THE STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY. 



173 



But, merely hinting these collateral criticisms, this replj is to be 

 met by the demurrer that it is beside the question. If the sole thing 

 meant is that sociological previsions can be approximate only if the 

 thing denied is the possibility of reducing Sociology to the form 

 of an exact science then the rejoinder is, that the thing denied is a 

 thing which no one has affirmed. Only a moiety of science is exact 

 science only phenomena of certain orders have had their relations 

 developed from the qualitative form into the quantitative form. Of 

 the remaining orders there are some produced by factors so numerous 

 and so difficult to measure, that development of their relations into 

 the quantitative form is extremely improbable, if not impossible. But 

 these orders of phenomena are not therefore excluded from the con- 

 ception of Science. In Geology, in Biology, in Psychology, most of 

 the previsions are qualitative only ; and where they are quantitative 

 their quantitativeness, never quite definite, is mostly very indefinite. 

 Nevertheless we unhesitatingly class these previsions as scientific. 

 Similarly with Sociology. The phenomena it presents, involved in a 

 higher degree than all others, are less than all other capable of precise 

 treatment : such of them as can be generalized, can be generalized only 

 within wide limits of variation as to time and amount ; and there 

 remains much that cannot be generalized. But, so far as there can be 

 generalization, and so far as there can be interpretation based on it, so 

 far there can be science. Whoever expresses political opinions who- 

 ever asserts that such or such public arrangements will be beneficial or 

 detrimental, tacitly expresses a belief in Social Science ; for he as- 

 serts, by implication, that there is a natural sequence among social 

 actions, and that, as the sequence is natural, results may be foreseen. 



Reduced to a more concrete form, the case may be put thus : Mr. 

 Froude and Canon Kingsley both believe to a considerable extent in 

 the efficiency of legislation probably to a greater extent than it is 

 believed in by some of those who assert the existence of a Social Sci- 

 ence. To believe in the efficiency of legislation is to believe that 

 certain prospective penalties or rewards will act as deterrents or 

 incentives will modify individual conduct, and therefore modify so- 

 cial action. Though it may be impossible to say that a given law will 

 produce a foreseen effect on a particular person, yet no doubt is felt 

 that it will produce a foreseen effect on the mass of persons. Though 

 Mr. Froude, when arguing against Mr. Buckle, says that he " would 

 deliver himself from the eccentricities of this and that individual by a 

 doctrine of averages," but that " unfortunately, the average of one 

 generation need not be the average of the next ; " yet Mr. Froude 

 himself so far believes in the doctrine of averages as to hold that learis- 

 lative interdicts, with threats of death or imprisonment behind them, 

 will restrain the great majority of men in ways which can be predicted. 

 While he contends that the results of individual will are incalculable, 

 yet, by approving certain laws and condemning others, he tacitly 



