference In The Rates Of A Clock At The Equator, And Nearer The Poles,
Gave Data For Calculating The Oblateness Of The Earth, And Accounting
For The Precession Of The Equinoxes. It Was Thus--But It Is Needless To
Continue.
Here, Within Our Own Limited Knowledge Of Its History, We Have Named Ten
Additional Cases In Which The Single Science Of Astronomy Has Owed Its
Advance To Sciences Coming _After_ It In M. Comte's Series. Not Only Its
Secondary Steps, But Its Greatest Revolutions Have Been Thus Determined.
Kepler Could Not Have Discovered His Celebrated Laws Had It Not Been For
Tycho Brahe's Accurate Observations; And It Was Only After Some Progress
In Physical And Chemical Science That The Improved Instruments With
Which Those Observations Were Made, Became Possible. The Heliocentric
Theory Of The Solar System Had To Wait Until The Invention Of The
Telescope Before It Could Be Finally Established. Nay, Even The Grand
Discovery Of All--The Law Of Gravitation--Depended For Its Proof Upon An
Operation Of Physical Science, The Measurement Of A Degree On The
Earth's Surface. So Completely Indeed Did It Thus Depend, That Newton
_Had Actually Abandoned His Hypothesis_ Because The Length Of A Degree,
As Then Stated, Brought Out Wrong Results; And It Was Only After
Picart's More Exact Measurement Was Published, That He Returned To His
Calculations And Proved His Great Generalisation. Now This Constant
Intercommunion, Which, For Brevity's Sake, We Have Illustrated In The
Case Of One Science Only, Has Been Taking Place With All The Sciences.
Throughout The Whole Course Of Their Evolution There Has Been A
Continuous _Consensus_ Of The Sciences--A _Consensus_ Exhibiting A
General Correspondence With The _Consensus_ Of Faculties In Each Phase
Of Mental Development; The One Being An Objective Registry Of The
Subjective State Of The Other.
From Our Present Point Of View, Then, It Becomes Obvious That
Comments (0)