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

Owes Nothing To The   Other. Not Only Is This

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 104

Sub-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