B. SCIENCE 



7. SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 



It is generally difficult to separate books dealing with scientific methods from 

 those dealing with the philosophy of science. The difference is one between means 

 and purpose, but means and purpose are as closely related as the obverse and the 

 reverse of a medal. It is "means," one might say, if you look from the left, and "pur- 

 pose" if you look from the right. It is only when one has a purpose in mind that one 

 can conceive means of attaining it, and if means are used, a purpose is implied. 



The only way to study scientific methods thoroughly is to work in a special field 

 of science, and to carry on as many experiments and investigations as possible. 

 Book knowledge cannot possibly replace the experimental knowledge obtained in 

 the laboratory. Of course this is true also of historical methods, which can only be 

 mastered by long practice. 



However, for the historian of science, the experimental knowledge, indispensable 

 as it is, is not sufficient. He must be more fully aware of the methods which scien- 

 tists are applying to their purpose, and be able to analyze them. 



It is noteworthy that scientific methods are not taught systematically in scientific 

 courses but rather in philosophical courses. Teachers of science may refer to them 

 but generally take them for granted and are satisfied to insist upon the rules and 

 precautions of definite experiments. After having completed a cycle of, say, physical 

 experiments, students are aware of general methods ( in addition to the special ones ) , 

 but their awareness may remain largely unconscious or unformulated. 



There are a great many books dealing with the philosophy and methods of sci- 

 ence, and I could not tell which are the best, as I have read only a few. A good 

 part of the subject is already standardized and explained sufficiently well in every 

 book. Each author throws emphasis on certain aspects of the subject; a comparison 

 between their books would imply a comparison of these aspects the relative impor- 

 tance of which cannot be weighed, except in a few cases. 



Early nineteenth century writers like Baden Powell, Whewell * and Her- 

 SCHEL have been mentioned in the text above and many more might easily be, such 

 as CoMTE, CouRNOT and Spencer, but that would lead us too far. There are 

 three men of science of the second half of the nineteenth century who stand out 

 above the others for the present purpose, Bernard, Mach, and Pearson. 



The Introduction a I'etude de la medecine experimentale ( Paris 1865 ) by Claude 

 Bernard ( 1813-78) is still the most important book ever written by a man of science 

 to explain the genesis and development of his own methods of investigation. Eng- 

 lish translation, An introduction to the study of experimental medicine, by Henry 

 Copley Greene (250 p.. New York 1927; reprinted 1949). 



Bernard was a physiologist; Mach, a physicist deeply concerned for philosophi- 

 cal problems and realizing that such problems could not be solved without historical 

 investigations. One cannot understand the meaning of a concept if one does not 

 know its origin and development. 



The main works of Ernst Mach (1838-1916) are Die Mechanik in ihrer 

 Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt (Leipzig 1883; 7th ed., 1912), Englished 

 under the title The science of mechanics (Chicago 1893; 3rd ed., Chicago 1907; 

 supplement by Philip E. B. Jourdain, Chicago 1915; 4th ed. Chicago 1914, 5th, 

 La Salle, 111., 1942). 



^ In addition to his History of the inductive sciences (3 vols., London 1837), Whewell pub- 

 lished a few years later The philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history 

 (2 vols., London 1840; revised ed. 1847). History of scientific ideas. Being the first part of 

 The philosophy of the inductive sciences. Third ed. (2 vols., London 1858). 



