42 DARWINIAN AND SPENCERIAN 



the new science of Biometrics founded by Sir Francis 

 Galton and headed by Professor Karl Pearson — a science 

 in the development of which this University, through 

 the late lamented Professor Weldon, has played a most 

 conspicuous part. 



But the right to use — the necessity for using the deduc- 

 tive method irrespective of the consideration whether 

 the science is amenable to quantitative treatment or not, 

 is pre-eminently the outcome of the Spencerian Philo- 

 sophy in its relations toward Science. If deduction is 

 only to be used when the generalization from which we 

 start has all the certainty of a mathematically demon- 

 strated truth, we are postponing, sine die, the develop- 

 ment by one legitimate method, of all those sciences in 

 which the data are so complex as to baffle quantitative 

 treatment now, and possibly for all time. All that can 

 be urged therefore against Spencer's treatment is that 

 it was premature — ^that, to use a homely expression, he 

 ' rushed ' the biological sciences into the deductive stage 

 before they were ripe for such treatment. But this only 

 amountstothe admission that he was in advance of his time. 

 And so he was, and so has been every philosopher in every 

 age who has ever attempted to systematize human thought. 

 • Tlte^Vidgement delivered upon Herbert Spencer as the 

 result of that comparative study of his work with that 

 of Darwin, which I have advocated as a fitting task 

 for some critical philosopher of a future age, cannot, 

 I imagine, be based upon the actual contributions to 

 Science contained in the Synthetical Philosophy. We have 

 all realized that this work, in certain parts and in common 

 with the sciences upon which it is based, ..suffers from 

 ' imperfect information ' — that sooner or later it will 

 have to be recast in the light of new knowledge. Many 

 modern specialists have dwelt upon their reasons for 

 dissenting from Spencer's conclusions in one direction or 

 another, but few have indicated his positive services to 

 Science as the vitalizer of the philosophical method as an 

 instrument in scientific progress in those departments 



