40 DARWINIAN AND SPENCERIAN 



used legitimately as stimtdants to scientific research, then 

 they may lead to results of lasting value. It is thus 

 a question of division of labour between two great classes 

 of workers making for the same end. 



Is the Philosopher from this point of view bound to 

 verify his own deductions ? — is it essential for him, in 

 order to secure a hearing, to convert his plausible guesses, 

 conjectures, suggestions, or hypotheses into positive 

 contributions to Science ? I venture to think that in 

 principle there is no such necessity ; in practice it might 

 be expedient — if actually attempted there can be no doubt 

 but that he would profit by the experience. But it is not 

 the necessary function of the Philosopher to experiment or 

 to observe : it is for him to work up the material supplied 

 by Science and to elaborate therefrom doctrine for 

 scientific verification. The question whether Spencer was 

 or was not an original investigator thus sinks into minor 

 significance. That he did his duty toward Science as 

 a Philosopher is virtually admitted by Darwin in those 

 memorable passages in his letters to Spencer and Hooker 

 recording the impression produced upon him by the perusal 

 of the Pfinciples of Biology. 



The doctrine that it is permissible to philosophize, and 

 especially to philosophize in the Spencerian sense, without 

 being an original investigator, requires^urther justification. 

 To some it will appear a principle too dangerous for 

 recognition ; to some it may even have a savour of 

 heresy. That it is a risky undertalpng has already been 

 admitted, but, as has also been pointed out, whether it 

 succeeds or fails depends entirely upon the person who 

 incurs the risk. It cannot be maintained that specializa- 

 tion as an investigator qualifies as a philosopher. I sup- 

 pose that most of us could point to very sorry efforts at 

 philosophizing on the part of expert researchers of the 

 highest rank. Specialization as an investigator may 

 actually lead to atrophy of the philosophical faculty, just 

 in the same way that constant concentration upon 

 abstract principles may disqualify for experimental and 



