SCIENCE. 
3i3 
celestial and terrestial physics, chemistry, physiology 
and social physics. In its general outlines, it is a 
near approach to the proper order ; but, in its special 
application and interpretation, it is a statement of 
the philosophy contained in his celebrated work just 
referred to. In that he gives his theory in the fol- 
lowing statements : “ Our study of nature is restricted to 
the analysis of phenomena, in order to discover their 
laws, and can have nothing to do with their nature, or 
cause, or the mode of their production.” The question 
is suggested, What is the province of philosophy, if not 
to explain such nature, cause, and mode of production ? 
He opposes “all inquisition into the essence of things; - ’ 
rejects all hypotheses of “electric fluids and luminous 
ethers which are to account for the phenomena of heat, 
light, electricity, and magnetism.” He denies that there 
can be any such thing as internal observation of the 
mind, or any knowledge of the causes of phenomena. 
What does he mean by mind ? and how does he know 
that there are other minds than his own, or what is so 
called, to study his Positive Philosophy ! He defines 
law to be “ a constant relation of succession or simili- 
tude,” and ignores all causes operating in matter, and o 
course there are no such entities as force, life or mind, 
human or divine. 
In his subdivisions and groups, many incongruities are 
found, the statement of which must here be omitted. 
The subject matter of concrete mathematics, which is 
composed of plane geometry and rational mechanics, he 
has stated to consist of space, time, motion, and force, 
whose nature, indeel, may not be inquired into. He un- 
dertakes to classify the science in the order of historic 
development, or progress, which cannot be substantiated. 
Thus, historically, geometry had advanced to a consider- 
able degree of perfection before the invention of algebra ; 
and chemistry had made considerable progress before 
geology and mineralogy had become strictly sciences; 
while many of the facts of zoology had been arranged in 
systematic order more than two thousand years before 
the laws or methods of the stratification of the rocks, in- 
cluding immeasurable periods of time, had come to be 
accepted, as against the almost universally received doc- 
trine of a miraculous creation of “ the heavens and the 
eatth,” in six literal days about six thousand years ago. 
The method of Herbert Spencer, while ostensibly based 
upon the distinction between the abstract and the con- 
crete sciences, really precedes in development upon the 
hypothesis of Materialistic Evolution. He classifies the 
sciences under three tables : 1. Abstract Science , which 
includes mathematics and logic. 2. Abstract-Concrete 
Science, which includes mechanics, meteorology, chemis- 
try, heat, light, electricity, and magnetism. 3. Concrete 
Science, which includes astronomy, astrology and geo- 
gony. Evolved from the latter are those subjects which 
are contained in the two following branches ; 1. Minera- 
logy, meteorology, and geology; 2. Biology, out of which 
evolves morphology, physiology, psychology, and socio- 
logy. It will be seen that the distinction between the ab- 
stract and the concrete sciences has involved inconsisten- 
cies and confusion. While mathematics is appropriately 
placed first in the order, inasmuch as its principles apply 
to the measure of content, which belongs to all things 
susceptible of measurement, especially to the physical, 
mechanical and chemical departments of science; and 
also, as numerical mathematics applies to organic being, 
social statistics, etc., logic pertains to the rational nature 
and cannot with propriety be placed below both inorganic 
and organic nature without involving the necessity of 
separating subjects which are necessarily affiliated, as 
empirical psychology and rational psychology are. 
Further, both mathematics and logic are both 
abstract and concrete, being lounded in principles 
which are applied practically both to forms and things. 
The term abstract, which means to draw from, or sepa- 
rate, or that which is considered part from its related i 
subjects, is more appropriately applied to some other 
sciences than those assumed ; thus Kinematics is an 
abstract science, inasmuch as it is “motion considered 
apart from its causes.” 
In the second table, the sciences of the laws relative to 
bodies are given before the recognition of such bodies, as 
if anticipating them ; yet these are given under a two- 
fold term “abstract concrete,” instead of being given as 
abstract. Thus, in giving the mechanical laws of solids 
and fluids before the supposed existence of these, is pre- 
sumption, and we may well ask, how can there be laws 
of entities which as yet do not exist ? for it should be 
observed, these material entities are expressed in the 
third table, and as being evolved from terrestrial ele- 
ments, and included under the term theology. The 
scheme betrays the design of the classification. It seems 
evidently devised to exhibit, under the term “ concrete,” 
the evolution from matter and motion, of all the “totali- 
ties” included in this branch. According to this, matter 
and motion, in their redistribution, evolve the phenomena 
of force, life, and mind, while these entities, held as real 
by a true dualism, are regarded by Mr. Spencer as having 
no substantive existence, but only modes of motion mani- 
fested by matter, the only real existence, according to his 
philosophy. The author of this scheme proceeds upon 
the postulate that “The second and third groups supply 
the subject matter to the first, and the third supplies 
the subject matter to the second.” Why not, then, begin 
with the subject matter, not simply including material 
phenomena, but the inherent force, and the laws of mani- 
festing phenomena ? He abhors a “ serial ” order, upon 
whatever scheme of philosophy, and combats M. Compte 
on this ground, yet has conveniently adopted it for his 
main purpose, as betrayed in his third table. 
An extended criticism of his system of philosophy, and 
his classification of the sciences, is not intended in this 
paper. Such has been given by M. Lettre, Prof. Bain, 
and others. 
Only one other scheme of classification by other per- 
sons than the writer of this, will here be given ; it is that 
of Prof. Laurens P. Hickok. D. D„ LL. D., who is 
the author of several profound philosophical works. He 
gives what he designates a “ Rational Method of the 
Classification of all Science.” His method includes two 
general brarches or divisions: 1. Empirical or Induc- 
tive Science; 2. Rational or Transcendental Science. 
These fundamental divisions are clearly defined. Tne 
first is limited to facts or phenomena ; the second to laws 
and principles. The first embraces “ what is given in 
experience,” using the terms empirical and inductive to 
include observation and experiment. It is divided into 
two parts : 1. Qualities given in Perception ; 2. Things 
given in Reflection ; the former grouping external phe- 
nomena, as optics, acoustics, etc., the latter grouping 
things in space and time, including mensuration, sub- 
stance, cause, counter-cause, chemistry, magnetism, 
mechanism. The second or rational branch is divided 
into, 1. Intuitive (all mathematics); 2. Discursive (all 
philosophy). “ Mathematics deals only in forms ; phil- 
osophy deals only in existences.” Discursive science is 
divided into two parts. 1. Ontology, which includes 
cosmology, psychology, and theology. 2. Deontology, 
defined to be the rule of speculation, includes the canons 
of taste, (esthetics), politics, ethics, and religion. Cos- 
mology is treated as including not only material nature, 
but physiology, now classified under biology. Accord- 
ing to this scheme, therefore, man’s physical nature be- 
longs to cosmology, the term anthropolgy not being 
given as it is common with systems of philosophy. 
The subdivisions of Dr. Hickok do not appear to be 
systematically arranged. His special field of thought 
does not embrace the sciences pertaining to inorganic 
matter, nor indeed to biology, but lies in the profound 
depths of transcendental philosophy held to be consistent 
with Christian theism. 
