The Method by which the Causes of the Present and Past Conditions of Organic Nature Are to Be Disco | Page 4

systematized under the forms of
the great doctrines of Morphology, of Development, of Distribution,
and the like. He sees an enormous mass of facts and laws relating to
organic beings, which stand on the same good sound foundation as
every other natural law; and therefore, with this mass of facts and laws

before us, therefore, seeing that, as far as organic matters have hitherto
been accessible and studied, they have shown themselves capable of
yielding to scientific investigation, we may accept this as proof that
order and law reign there as well as in the rest of nature; and the man of
science says nothing to objectors of this sort, but supposes that we can
and shall walk to a knowledge of the origin of organic nature, in the
same way that we have walked to a knowledge of the laws and
principles of the inorganic world.
But there are objectors who say the same from ignorance and ill-will.
To such I would reply that the objection comes ill from them, and that
the real presumption, I may almost say the real blasphemy, in this
matter, is in the attempt to limit that inquiry into the causes of
phenomena which is the source of all human blessings, and from which
has sprung all human prosperity and progress; for, after all, we can
accomplish comparatively little; the limited range of our own faculties
bounds us on every side,--the field of our powers of observation is
small enough, and he who endeavours to narrow the sphere of our
inquiries is only pursuing a course that is likely to produce the greatest
harm to his fellow-men.
But now, assuming, as we all do, I hope, that these phenomena are
properly accessible to inquiry, and setting out upon our search into the
causes of the phenomena of organic nature, or, at any rate, setting out
to discover how much we at present know upon these abstruse matters,
the question arises as to what is to be our course of proceeding, and
what method we must lay down for our guidance. I reply to that
question, that our method must be exactly the same as that which is
pursued in any other scientific inquiry, the method of scientific
investigation being the same for all orders of facts and phenomena
whatsoever.
I must dwell a little on this point, for I wish you to leave this room with
a very clear conviction that scientific investigation is not, as many
people seem to suppose, some kind of modern black art. I say that you
might easily gather this impression from the manner in which many
persons speak of scientific inquiry, or talk about inductive and
deductive philosophy, or the principles of the "Baconian philosophy." I
do protest that, of the vast number of cants in this world, there are none,
to my mind, so contemptible as the pseudoscientific cant which is

talked about the "Baconian philosophy."
To hear people talk about the great Chancellor--and a very great man
he certainly was,--you would think that it was he who had invented
science, and that there was no such thing as sound reasoning before the
time of Queen Elizabeth. Of course you say, that cannot possibly be
true; you perceive, on a moment's reflection, that such an idea is
absurdly wrong, and yet, so firmly rooted is this sort of impression,--I
cannot call it an idea, or conception,--the thing is too absurd to be
entertained,--but so completely does it exist at the bottom of most
men's minds, that this has been a matter of observation with me for
many years past. There are many men who, though knowing absolutely
nothing of the subject with which they may be dealing, wish,
nevertheless, to damage the author of some view with which they think
fit to disagree. What they do, then, is not to go and learn something
about the subject, which one would naturally think the best way of
fairly dealing with it; but they abuse the originator of the view they
question, in a general manner, and wind up by saying that, "After all,
you know, the principles and method of this author are totally opposed
to the canons of the Baconian philosophy." Then everybody applauds,
as a matter of course, and agrees that it must be so. But if you were to
stop them all in the middle of their applause, you would probably find
that neither the speaker nor his applauders could tell you how or in
what way it was so; neither the one nor the other having the slightest
idea of what they mean when they speak of the "Baconian philosophy."
You will understand, I hope, that I have not the slightest desire to join
in the outcry against either the morals, the intellect, or the great