Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:59:32.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Classification of the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

Extract

So extensive is the field of human knowledge, so many and wide apart are the spots at which ground has been broken, and so evident is the necessity for men to be special in their studies if they would be thoroughly masters of their subjects, that there is no little danger lest workers in one department may be unappreciated by, if not actually unknown to, those who are employed in another part. Any one who will give his attention to the matter may observe examples of lines of investigation, which have really close relations, and the results of which might be of mutual aid, running side by side, like parallel lines, without meeting. Accordingly, M. Comte was of opinion that there was needed a new order of scientific men, whose function it should be to bring together and co-ordinate the results of the different workers; and it is plain that such an organisation must be effected somehow. But great mischief would of a certainty result from men specially undertaking this work: unless they are thoroughly and practically grounded in some science, unless they have plodded in patient and tedious investigation, they are almost sure to go astray into vain and seductive speculations, which are never definite enough to be useful, are often enticing enough to be mischievous. If a valuable idea is perchance hit upon, it is potential rather than real, as a statue is potential in a block of marble, though it has yet to be hewn out; it is so shrouded in theoretical haze, and so much wanting in exactness, that it is of no value until the patient work of the practical men has defined it, put it in its proper place, and so to speak guaranteed its worth. Even Goethe, exceptionally powerful as his mind was, and much as he worked, owed his scientific troubles and his scientific errors to a want of practical knowledge. Those who have not had a scientific training must lack the scientific imagination.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1864 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The opportunity is favorable, as Mr. Spencer proposes to issue in periodical parts a series of works comprising—1. First Principles. 2. The Principles of Biology. 3. The Principles of Psychology. 4. The Principles of Sociology. 5. The Principles of Morality.Google Scholar

‘The Classification of the Sciences: to which are added Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte,’ by Herbert Spencer. Williams and Norgate, 1864.Google Scholar

This table only represents the main division, although it must suffice for our purposes here : in three other tables, Mr. Spencer follows out the different sub-divisions of each division, but the criticism of them in detail would be an unprofitable and interminable business.Google Scholar

M. Littre, in his ‘Auguste Comte et la Philosophie Positive,’ has pointed this out to Mr. Spencer, who, however, has failed entirely to see the drift of M. Littré's observations. That is likely enough to happen to a man who, instead of receiving ideas from facts, is occupied in imposing his ideas upon the facts.Google Scholar

It appears from a note, that Professor Frankland pointed this out to Mr. Spencer; but, will any one be surprised to learn, without effect? How could Mr. Spencer give up such a big theory, because a fact or two were against it? An exception, do you say! Nonsense: only an apparent exception which in reality confirms the theory. We must acquiesce; for it is vain to argue with any one who will arbitrarily give to words whatever meaning he thinks fit. Note only the interesting fact that an author writing upon the classification of the sciences needed to have such an elementary truth pointed out to him! If that was necessary, it is no wonder that he did not appreciate the fact when it was pointed out to him.Google Scholar

Positive Philosophy,’ vol. ii, p. 240, H. Martineau's translation.Google Scholar

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.