c KANT'S UNIVERSAL NATURAL HISTORY 



comparatively recent years. Naturally the leading 

 critics have been the followers and vindicators of 

 Laplace in France, and chief among them has been 

 M. Wolf. M. Faye likewise criticises some of Kant's 

 leading positions, as he does those of Laplace, in 

 clearing the ground for his own modification of 

 their theories. Perhaps the ablest and fairest criti- 

 cism of Kant's views in English is that of Mr. G. F. 

 Becker, to which reference may be profitably made. 

 Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, and Professor Tait have 

 all written appreciatively of Kant's views, and have 

 in some respects carried them out and brought them 

 up to date in their own work. A severe test of Kant's 

 theory of the origin of the sidereal system has come 

 into play with the spectroscopic analysis of KirchhofF, 

 Huggins, and their busy followers ; but its results 

 are, so far, in entire harmony with Kant's view, and 

 have only extended its range and certainty. Most 

 of the criticisms that have been brought to bear 

 upon Kant apply only to incidental assumptions, 

 imperfections, or errors, which were more or less 

 inevitable from the limited empirical knowledge and 

 resources of his time, and they do not overthrow 

 the cardinal and essential positions of his theory, 

 which, as we have seen, is receiving fresh confirma- 

 tion and increasing adherence in our day. 



Kant, but he refers to him here somewhat generally, and does not 

 clearly distinguish his views from those of Laplace. Dr. Adamson 

 remarks that ' Helmholtz, like many other scientific writers [including 

 Zollner] seems to have owed his knowledge of Kant [i.e. of his philo- 

 sophy] to Schopenhauer.' 



