592 



LOGIC OF THE MORAL SCIENCES. 



tionally, subject to the paramount 

 control of the laws of the general 

 science) now remains to be charac- 

 terised. And, as will be shown pre- 

 sently, nothing of a really scientific 

 character is here possible, except by 

 the inverse deductive method. But 

 before we quit the subject of those 

 sociological speculations which pro- 

 ceed by way of direct deduction, we 

 must examine in what relation they 

 stand to that indispensable element 

 in all deductive sciences, Verification 

 by Specific Experience — comparison 

 between the conclusions of reasoning 

 and the results of observation. 



§ 5. We have seen that, in most 

 deductive sciences, and among the 

 rest in Ethology itself, which is the 

 immediate foundation of the Social 

 Science, a preliminary work of pre- 

 paration is performed on the observed 

 facts, to fit them for being rapidly 

 and accurately collated (sometimes 

 even for being collated at all) with 

 the conclusions of theory. This pre- 

 paratory treatment consists in finding 

 general propositions which express con- 

 cisely what is common to large classes 

 of observed facts ; and these are called 

 the empirical laws of the pheno- 

 mena. We have, therefore, to inquire, 

 whether any similar preparatory pro- 

 cess can be performed on the facts of 

 the social science ; whether there are 

 any empirical laws in history or sta- 

 tistics. 



In statistics it is evident that em- 

 pirical laws may sometimes be traced, 

 and the tracing them forms an im- 

 portant part of that system of in- 

 direct observation on which we must 

 often rely for the data of the Deduc- 

 tive Science. The process of the 

 science consists in inferring effects 

 from their causes ; but we have often 

 no means of observing the causes ex- 

 cept through the medium of their 

 effects. In such cases the deductive 

 science is unable to predict the effects, 

 for want of the necessary data ; it 

 can determine what causes are cap- 

 able of producing any given effect, 



but not with what frequency and in 

 what quantities those causes exist. 

 An instance in point is afforded by 

 a newspaper now lying before me. 

 A statement was furnished by one of 

 the official assignees in bankruptcy, 

 showing, among the various bank- 

 ruptcies which it had been his duty 

 to investigate, in how many cases the 

 losses had been caused by miscon- 

 duct of different kinds, and in how 

 many by unavoidable misfortunes. 

 The result was, that the number of 

 failures caused by misconduct greatly 

 preponderated over those arising from 

 all other causes whatever. Nothing but 

 specific experience could have given 

 sufficient ground for a conclusion to 

 this purport. To collect, therefore, 

 such empirical laws (which are never 

 more than approximate generalisa- 

 tions) from direct observation, is an 

 important part of the process of socio- 

 logical inquiry. 



The eioerimental process is not 

 here to be regarded as a distinct road 

 to the truth, but as a means (hap- 

 pening accidentally to be the only, 

 or the best, available) for obtaining 

 the necessary data for the deductive 

 science. When the immediate causes 

 of social facts are not open to direct 

 observation, the empirical law of the 

 effects gives us the empirical law 

 (which in that case is all that we can 

 obtain) of the causes likewise. But 

 those immediate causes depend on 

 remote causes ; and the empirical 

 law, obtained by this indirect mode 

 of observation can only be relied onj 

 as applicable to unobserved cases, so 

 long as there is reason to think that ' 

 no change has taken place in any of 

 the remote causes on which the im- 

 mediate causes depend. In making , 

 use, therefore, of even the best statis- 

 tical generalisations for the purpose] 

 of inferring (though it be only con-| 

 jecturally) that the same empirical! 

 laws will hold in any new case, it isi 

 necessary that we be well acquainted] 

 with the remoter causes, in order that | 

 we may avoid applying the empirical 

 law to cases which differ in any of the 



