On this page
-
Text (3)
-
• ¦'' . ' . . . " ¦ ¦ ¦""¦'¦ ," ¦ . . ' ...
-
f WwtmhMtrr Jtouiaw. New Serlva, No. XXX...
-
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE—THE "ASSESSOR" PROPO...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
A New Light. , Peetods Continually Arriv...
Westminster Review , treating- of social organism , f concur in ascribing- to the influence of the material world the formation of different species . The former adopts unreservedly Mr . Daewin ' s view ,-that the competition of plants and animals for food laiis a great influence in detei-mining new varieties-, and what species shall exist . The latter believes that " every species of organism has resulted from the average play of the external forces to which it is subjected during its evolution sis a species , " These statements are identical with the principle of Mr . Buckle ' s theory of civilization , —that it begins in , and is continued by material circumstances . Men , animals , insects ,
plants , all things which live , are endowed with desires , appetites , appetences , & c , which goad them into activity , make each and all seek the food adapted to it , and in proportion as classes 6 r individuals are successful in this melee , or battle of life , they increase or grow , sproutinto varieties , and fill the places assigned them in the universe . The principle of population or life is , on tin ' s statement , as prolific , or , according to Mai / thus , as vs ^ er-prolific in all animals , insects , and plants , as in man ; and their number is entirely dependent on the food they can , by the exertions of these appetences , procure . At the same time , they are all guided and instructed by the facts of the material world . This is a strange generalization .
Is it correct and true r . . We are all sensible . that our life depends on the sun . Its vivifying power gives food to our exertions . The life of plants , and of animals on which we subsist , depends on the same vivifying power . It is tire source of all light . If the assertion be correct , that coal is sun-light concentrated in extinct vegetable life , the sun is also for ns the sole source of all heat . Cuvier , Owen , and other comparative anjitou'isfcs , have successfully traced one type , or one form , through all animal life ; and all animals and plants , according to their life , are affected by the circumstances resulting from this common source of light and heat by which they are stjrrounded . The strange generaiizatioii is correct . The whole universe , and of course ' animal life of all kinds , is regulated by laws common to the whole .
To circumstances , similar to those we every day witness—such as the Wearing away of the banks , ¦ of rivers , the passage of earthy materials from the land into the ocean , & c ., & c .---geologists trace the growth and formation of the world through successive ages . According to the writer in the 'Westminster Mevieto ,. society is a growth ; not a manufacture , and is accot-dingly regulated by the same laws as regulate air growth , including that / of / 'the minute animals , nnd vegetables made individually visible only by the microscope . That the moral and intellectual life of njari should be regulated by the same laws as the existence of fuugi , is hard to coiiceive . But there can be no doubt that the growth of soeiety
depends , like that of the meanest insect , on the food it can command . It i » equally certain that the moral and intellectual life of every individual depends on the society in which he is born and lives . Only in Europe , . and only in England , —not in America , amongst , the red men , —not in Australia , amongst the black men , could a Shakespeare , a Milton , and a Newton exist . Now , as the moral sind intellectual life of individuals depends on soeiety , and as the growth of society depends on the food it can command , as this depends on sun and seasons , common to all creatures on the earth , it follows quite in accordance with the common or vulgar opinion , that all creatures have One a . ad the same Creator , and that our intellectual and moral being is regulated by laws common to all
livingthings . , . The great object of the writer in the Westminster Jxevtew is to trace by analogies the operation of these common laws in forming soeiety , " in -forming man , and in forming the very lowest living beings which the microscope has yet revealed' to us . If in principle ho be right , he carries out his analogies so minutely as to expose himself to ridicule . We reg-ard the matter as much too important to subject it to this kind of treatment . To illustrate the importance of such doctrines , wo may remark that overwhelming force is added to all tho arguments- for abolishing 1 Corn Laws , anil all other
impedimenta to industry , by the principle statod by Mi ' . Darwin , aiud assented to by both Reviewers , " that all life depends on food , " nnd is for evor strup-gling tp obtain it , and will be great in proportion to tho food which can be obtained . All such Jaws a \ nd such impediments , therefore , are at variance with the lnws of man ' s existence , with the laws of God , and are opposed to the welfare of aociety . Believing-, accordingly , that the nmilogies between the growth of society , the growth of animals and plants , and the moral life of man are highly instructive , wo shall not attompt to raise a lau ^ h at the minuteness of the Reviower . We must , however , state two objections to his mode of treating the great subject .
Tho whole aiwlog-y , nnd all tho arguments founded on it , is between society « b a natural growth , and all tho other parts of creation us a natural growth . In truth , the analogies are the results of natural lnws supposed to ho tho sumo . Tho Reviewer , liowyvor , institutes his comparisons and his analogies between the othor ptirtw of creation ami society as it is i > olitioally manipulated . And so curiously far dooa ho curry liis views , that tho analogies aro between tho other'parts of creation and society ns it exists in England , not . notiioty usifceNists in some common features throughout tho " globe . This niorto of treating tho subject is imperfect and flrron < 0 UH .. To us Eir & lish it' irt " onpeoially so , because wo have continually witnessed our political society' driven in apito of those who have attempted to diroot it , in a direction adverse to thoir prinoiplus . Tho concentration of power in ono hand , a principle of
most political societies , and of ours as well as that of the French and the Chinese , though nominally maintained here , is in reality set aside . The governing power is no longer the sovereign , it is the press . There is a perpetual desire and a perpetual attempt to reform political society , because it is not in accordance with the ^ natural form and growth of society . To some extent society is every where manufactured , or manipulated . We complain that it is so we stru « - ° -le to throw off this manipulation , and we continually succeed . It is , therefore , not in accordance with the natural growth of society . But many of the analogies of the Reviewer are with the condemned manipulations , and not with the natural forms of society . This makes them frequently incorrect , and exposes the whole argument to ridicule . All the Analogies ought to be instituted between the rest of creation and society as it grows naturally , and hot with society as it is politically and by human design manipulated ¦
in any country whatever . ' * - ¦ " ' ¦ ., ¦ .-.. Our other objection to his mode of proceeding- is , that it isfundamentally nriphilosophical , and makes the subject , otherwise attractive , very repulsive to many readers . We do not need toreason about what we know , and all reasoning is from the known to the unknown . Now society and human nature , however imperfect is our knowledge of them , are much better known to the whole of us than are the Proiozea or the Hydra , or any classes of microscopic animalculse , to the most diligent explorers . There is hardly any one important point in their pursuits about which they do not disagree-The observation may be extended from the physiological phenomena
of the presumed first formation of cells to thei division of animals into species and genera . We ^ have only recently begun to investigate natural history ; man and society are known to us partially from the beginning . It is to reverse philosophy , therefore , to reason from zoophytes to man , instead of from man to zoophytes . The course pursued by the naturalists leads to the degradation of man . That the same laws which govern man and society may be traced in the organization of the lowest animals , is only wonderful ; but to tell man that he is made like the things he unwisely despises ; that heis not different from a protozea , is also repulsive . If it be a fact , that the same laws— -another form of expression for the same
Creator . —regulate the whole organization of the universe , from ; the least living- thing discovered by the microscope to the furthest star , the jnode of getting- at the fact in the direction either of minuteness or vastness , is to proceed from man—frOm the known to the unknown . To begin at the star or at the protozea , is un philosophical , and the conclusions appear in a form needlessly offensive . We regret this , for all parts of knowledge are intimately connected ; . and the analogies between inan and the rest of creation throw a , clear light oh his duties , and on important political questions . not b
The present study of the physical sciences does , as supposed y some persons , impart certainty to other knowledge . . On the contrary , the late researches into physical science have , above all things ,, demonstrated the uncertainty of its principles . About facts there may be no disputes ; but about forces and laws scientific- men are just , now more uncertain than for ages ; Their researches end rather in ignorance , in wonder , and reverence , than in certainty ;; and , ; to approximate to a solution of the phenomena of force , they are obliged to take refuge in the laws of the mind . Investigations into matter give no explanation of electricity , gravity , and kindred ofrces .
• ¦'' . ' . . . " ¦ ¦ ¦""¦'¦ ," ¦ . . ' ...
• ¦'' . ' . . . " ¦ ¦ ¦""¦'¦ , " ¦ . . ' " ' .. 86 The Leader and Saturday Analyst . [ Jan . 28 , I 860 .
F Wwtmhmtrr Jtouiaw. New Serlva, No. Xxx...
f WwtmhMtrr Jtouiaw . New Serlva , No . XXXIH , Article , " The So eiivl Organism . "
Scientific Evidence—The "Assessor" Propo...
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE—THE " ASSESSOR " PROPOSITION . T AST week Dr . Angus Smith read a paper before the Society of JU Arts on " Science in our Courts of Law , " which , although very badly put together and exhibiting ; a want of comprehensive and accurate knowledge of the subject , served the purpose of raising a discussion and eliciting several opinions ^—among others , that of Vice-Chaucellor Wood , who occupied the chair . Some portions of Dr . Smith ' s essay aro scarcely intelligible , and although ho claims to be an " expert" in science we could not allow him to be an " assessor " in English composition or logic , when wo find him indulging in such fojrgy platitudes a , s— " We see science moving with irresistible force ,, gradually seizing more and more of the rights + and properties o / ovary subject and of every government . " If tho learned doctor wore to give evidence in this style concerning a poisoning easo or a water bill , we do not imagine that the jury or committee would be more enlightened than if he delivered an oration in Patng-Qumn or Bengalee . We do not allude to this for the sake of quizzing a wellintentioned reformer , but because it is an illustration of that want . of precision in thought and language which often makes ao-callod scientific ovidonco u source of perplexity and dilormrin . Having veprosonted sciencp as feloniously appropriating 1 our rights and properties , Dr . Smith furnishes us with two statements , which he culls " principles , " to giu'do us in considering tho question . Horo aro tho words or thorn : " 1 st . That eoience is tho ultimate reforoo iu cases where it onn give a oloar answer , nnd that suitable arrangements should bo mudo for obtaining- tho unprejudiced opinion of thoso who huvo studied it . 2 nd , That in all difforonco of opinion , whothor in . social or physical law , and in all difficult cases , the instincts of man ,. in a froo country , will taka tho lead , right or wrong . " The fii ; st paragraph , wo suppose , moans that cases should bo decided according to tho boat knowledge that can be obtained ; whafc tho second is about wo have not tho remotest idea ; although it talks of 'inatinut" it exllibils nono"of ita precision , and wofiiil todotoobany reason in tho collocation of tho words . Tumbling through a gr « afc doal movo aingulur and sonrcoly articulato vorbirtg © , the Doctor munng-oa to arrivo at liis conclusion ; and nftor elaborately deciding
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 28, 1860, page 10, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_28011860/page/10/
-