Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11), Herbert Spencer [historical books to read .txt] 📗

Acts; Or In The

Correctness Of    The   Previsions Accomplished By Them; But In The

Complexity Of    The   Processes Required To Achieve The   Previsions. Much Of

Our Commonest Knowledge Is, As Far As It Goes, Rigorously Precise.

Science Does Not Increase This Precision; Cannot Transcend It. What Then

Does It Do? It Reduces Other Knowledge To The   Same Degree Of    Precision.

That Certainty Which Direct Perception Gives Us Respecting Coexistences

And Sequences Of    The   Simplest And Most Accessible Kind, Science Gives Us

Respecting Coexistences And Sequences, Complex In Their Dependencies Or

Inaccessible To Immediate Observation. In Brief, Regarded From This

Point Of    View, Science May Be Called _An Extension Of    The   Perceptions By

Means Of    Reasoning_.

 

 

 

On Further Considering The   Matter, However, It Will Perhaps Be Felt That

This Definition Does Not Express The   Whole Fact--That Inseparable As

Science May Be From Common Knowledge, And Completely As We May Fill Up

The Gap Between The   Simplest Previsions Of    The   Child And The   Most

Recondite Ones Of    The   Natural Philosopher, By Interposing A Series Of

Previsions In Which The   Complexity Of    Reasoning Involved Is Greater And

Greater, There Is Yet A Difference Between The   Two Beyond That Which Is

Here Described. And This Is True. But The   Difference Is Still Not Such

As Enables Us To Draw The   Assumed Line Of    Demarcation. It Is A

Difference Not Between Common Knowledge And Scientific Knowledge; But

Between The   Successive Phases Of    Science Itself, Or Knowledge

Itself--Whichever We Choose To Call It. In Its Earlier Phases Science

Attains Only To _Certainty_ Of    Foreknowledge; In Its Later Phases It

Further Attains To _Completeness_. We Begin By Discovering _A_

Relation: We End By Discovering _The_ Relation. Our First Achievement Is

To Foretell The   _Kind_ Of    Phenomenon Which Will Occur Under Specific

Conditions: Our Last Achievement Is To Foretell Not Only The   Kind But

The _Amount_. Or, To Reduce The   Proposition To Its Most Definite

Form--Undeveloped Science Is _Qualitative_ Prevision: Developed Science

Is _Quantitative_ Prevision.

 

 

 

This Will At Once Be Perceived To Express The   Remaining Distinction

Between The   Lower And The   Higher Stages Of    Positive Knowledge. The

Prediction That A Piece Of    Lead Will Take More Force To Lift It Than A

Piece Of    Wood Of    Equal Size, Exhibits Certainty, But Not Completeness,

Of Foresight. The   Kind Of    Effect In Which The   One Body Will Exceed The

Other Is Foreseen; But Not The   Amount By Which It Will Exceed. There Is

Qualitative Prevision Only. On The   Other Hand, The   Prediction That At A

Stated Time Two Particular Planets Will Be In Conjunction; That By Means

Of A Lever Having Arms In A Given Ratio, A Known Force Will Raise Just

So Many Pounds; That To Decompose A Specified Quantity Of    Sulphate Of

Iron By Carbonate Of    Soda Will Require So Many Grains--These Predictions

Exhibit Foreknowledge, Not Only Of    The   Nature Of    The   Effects To Be

Produced, But Of    The   Magnitude, Either Of    The   Effects Themselves, Of    The

Agencies Producing Them, Or Of    The   Distance In Time Or Space At Which

They Will Be Produced. There Is Not Only Qualitative But Quantitative

Prevision.

 

 

 

And This Is The   Unexpressed Difference Which Leads Us To Consider

Certain Orders Of    Knowledge As Especially Scientific When Contrasted

With Knowledge In General. Are The   Phenomena _Measurable_? Is The   Test

Which We Unconsciously Employ. Space Is Measurable: Hence Geometry.

Force And Space Are Measureable: Hence Statics. Time, Force, And Space

Are Measureable: Hence Dynamics. The   Invention Of    The   Barometer Enabled

Men To Extend The   Principles Of    Mechanics To The   Atmosphere; And

Aerostatics Existed. When A Thermometer Was Devised There Arose A

Science Of    Heat, Which Was Before Impossible. Such Of    Our Sensations As

We Have Not Yet Found Modes Of    Measuring Do Not Originate Sciences. We

Have No Science Of    Smells; Nor Have We One Of    Tastes. We Have A Science

Of The   Relations Of    Sounds Differing In Pitch, Because We Have

Discovered A Way To Measure Them; But We Have No Science Of    Sounds In

Respect To Their Loudness Or Their _Timbre_, Because We Have Got No

Measures Of    Loudness And _Timbre_.

 

 

 

Obviously It Is This Reduction Of    The   Sensible Phenomena It Represents,

To Relations Of    Magnitude, Which Gives To Any Division Of    Knowledge Its

Especially Scientific Character. Originally Men's Knowledge Of    Weights

And Forces Was In The   Same Condition As Their Knowledge Of    Smells And

Tastes Is Now--A Knowledge Not Extending Beyond That Given By The

Unaided Sensations; And It Remained So Until Weighing Instruments And

Dynamometers Were Invented. Before There Were Hour-Glasses And

Clepsydras, Most Phenomena Could Be Estimated As To Their Durations And

Intervals, With No Greater Precision Than Degrees Of    Hardness Can Be

Estimated By The   Fingers. Until A Thermometric Scale Was Contrived,

Men's Judgments Respecting Relative Amounts Of    Heat Stood On The   Same

Footing With Their Present Judgments Respecting Relative Amounts Of

Sound. And As In These Initial Stages, With No Aids To Observation, Only

The Roughest Comparisons Of    Cases Could Be Made, And Only The   Most

Marked Differences Perceived; It Is Obvious That Only The   Most Simple

Laws Of    Dependence Could Be Ascertained--Only Those Laws Which, Being

Uncomplicated With Others, And Not Disturbed In Their Manifestations,

Required No Niceties Of    Observation To Disentangle Them. Whence It

Appears Not Only That In Proportion As Knowledge Becomes Quantitative Do

Its Previsions Become Complete As Well As Certain, But That Until Its

Assumption Of    A Quantitative Character It Is Necessarily Confined To The

Most Elementary Relations.

 

 

 

Moreover It Is To Be Remarked That While, On The   One Hand, We Can

Discover The   Laws Of    The   Greater Proportion Of    Phenomena Only By

Investigating Them Quantitatively; On The   Other Hand We Can Extend The

Range Of    Our Quantitative Previsions Only As Fast As We Detect The   Laws

Of The   Results We Predict. For Clearly The   Ability To Specify The

Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 99

Magnitude Of    A Result Inaccessible To Direct Measurement, Implies

Knowledge Of    Its Mode Of    Dependence On Something Which Can Be

Measured--Implies That We Know The   Particular Fact Dealt With To Be An

Instance Of    Some More General Fact. Thus The   Extent To Which Our

Quantitative Previsions Have Been Carried In Any Direction, Indicates

The Depth To Which Our Knowledge Reaches In That Direction. And Here, As

Another Aspect Of    The   Same Fact, We May Further Observe That As We Pass

From Qualitative To Quantitative Prevision, We Pass From Inductive

Science To Deductive Science. Science While Purely Inductive Is Purely

Qualitative: When Inaccurately Quantitative It Usually Consists Of    Part

Induction, Part Deduction: And It Becomes Accurately Quantitative Only

When Wholly Deductive. We Do Not Mean That The   Deductive And The

Quantitative Are Coextensive; For There Is Manifestly Much Deduction

That Is Qualitative Only. We Mean That All Quantitative Prevision Is

Reached Deductively; And That Induction Can Achieve Only Qualitative

Prevision.

 

 

 

Still, However, It Must Not Be Supposed That These Distinctions Enable

Us To Separate Ordinary Knowledge From Science, Much As They Seem To Do

So. While They Show In What Consists The   Broad Contrast Between The

Extreme Forms Of    The   Two, They Yet Lead Us To Recognise Their Essential

Identity; And Once More Prove The   Difference To Be One Of    Degree Only.

For, On The   One Hand, The   Commonest Positive Knowledge Is To Some Extent

Quantitative; Seeing That The   Amount Of    The   Foreseen Result Is Known

Within Certain Wide Limits. And, On The   Other Hand, The   Highest

Quantitative Prevision Does Not Reach The   Exact Truth, But Only A Very

Near Approximation To It. Without Clocks The   Savage Knows That The   Day

Is Longer In The   Summer Than In The   Winter; Without Scales He Knows That

Stone Is Heavier Than Flesh: That Is, He Can Foresee Respecting Certain

Results That Their Amounts Will Exceed These, And Be Less Than Those--He

Knows _About_ What They Will Be. And, With His Most Delicate Instruments

And Most Elaborate Calculations, All That The   Man Of    Science Can Do, Is

To Reduce The   Difference Between The   Foreseen And The   Actual Results To

An Unimportant Quantity.

 

 

 

Moreover, It Must Be Borne In Mind Not Only That All The   Sciences Are

Qualitative In Their First Stages,--Not Only That Some Of    Them, As

Chemistry, Have But Recently Reached The   Quantitative Stage--But That

The Most Advanced Sciences Have Attained To Their Present Power Of

Determining Quantities Not Present To The   Senses, Or Not Directly

Measurable, By A Slow Process Of    Improvement Extending Through Thousands

Of Years. So That Science And The   Knowledge Of    The   Uncultured Are Alike

In The   Nature Of    Their Previsions, Widely As They Differ In Range; They

Possess A Common Imperfection, Though This Is Immensely Greater In The

Last Than In The   First; And The   Transition From The   One To The   Other Has

Been Through A Series Of    Steps By Which The   Imperfection Has Been

Rendered Continually Less, And The   Range Continually Wider.

 

 

 

These Facts, That Science And The   Positive Knowledge Of    The   Uncultured

Cannot Be Separated In Nature, And That The   One Is But A Perfected And

Extended Form Of    The   Other, Must Necessarily Underlie The   Whole Theory

Of Science, Its Progress, And The   Relations Of    Its Parts To Each Other.

There Must Be Serious Incompleteness In Any History Of    The   Sciences,

Which, Leaving Out Of    View The   First Steps Of    Their Genesis, Commences

With Them Only When They Assume Definite Forms. There Must Be Grave

Defects, If Not A General Untruth, In A Philosophy Of    The   Sciences

Considered In Their Interdependence And Development, Which Neglects The

Inquiry How They Came To Be Distinct Sciences, And How They Were

Severally Evolved Out Of    The   Chaos Of    Primitive Ideas.

 

 

 

Not Only A Direct Consideration Of    The   Matter, But All Analogy, Goes To

Show That In The   Earlier And Simpler Stages Must Be Sought The   Key To

All Subsequent Intricacies. The   Time Was When The   Anatomy And Physiology

Of The   Human Being Were Studied By Themselves--When The   Adult Man Was

Analysed And The   Relations Of    Parts And Of    Functions Investigated,

Without Reference Either To The   Relations Exhibited In The   Embryo Or To

The Homologous Relations Existing In Other Creatures. Now, However, It

Has Become Manifest That No True Conceptions, No True Generalisations,

Are Possible Under Such Conditions. Anatomists And Physiologists Now

Find That The   Real Natures Of    Organs And Tissues Can Be Ascertained Only

By Tracing Their Early Evolution; And That The   Affinities Between

Existing Genera Can Be Satisfactorily Made Out Only By Examining The

Fossil Genera To Which They Are Allied. Well, Is It Not Clear That The

Like Must Be True Concerning All Things That Undergo Development? Is Not

Science A Growth? Has Not Science, Too, Its Embryology? And Must Not The

Neglect Of    Its Embryology Lead To A Misunderstanding Of    The   Principles

Of Its Evolution And Of    Its Existing Organisation?

 

 

 

There Are _À Priori_ Reasons, Therefore, For Doubting The   Truth Of    All

Philosophies Of    The   Sciences Which Tacitly Proceed Upon The   Common

Notion That Scientific Knowledge And Ordinary Knowledge Are Separate;

Instead Of    Commencing, As They Should, By Affiliating The   One Upon The

Other, And Showing How It Gradually Came To Be Distinguishable From The

Other. We May Expect To Find Their Generalisations Essentially

Artificial; And We Shall Not Be Deceived. Some Illustrations Of    This May

Here Be Fitly Introduced, By Way Of    Preliminary To A Brief Sketch Of    The

Genesis Of    Science From The   Point Of    View Indicated. And We Cannot More

Readily Find Such Illustrations Than By Glancing At A Few Of    The   Various

_Classifications_ Of    The   Sciences That Have From Time To Time Been

Proposed. To Consider All Of    Them Would Take Too Much Space: We Must

Content Ourselves With Some Of    The   Latest.

 

 

 

 

Commencing With Those Which May Be Soonest Disposed Of, Let Us Notice

First The   Arrangement Propounded By Oken. An Abstract Of    It Runs

Thus:--

 

 

 

     Part I.   Mathesis.--_Pneumatogeny_: Primary Art, Primary

               Consciousness, God, Primary Rest, Time, Polarity, Motion,

               Man, Space, Point. Line, Surface, Globe,

               Rotation.--_Hylogeny_: Gravity, Matter, Ether, Heavenly

               Bodies, Light, Heat, Fire.

 

 

 

        (He Explains That Mathesis Is The   Doctrine Of    The   Whole;