The groundwork of science; a study of epistemology

Front matter

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

THE GIFT OF

Preface

WE have again and again been impressed by the ready disposition of men whose views and opinions are most opposed, to agree in accepting as certain, things which are by no means evident, and in adopting conclusions as proved, which are by no means the only consequences that follow from conceded premisses. Our great object, therefore, in this little volume, is to represent nothing as certain which does not appear to us to be really evident, and yet not to shrink from upholding as true whatever, in our judgment, possesses the highest conceivable evidence.

It has been our constant care to be impartial and, above all, to allow no consideration not purely scientific — no anticipations as to possible consequences — to influence us in the conclusions which our judgnient has led us to form. Our appeal throughout has been to the dry light of reason, and to that ^lone. Not so to act; to allow any kind of prejudice, any non-scientific consideration, to influence us in such a task as an endeavour to investigate the groundwork of science, would be both treason to science and a betrayal of the cause of philosophy.

But it is possible that to some persons the title of this book may prove a rock of offence, namely, persons disposed to doubt whether its object can be by any possibility attainable. " Is there," they may ask, " anything which can really merit the name of a ' groundwork of science ' ; and.

iv PREFACE

should there be such a thing, can a knowledge of it be really attainable by us ? "

To this question the answer appears to be that some groundwork of science there must be. For no one can deny that science exists, and this is obtrusively evident in our own time, when we are witnessing the closing days of an age which has been conspicuous beyond all others for scientific progress. Now, any science which we may select for consideration will be found to consist of some truths which are the results of other truths antecedently ascertained, whether the latter have served as incentives to more patient and careful observations and experiments, or whether the antecedent truths have served as premisses from which the newer truths have been logically inferred. These primitive and fundamental truths of the science selected, together with the efforts made to ascertain and establish them, must be allowed to form the groundwork of that particular science. And as every science must possess such primitive and fundamental truths, there must be a groundwork of science generally, even if it consists only of a collection of all the fundamental truths of all the several sciences.

But can there be one common groundwork for all the sciences from logic to geology, however diverse may be their several subject-matters ? It might be supposed that such there cannot be, the sciences being so numerous and diverse. Nevertheless, there is one point which is common to them all. However numerous and diverse the sciences may be, they all agree in having been developed by one kind of energy, namely, that of the human mind. And, indeed, after putting on one side all the differences which have arisen from diversities of culture (qualitative and quantitative), of energy, and of industry, there is a general and fundamental unity in human capacity. The sciences therefore being many and diverse, while the nature of the energy

PREFACE V

applied to their investigation is essentially one, it is evident that the groundwork of science must be sought in the human mind, and in the mind of each individual man who applies himself to its study — the study of Epistemology.'

Now the mind of each one of us is, during our waking hours, ceaselessly active, but active in very different ways. We may be vaguely conscious of our existence while listening to some sweet melody which entrances us with its charm. We may be enjoying the freshness of the air and the augmenting brightness of the sun of a summer's day, hardly aware of undefined thoughts passing through our mind. We may be anxiously longing for the arrival of a friend whom we impatiently expect, or dreading the delay in his arrival as foreboding evil. We may be dwelling in fancy over events of days gone by, or looking forward to the future fruition of a hope long entertained. We may be simultaneously applying our senses of sight and touch to ascertain the shape and structure of some material object^ — -a feather, a shell, or a work of art. We may be carrying out a piece of deductive reasoning, or we may be reflecting upon what we are about, and making sure we know, suspect, or doubt what we are actually cognising, suspecting, or doubting. But if we happen to be engaged in the study and pursuit of science, we must be aware of what we are doing, and, at least occasionally, reflect upon our perceptions.

Therefore, once more, the groundwork of science must be sought for in the human mind — in our own mind — when cognising scientific truths; especially those deemed most certain and far-reaching. And such truths cannot be truths obtained by reasoning, and cannot depend for their certainty on any experiments or observations alone. Such is manifestly the case, since whatever truth depends on reasoning cannot be ultimate, but must be posterior to, and depend

' Eni6TrjiJ.r), understanding, and Xdyoi, a discourse.

vi PREFACE

upon, the principles, experiments, or observations which show us that it is indeed true, and upon which its acceptance thus depends ; while the reflex certainty of observations and experiments themselves also implies the recognition of fundamental intellectual perceptions. Therefore, the groundwork of science must be composed of facts and of truths which carry with them their own evidence — which are self-evident — together with our own mental activity in reflecting upon and recognising such propositions as being the self-evident truths they are. Amongst such truths (as we shall hereafter see) must be that of our continued existence from day to day, and the certainty that we cannot at the same time continue to exist and yet cease to be, with others of similar nature. Such truths, it will be sought to show, cannot be really doubted without mental paralysis and self-stultification, for complete scepticism, as absolutely and necessarily self-destructive, is impossible for us. This assertion our readers are now asked to accept provisionally for what it may be worth, as full treatment of this and kindred subjects will find its place in the eighth chapter. They cannot be fully treated earlier, because before beginning to consider those fundamental questions, regarded as most essential elements of the groundwork of science, the way must be cleared for their due appreciation by a preliminary consideration of the various intellectual structures (the sciences) — the foundations common to the whole of which it is the purpose of this book to point out.

At the commencement, therefore, it appears incumbent on us, after considering what science is and of what it must consist, to call attention to certain elementary facts and distinctions without which it seems impossible to follow up any intellectual inquiry: such facts, e. g., are (in our opinion) the essential nature both of our ideas and the words we make use of to express them.

PREFACE Vll

Obviously, without an adequate acquaintance with the nature of our ideas no one can hope to succeed in a task an important part of which consists in the analysis of mental conceptions. What factors, therefore, co-operate in their elicitation, and the nature of such factors, the shares they respectively take, and the rank of each in ideation, are preliminary matters which must be noted at the very commencement of this book. Similarly, no one can arrive at even a provisional conclusion with respect to any merely initial problem unless he can be satisfied that there is some criterion of truth and that he can avail himself of it. To these first steps towards an understanding of the groundwork of science, the earlier portion of this book must, it appears to us, be exclusively devoted.

But in order to explore the groundwork of all science, it seems reasonable that the reader's attention should also be called to the different kinds of systematic and organised inquiry — the different sciences about which men's minds have been hitherto occupied — their number, nature, and the various degrees of aiifinity and relationship existing between them, etc. But before we can take another step forwards we shall find our progress arrested by the idealists. It is true that we hear it said that all the physical sciences can be pursued and taught as well on the idealistic hypothesis, as on that view concerning a real, external, independent world existing on all sides, which is entertained by all men who are not idealists. This we regard as true for one reason only : the reason, namely, that nature is too strong for idealism, and that no man can be always a consistent idealist, least of all students and adepts in physical science, who are continually recognising in thought and speech, and are constantly occupied about, certain bodies acting and interacting upon other bodies, not only quite without regard to their own perceptions (which need not be adverted to as being

Viii PREFACE

such), but with an implied perception of substantial existences, underlying and utterly different from any plexuses of feelings. If we shall be compelled to admit that idealism is true, we shall have to admit also that the groundwork of science is indeed mental, in a very different sense from that in which we and most other men have taken it to be. Moreover, for our own part, we should then feel that the authority and certainty of other seemingly self-evident truths were gravely compromised, especially if a truth apparently so self-evident as the existence of our own body (as we and most men understand that body to exist) were but a delusion and self-deception of the mind. But although, even then, the most fundamental truths of all would still, for us, remain evident and unimpaired in their certainty, it nevertheless appears to us to be incumbent on anyone who desires to study Epistemology, to enter upon a serious inquiry as to the truth of idealism.

An inquiry respecting a system which has been adopted, and is maintained, by so many men of eminence, not only in philosophy but in physical science also, can evidently be no light task ; yet it must be undertaken and idealism accepted or rejected before further progress is possible. If such an inquiry were neglected the groundwork of science would, we think, have to remain for the student a problem unsolved and (till this has been finally decided one way or the other) insoluble.

The inquirer, having become once convinced of the real existence of an external independent world of " things in themselves " should, we think, have his attention next called to the modes and methods wherewith science deals with the objects it investigates, in order to ascertain, as far as he may, what assumptions and convictions are implied in, and by, and are necessary for, all and any scientific research. This appears to us a desirable, if not an absolutely neces-

PREFACE IX

sary, preliminary, because assumptions and convictions which are indispensable for the carrying on of science must be more or less closely connected with the groundwork thereof. Such an introductory inquiry, however, should, we think, be made only in order to ascertain what are the necessary implications of science, the question as to the objective truth of such necessary implications finding its place (as before said) later on, namely, towards the climax of our inquiry. These implications cannot but be very nearly related to questions concerning our highest mental faculties. Such must be the case, since science, in the widest sense of that word (including even the science of sciences, or metaphysics), requires for its satisfactory prosecution the employment of our very noblest powers, and it is by them alone that we can hope to attain a knowledge of the most supreme and ultimate truths which our intellectual faculties have the power to apprehend.

On this account, before entering upon our final inquiry as to what it is which constitutes the groundwork of science, we must study the nature and power of what seem to be our highest faculties; but this we cannot usefully proceed to do till we have taken cognisance of our ordinary mental powers, upon the pre-existence and exercise of which the possibility of such higher faculties depends. But, again, it is obvious that our ordinary mental powers, our emotions, our feelings, and the actions which thence result, are absolutely dependent on our bodily capacities, and our bodily powers are not less entirely dependent upon our corporeal structure.

Therefore, in order duly to comprehend our highest intellectual faculties, we needs must begin with a consideration of at least some points in the construction of the human body — especially that of such parts as minister to feeling in general, and to our special senses, such as sight and hearing.

X PRE FA CE

But to appreciate what the human body is, it is necessary, since nothing can be understood by itself, to learn something also about other animals, so that we may know what is the place occupied in nature by that living body of ours which possesses powers and attributes so wonderful. But a mere study of structure — of anatomy — can serve but to supply us with a knowledge of the material elements indispensable to human thought and feeling. We must also, therefore, acquire some knowledge as to how the various parts and organs of the body act during its life, and how that life is maintained, how the body is formed and nourished, and how, if need be, injuries that it may suffer are repaired. The living energy of the body, apart from the feelings and sentiments to which it may give rise, requires to be understood in a certain degree before we advance to the consideration of our feelings and sentiments themselves. Such an elementary acquaintance with both anatomy and physiology will serve to pave the way for our entrance upon the first stage of our proper subject, namely, the study of the human mind in its ultimate pursuit of science. In the first stage of this psychological inquiry, it will be necessary to consider what our own intellect tells us concerning the various kinds and orders of psychical activity whereof our total mental life is made up. It is evidently desirable to ascertain what, if any, psychical activities besides sensation are most closely connected therewith, what are most allied in nature to our unconscious energies, and whether by the aid of reflection, memory, and inference, we can detect the existence of psychical states of which we were unconscious when they were being actually carried on. Evidently, it will also be desirable to ascertain, if possible, whether in the absence of consciousness we possess any other central and unifying psychical faculty, and, if so, what are its utmost powers and capabilities. Very special attention also needs

PREFACE xi to be given to the consideration of the phenomena of instinct.

But as idealists appear to bar the way to what, for all but themselves, can alone lead to a satisfactory Epistemology, so a distinguished school of naturalists oppose an analogous, though very different, obstacle to our even entertaining a reasonable hope that we may be able to see and comprehend what are and must be the foundations of science.

What confidence, it has been asked, can we place in the declaration of an ape's mind ? Now we by no means admit that were the human intellect and the highest powers of brutes really of one kind (so that the essential rationality of animals was simply restrained by circumstances from making itself manifest), any valid -ground for distrusting truths, which to us are self-evident, would thence arise. On the contrary, instead of giving us good reasons for such distrust, it would but supply us with an amply sufficient motive for an enormously increased regard for what we might certainly then, with reason, call our " poor relations." What seems to us to be clear and indisputably evident in and by itself, and what reason demonstrates absolutely, can be none the less true on account of its cause and origin, or the mode in which it may have become manifest. It is plain that in our own case the truths which are for us most certain must have been gained through the evolution and development of psychical power latent in the mind of an unconscious infant, which once showed no sign whatever of rationality. Why then should we distrust the dictates of a mind evolved from creatures which, though giving no evidence of actual rationality, aiford us fai- more signs of cognitive energy than does the child for some time after its birth ?

Nevertheless, since there are so many persons who do feel a sceptical distrust of their reason on account of the source from whence they believe it to have had its origin, it will.

xii PREFACE

we think, be most advisable to consider carefully the question whether or not there seems to be a difference of kind between the highest psychical energy found present in the brute and the intellect of man. This is simply a question of fact.

Now, since man certainly possesses, besides his intellect, the sensitivity, faculty of sense-association, desires, emotions, instincts, and powers of emotional manifestation with which the higher animals are endowed, it will be incumbent on us to ascertain whether man's lower mental faculties, without the exercise of conscious intellect, will not suffice to explain all the various more or less intelligent actions which mere animals display. Should such turn out to be the case, and should both the positive and negative evidence concerning rationality concur in affirming that there is no need to attribute intellect to animals, then it must be admitted that a difference of kind is thereby demonstrated to exist between them and ourselves. But there is one other question which requires very special care in its examination. It is plain that, as a rule, all men speak while animals are dumb. A special consideration is therefore demanded for language. If it should prove that we have two sets of faculties (higher and lower), have we also two corresponding modes of expression ? It is plain that we and animals make signs. It will be necessary, therefore, carefully to inquire and distinguish as to what a sign really is, and, if there are different kinds of signs, what relation they bear to the intellect ? It will be further most necessary to examine the relations which exist between gestures and vocal expressions, and, above all, the relations which both of these bear to thought and to the faculty of forming and communicating abstract ideas, and the perception of relations as such. But that we may not, through neglect, underestimate the psychical powers of animals, it will be well to pass in review some of the more

PREFA CE xiii

striking anecdotes of animal intelligence in both the lower and higher classes of the animal kingdom. Remarkablydivergent forms of speech of both infants and savages would likewise seem to require some notice, as also the question as to the origin of speech.

If the result of this somewhat prolonged inquiry should be a conviction that between the highest psychical powers of men and animals there is a difference of kind — a difference absolute and not consisting of degrees of difference — it would then be a question whether such a breach of continuity, such a new departure, stands alone, or whether there are others, analogous sudden interruptions, to be met with in nature ? If we become convinced that it is an unquestionable fact that there are other breaches of continuity — such, for example, as between the inorganic and organic worlds and between insentient and sentient organisms — then a priori probability will become thereby established in favour of a breach of continuity between merely sentient animality and the rational animality of man.

All these introductory inquiries (as to the conditions necessary for the existence of science; as to idealism ; as to what science implies ; as to both physical and psychical antecedents of science; and as to the place in nature of the human intellect) having been disposed of, we shall next have to examine into our own highest intellectual powers. In beginning that examination, existing circumstances, and the prevalent prejudices of the day, compel us expressly to consider the bearing iipon our estimate as to the rank and value of our own mental powers, of the widely accepted doctrine of " natural selection." If we come to recognise that we are in the possession of self-evident truths which could never have given their possessors an improved chance of survival, then it is clear that our apprehension of such truths could never have been gained xiv PREFACE

by " natural selection," but must be altogether independent thereof.

But it is evidently necessary, in order to decide this question, that we should be acquainted with those of our powers which we might expect to be least dependent on " natural selection," and for this it will be necessary to revert (once more, and more fully) to the questions of certainty and of what must be, if anything can be, its criterion. This, again, will necessarily lead us to examine more carefully the possible self-evidence of propositions, the knowledge of our own existence, and the trustworthiness of memory as vouching for such existence in the past.

Then, also, if we conclude it to be true that we can know objects of knowledge as they exist objectively (or in themselves) the problem of the special relation which must, in that case, exist between " subject " and " object," will have to be investigated. The decision of this question will naturally lead us to a further investigation of first principles underlying all our reasoning, what they are, and whether we can attain to an evident and logical adjustment of truths. Amongst the most important of such principles, and one about which the most vigorous disputations have taken place, is the principle of causation. The truth and validity of this principle, if it can once be established, have evidently most important consequences bearing upon the cause and origin of our own intuitions, and upon the existence, qualities, and powers of the entire cosmos. Here the theory of

natural selection " again courts our notice ; and its bearing on the living world will have to be considered in the light derived from that far larger and more enduring world, which is inorganic and lifeless. The question concerning the significance of human faculty as a part of the universe will come next, and bring to a conclusion all but the main question to be dealt with.

PREFACE XV

When, in our final chapter, we have to apply ourselves directly to that main question, in the light derived from the various preceding investigations, the groundwork of science will, we are persuaded, be found to consist of three divisions : the labourers who work, the tools they must employ, and that which constitutes the field of their labour. Taking the last first, it will, we think, appear that the matter of science is partly physical and partly psychical. In relation with the former, questions concerning the various physical energies, matter, motion, space, and time must be noted, and an inquiry made as to the value of a mechanical theory of the universe, and the reasons why it is so commonly acceptable. Next must come some reference to the tools which must be made use of, namely, those first principles and universal, necessary, self-evident truths which lie, so frequently unnoticed, within the human intellect, and which are absolutely indispensable for valid reasoning. Finally, the nature of the workers themselves must also be noticed, as necessarily affecting the value of their work ; and, last of all, a few words must be devoted to the question whether there is any, and, if any, what, foundation underlying the whole groundwork of science, and giving support and validity to that entire conception of the universe which an impartial study of the phenomena it exhibits may have led us to regard as alone consonant with the dictates of reason.

St. G. M.

Chapter I

THE century now so near its close has been distinguished from all preceding centuries by the rapid, varied, and continuous progress in science that it has witnessed. An interest in, and a real love for, science have by degrees ceased to be confined to a limited society of experts, and have happily become diffused far and wide amongst all classes of society.

The scientific spirit is, above all, an inquiring spirit. It can never rest satisfied with what has become known, but must ever press on in all directions into fields of truth yet unexplored, and even seek to ascend into regions commonly deemed inaccessible to human research. But the results of these praiseworthy endeavours, however successful they may be, cannot by themselves fully satisfy the scientific mind. It is not only the phenomena surrounding us which demand exploration. Reason cannot be satisfied until it has probed, to the utmost of its power, the depths of science itself, and either ascertained what is and must be its ultimate foundations, or assured itself that such fundamental knowledge is beyond the scope and power of human endeavour.

It is not enough for the true man of science to be acquainted with many sciences, and to reflect on the knowledge he so possesses. The rational mind sooner or later seeks to know what is the basis of his own knowledge and the ultimate groundwork of all science. It thus calls for a science of science, and cannot rest satisfied without a pursuit of Epistemology, or the study of the grounds of all the learning the mind of man can acquire.

It is an attempt to satisfy this rational desire to which the present volume is devoted. Such an attempt appears to us greatly needed at the present time when every branch of science is rapidly becoming more and more subdivided. For the fact of that very subdivision makes a comprehensive contemplation of science and of nature, as one whole, both more and more difficult, and also more and more requisite for the satisfaction of the intellect.

Epistemology is a product of mental maturity, individual and racial ; but, sooner or later, a demand for it is inevitable, while the attainment of a satisfactory response to that demand is not only a thijjg to be pursued for its own sake, but will be found an aid to the study of every separate science and an introduction to them all. This science of the grounds and groundwork of science is one to the study of which gifted minds are spontaneously impelled, as ordinary minds are impelled to acquire at least the rudiments of ordinary scientific truth. For all men (not congfenitally defective) are, in fact, forced by a natural and spontaneous impulse to seek and to acquire some knowledge. To most, knowledge is pleasurable, while many pursue it with passion, and find in its possession a perennial source of happiness.

Amongst the latter are to be found men of the noblest minds; for though right action, rather than right thinking, constitutes the highest human activity, yet the will cannot act with good effect unless the intellect be first sufficiently informed.

The earliest known ages of man's existence have afforded us pictorial evidence of some endeavour after knowledge, while the relics of Egypt, Babylon, and China speak plainly of its deliberate and systematic pursuit.

But an ordered, systematic pursuit of knowledge is " science " ; for " science " is but the careful and exact application of ordinary reason and good sense to the examination of any object we seek, as best we may, to understand. The endeavour thus to obtain the most complete knowledge possible about any subject of investigation, whatever it may be, constitutes the highest form of science, for it necessitates the study of Epistemology.

When we first deliberately and reflectively survey the world about us, we may well be appalled by the immense variety of objects and activities which on every side seem to solicit our attention. Striking differences, however, between many of these become at once obvious, and, little by little, they are found to arrange themselves in groups according to their apparent degrees of likeness and unlikeness. Such groups roughly correspond with those various branches of human inquiry which have grown into distinct yet connected systems of ordered knowledge, familiarly known as so many different sciences. Among them are the sciences which deal with the celestial bodies; with the earth, its structure and formation ; with the multitudinous tribes of living creatures which people its surface, and with the human race.

Ordered and systematic knowledge considers such subjects from various points of view and along different lines of thought. But two questions commonly suggest themselves with respect to each new object or event which comes within the sphere of our experience. Having recognised its existence, or " that it is," the first of these questions asks, " What is it ? " ; the second makes the inquiry, " Why is it ? " Whence does it arise ? How does it come to be ?

Demands which thus rise to the lips even of the child must assuredly be included amongst the problems which systematic knowledge investigates. They constitute indeed the most searching inquiries which science can carry on with respect to whatsoever objects may become the subject of its labours. To classify each object or event with its congeners is one great end of scientific inquiry, and such an end was attained in each case when the fundamental similarity became understood between the fall of any object to the earth's surface and the moon's motions; between the electric spark and the lightning's flash ; and between that hugest of the ocean's inhabitants, the whale, and the little bat which flits through the summer air at twilight. These may serve as familiar examples of approximate answers to the question, " What is it ? " The origin of the solar system, the explanation of reflex and sensori-motor actions," and the genesis of new species of animals and plants, are instances of most interesting scientific inquiries as to the " how" and " why " of matters of scientific or of ordinary experience.