Febrtjart 11, 1887.] 



SCIEJS'GE. 



139 



raphers, i.e., Is the study of phenomena for their 

 own sake equal in value to the deduction of laws ? 

 second. Is the study of a series of phenomena 

 having a merely subjective connection equal in 

 value to researches on the history of those form- 

 ing an objective unity ? 



We shall first treat on the difference of opinion 

 between physicists and cosmographers. The two 

 parties are strongly opposed to each other ; and it 

 is a hard task to value justly the arguments of op- 

 ponents whose method of thinking and way of 

 feeling are entirely opposed to one's own. An 

 unbiassed judgment cannot be formed without 

 severe mental struggles which destroy convictions 

 that were considered immovable, and had become 

 dear to us. But those struggles lead to the 

 grander conviction that both parties, though in a 

 permanent state of conflict, aspire to the same 

 end, — to find the eternal truth. 



The origin of every science we find in two dif- 

 ferent desires of the human mind, — its aesthetic 

 wants, and the feelings, which are the sources of 

 the two branches of science. It was an early de- 

 sire of developing mankind to arrange systemati- 

 cally the phenomena seen by the observer in over- 

 whelming number, and thus to put the confused 

 impressions in order. This desire must be con- 

 sidered an emanation of the aesthetical disposition, 

 which is offended by confusion and want of clear- 

 ness. When occupied in satisfying this desire, 

 the regularity of the processes and phenomena 

 would attain a far greater importance than the 

 single phenomenon, which is only considered im- 

 portant as being a specimen of the class to which 

 it belongs. The clearer all the phenomena are 

 arranged, the better will the aesthetic desire be 

 satisfied, and, for that reason, the most general 

 laws and ideas are considered the most valuable 

 results of science. 



From this point of view, the philosophical ideas 

 of Epicurus are very interesting, as they may be 

 considered the extreme opinion to which this 

 aesthetical desire can lead if the pleasure one en- 

 joys in arranging phenomena in a clear system is 

 the only incentive. He considered any explanation 

 of a phenomenon sufficient, provided it be natural. 

 It does not matter, he taught, if an hypothesis is 

 true, but all probable explanations are of the 

 same value, and the choice between them is quite 

 insignificant. We believe this opinion is called 

 to a new life by a number of modern scientists, 

 i.e., by those who try to construct the evolution of 

 ■ organisms in details which, at the present time at 

 least, can neither be proved nor refuted. If, for 

 instance, Milller describes the history of the evolu- 

 tion of flowers, he gives only a probable way of 

 development, without any better proof than that 



it seems to be the simplest and therefore the 

 most probable. But this construction of a prob- 

 able hypothesis as to the origin of these phenom- 

 ena gives a satisfaction to our aesthetical deske 

 to bring the confusion of forms and species into a 

 system. But it should be borne in mind that a 

 theory miist be true, and that its truth is the 

 standard by which its value is measured. There- 

 fore naturalists are always engaged in examining 

 the truth of their theories by applying them to new 

 phenomena, and in these researches those phe- 

 nomena are the most important which seem to 

 be opposed to the theories. As soon as the ques- 

 tion whether the theory is applicable to the class 

 of phenomena is solved, the whole class is of 

 little further interest to the investigator. 



While physical science arises from the logical 

 and aesthetical demands of the human mind, cos- 

 mography has its source in the personal feeling of 

 man towards the world, towards the phenomena 

 surrounding him. We may call this an ' affective ' 

 impulse, in contrast to the aesthetic impulse. 

 Goethe has expressed this idea with admirable 

 clearness : " It seems to me that every phenome- 

 non, every fact, itself is the really interesting ob- 

 ject. Whoever explains it, or connects it with 

 other events, usually only amuses himself or makes 

 sport of us, as, for instance, the naturalist or his- 

 torian. But a single action or event is interest- 

 ing, not because it is explainable, but because it is 

 true" {Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten). 

 The mere occurrence of an event claims the 

 full attention of our mind, because we are affected 

 by it, and it is studied without any regard to its 

 place in a system. This continuous impulse is the 

 important counterbalance against the one-sided- 

 ness of a science arisen from merely aesthetic im- 

 pulses. As the truth of every phenomenon causes 

 us to study it, a true history of its evolution alone 

 can satisfy the investigator's mind, and it is for 

 this reason that Epicurus's probable or possible ex- 

 planation is not at all satisfactory for science, but 

 that every approach to truth is considered a prog- 

 ress by far superior to the most elaborate system 

 which may give proof of a subtile mind and 

 scrupulous thought, but claims to be only one 

 among many possible systems. 



■ Naturalists will not deny the importance of 

 every phenomenon, but do not consider it worthy 

 of study for its own sake. It is only a proof or a 

 refutation of their laws, systems, and hypotheses 

 (as they are deduced from true phenomena), which 

 they feel obliged to bring as near the truth as pos- 

 sible. The deductions, however, are their main 

 interest ; and the reward of the indefatigable stu- 

 dent is to review, from the summit of his most 

 general deductions, the vast field of phenomena. 



