54O Edward Livingston Youmans. 



very greatness of Mr. Spencer's work was thus an impedi- 

 ment to its recognition, and this, too, it must be acknowl- 

 edged, on the part even of men of science. In the scien- 

 tific world the accumulation of facts has outstripped the 

 work of valid generalization. For, while men of moderate 

 ability can observe, experiment, and multiply details in 

 special departments, it requires men of breadth to arrange 

 them into groups, to educe principles and arrive at com- 

 prehensive laws. The great mass of scientific specialists, 

 confined to their 'departments, and little trained to the 

 work of generalization, are apt to regard lightly the logical 

 processes of science, and to decry mere theorizing and 

 speculation. They forget that facts of themselves are not 

 science, and only become so by being placed in true rela- 

 tions, and that the function of the thinker is therefore su- 

 preme ; while the work of organizing facts and establishing 

 general truths is, after all, just as much a specialty as that 

 of observation or experiment in any branches of inquiry. 

 The prevalence of these narrow views has been unfavour- 

 able to the recognition of Mr. Spencer's work by a large 

 class of the cultivators of science ; and the more so, as he 

 has been mainly occupied in the highest spheres of general- 

 ization. For this reason it is only by the comparatively 

 small number of scientific men who possess marked philo- 

 sophic power that his labours have been justly appreciated. 

 But, while considerations of this kind are not to be 

 overlooked in assigning the responsibilities of criticism, 

 neither are they to be construed into excuses for preju- 

 diced opinions, or crude and hasty judgments. It is the 

 business of critics to inform themselves on important mat- 

 ters of which they speak, or to hold their peace. And, 

 where there is peculiar difficulty or liability to error, they 

 are all the more bound to caution, and to refrain from 

 injurious interpretations. Reverting now to the criti- 

 cisms cited at the outset of this discussion as typical of a 



