II OF THE NATURAL HISTORY SCIENCES 49 



So far from comparison being in any way peculiar 

 to Biological science, it is, I think, the essence of 

 every science. 



A speculative philosopher again tells us that 

 the Biological sciences are distinguished by being 

 sciences of observation and not of experiment! * 



Of all the strange assertions into which specu- 

 lation without practical acquaintance with a sub- 

 ject may lead even an able man, I think this is 

 the very strangest. Physiology not an experimen- 

 tal science? Why, there is not a function of a 

 single organ in the body which has not been de- 

 termined wholly and solely by experiment? How 

 did Harvey determine the nature of the circula- 

 tion, except by experiment? How did Sir Charles 

 Bell determine the functions of the roots of the 

 spinal nerve, save by experiment? How do we 

 know the use of a nerve at all, except by experi- 

 ment? Nay, how do we know even that your 

 eye is your seeing apparatus, unless you make the 

 experiment of shutting it or that your ear is your 



* " Proceedini^ to the second class of means, — Experi- 

 ment cannot but be less and less decisive, in proportion to 

 the complexity of the ph-Tnoraena to be explored ; and 

 therefore we saw this resource to be less effectual in chem- 

 istry than in physics: and we now find that it is eminently 

 useful in chemistry in comparison with physiology. In 

 fact, the nature of the phmnomena see?ns to offer almost in- 

 surmonnfable impediments to any extensive and prolific ap- 

 plication of such a procedure in biology,''^ — Comte, vol. i. 

 p. 367. 



M. Comte, as his manner is, contradicts himself two 

 pa^es further on, but that will hardly relieve him from the 

 responsibility of such a paragraph as the above. 



