Illustrations of a Law of Evolution of Thought [pp. 373-393]

ILL USTRA TIONS OF A LA W OF EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT. 385
indefinitely and steadily progressive. But until then steady
progress is not assured.
General Progress of Thought. Finally the same law is seen in
the general progress of thought as exhibited by the development
of scientific method. There has been much dispute and contrariety of opinion in regard to the relative value and mutual
relations of Aristotelian and Baconian Induction. Some have
held that there is no difference between them; others that the
difference is just the difference between error and truth; while
still others hold that there is nothing new or valuable in either
of them. This last is the view of Macaulay in his brilliant essay
on Bacon. According to Macaulay all men in all ages have practised inductive reasoning, and that without the aid of either
Aristotle or Bacon; all a logician's rules teach him but to name
his tools, not to use them. This view, like many others of the same
author, is far more specious than profound. As already explained,
in all departments art precedes science; but the study of science
is not therefore useless. We walk before we understand the
principles of centre of gravity: must we therefore not study the
laws of equilibrium? We use wedges and handspikes without
understanding the principles of inclined planes and levers: is it
therefore unnecessary to study mechanics? Pottery and agriculture were successfully practised from early times: must we
therefore neglect to study the science of chemistry? The art of
healing has been practised from the dawn of civilization: must
we therefore despise the science of physiology? Art indeed precedes science, but science turns again and perfects art. Altho
therefore the art of inductive reasoning has always been practised, yet a recognition of the laws of induction is necessary for
its highest perfection. Like all arts, the art of the discovery of
truth by induction is at first empirical. Guided only by the intuitive reason, it may be even eminently successful in the hands
of genius. But only a very limited knowledge of nature is thus
possible. In order that science or the rational knowledge of
nature should indefinitely increase, the laws of scientific method
must be understood. The mind may indeed discover truth by
intuitive methods which it seeks not to analyze, but this is the
prerogative of genius; it cannot be communicated nor its results
accumulated from age to age. It is only when the methods of
25