228 COS AT TO PHILOSOPHY. [ft. l 



statics " and " social dynamics." Obviously we may either 

 study the phenomena arising from social aggregation, as they 

 are manifested under any given set of conditions ; or we may 

 study the phenomena of progress manifested in the relations 

 of each epoch to preceding and succeeding epochs. In the 

 first case, we have the sub-sciences of political economy, 

 ethics, jurisprudence, etc. ; in the second case we have 

 Sociogeny, or the so-called " science of history." 



In each of the five concrete sciences, therefore, there is a 

 sub-science which deals with the genesis or evolution of the 

 phenomena which form the subject-matter of the science ; 

 and it is with these sciences of genesis that we shall chiefly 

 be concerned throughout the second part of this work. It is 

 of little consequence, however, whether the symmetrical 

 nomenclature here used be adopted or not. Excessive sym- 

 metry in naming is a mark of pedantry rather than of accu- 

 racy; and questions of terminology become important only 

 when differences of opinion are involved. In reasoning about 

 the Test of Truth, it makes a great difference whether we use 

 the term " incredible " or the term " inconceivable." In the 

 present discussion, it makes a great difference whether we 

 speak of biology as an " abstract " or as a " concrete " science. 

 But provided we bear in mind the twofold character of the 

 problems which it is the office of biology to solve, it makes 

 little difference whether or not we employ such a term as 

 " biogeny " ; and such expressions will be used, in the 

 present work, only when it is desirable to avoid tedious 

 circumlocution. 



If now we proceed to inquire whether our revised classifi- 

 cation can be made to afford us a bird's-eye view of the 

 historic progression of the respective sciences, we shall find 

 that it cannot be made to do so. The classification has been 

 made upon purely logical grounds ; and no attempt has been 

 made to express the order of historic progression, simply 

 because, as I have already shown, that order cannot be ex* 



