594 



LOGIC OF THE MORAL SCIENCES. 



which the science affords safe ground 

 for predicting (and consequently for 

 practically dealing with) what has 

 not yet happened, is the degree in 

 which it would have enabled us to 

 predict what has actually occurred. 

 Before our theory of the influence 

 of a particular cause, in a given state 

 of circumstances, can be entirely 

 trusted, we must be able to explain 

 and account for the existing state of 

 all that portion of the social pheno- 

 mena which that cause has a tendency 

 to influence. If, for instance, we would 

 apply our speculations in political eco- 

 nomy to the prediction or guidance of 

 the phenomenaof anycountry, we must 

 be able to explain all the mercantile 

 or industrial facts of a general char- 

 acter appertaining to the present state 

 of that country : to point out causes 

 sufficient to account for all of them, 

 and prove, or show good ground for 

 supposing, that these causes have 

 really existed. If we cannot do this, 

 it is a proof either that the facts 

 which ought to be taken into account 

 are not yet completely known to us, 

 or that although we know the facts, 

 we are not masters of a sufiiciently 

 perfect theory to enable us to assign 

 their consequences. In either case 

 we are not, in the present state of our 

 knowledge, fully competent to draw 

 conclusions, speculative or practical, 

 for that country. In like manner, if 

 we would attempt to judge of the 

 efi"ect which any political institution 

 would have, supposing that it could 

 be introduced into any given country, 

 we must be able to show that the ex- 

 isting state of the practical govern- 

 ment of that country, and of whatever 

 else depends thereon, together with 

 the particular character and tenden- 

 cies of the people, and their state in 

 respect to the various elements of 

 social well being, are such as the in- 

 stitutions they have lived und-r, in 

 conjunction with the other circum- 

 stances of their nature or of their 

 position, were calculated to produce. 



To prove (in short) that our science, 

 and our knowledge of the particular 



case, render us competent to predict 

 the future, we must show that they 

 would have enabled us to predict the 

 present and the past. If there be 

 anything which we could not have 

 predicted, this constitutes a residual 

 phenomenon, requiring further study 

 for the purpose of explanation ; and 

 we must either search among the cir- 

 cumstances of the particular case un- 

 til we find one which, on the principles 

 of our existing theory, accounts for the 

 unexplained phenomenon, or we must 

 turn back, and seek the explanation 

 by an extension and improvement of 

 the theory itself. 



CHAPTER X. 



OP THE INVERSE DEDUCTIVE, OR 

 HISTORICAL METHOD. 



§ I. There are two kinds of socio- 

 logical inquiry. In the first kind, the 

 question proposed is, what effet;t will 

 follow from a given cause, a certain 

 general condition of social circum- 

 stances being presupposed. As, for 

 example, what would be the effect of 

 imposing or of repealing corn laws, of 

 abolishing monarchy or introducing 

 universal suffrage, in the present con- 

 dition of society and civilisation in 

 any European country, or under any 

 other given supposition with regard to 

 the circumstances of society in gene- 

 ral, without reference to the changes 

 which might take place, or which 

 may already be in progress, in those 

 circumstances. But there is also a 

 second inquiry, namely, what are the 

 laws which determine those general 

 circumstances themselves. In this 

 last the question is, not what will be 

 the effect of a given cause in a certain 

 state of society, but what are the 

 causes which produce, and the pheno- 

 mena which characterise, States of 

 Society generally. In the solution 

 of this question consists the general 

 Science of Society, by which the 

 conclusions of the other and more 



