IT 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 ! l 



Of all the strange assertions into which specu- 

 lation without practical acquaintance with a 

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

 the very strangest. Physiology not an experi- 

 mental science ? Why, there is not a function of 

 a single organ in the body which has not been 

 determined wholly and solely by experiment? 

 How did Harvey determine the nature of the 

 circulation, except by experiment ? How did Sir 

 Charles Bell determine the functions of the roots 

 of the spinal nerves, save by experiment ? How 

 do we know the use of a nerve at all, except by 

 experiment ? Nay, how do you know even that 

 your eye is your seeing apparatus, unless you make 

 tlu experiment of shutting it ; or that your ear is 



1 "Proceeding to the second class of means, Experiment 

 cannot but be less and less decisive, in proportion to the com- 

 plexity of the phsenomena to be explored ; and therefore we 

 saw this resource to be less effectual in chemistry than in 

 physics : and we now find that it is eminently useful in 

 chemistry in comparison with physiology. In fact, the nature 

 of the phenomena seems to offer almost insurmountable impedi- 

 ments to any extensive and prolific application of such a procedure 

 in biology." COMTE, vol. i. p. 367. 



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

 further on, but that will hardly relieve him from the respon- 

 sibility of such a paragraph as the above. 



