Essays: Scientific, Political, & Speculative; Vol. 2 of 3: Library Edition (1891), Containing Seven Essays not before Republished, and Various other Additions.Spencer, Herbert
Philosophy
Essays: Scientific, Political, & Speculative; Vol. 2 of 3: Library Edition (1891), Containing Seven Essays not before Republished, and Various other Additions.
Spencer, Herbert
Philosophy; Political science; Science
“We can suppose a science to confine itself _solely_ to the
‘factors,’ or the separated elements, and never, on any occasion, to
combine two into a composite third. This position is intelligible,
and possibly defensible. For example, in Astronomy, the Law of
Persistence of Motion in a straight line might be discussed in pure
ideal separation; and so, the Law of Gravity might be discussed in
equally pure separation—both under the Abstract-Concrete department
of Mechanics. It might then be reserved to a _concrete_ department to
unite these in the explanation of a projectile or of a planet. Such,
however, is not Mr. Spencer’s boundary line. He allows Theoretical
Mechanics to make this particular combination, and to arrive at the
laws of {112} planetary movement, _in the case of a single planet_.
What he does not allow is, to proceed to the case of two planets,
mutually disturbing one another, or a planet and a satellite, commonly
called the ‘problem of the Three Bodies.’”
If I held what Prof. Bain supposes me to hold, my position would be
an absurd one; but he misapprehends me. The misapprehension results
in part from his having here, as before, used the word “concrete”
with the Comtean meaning, as though it were my meaning; and in part
from the inadequacy of my explanation. I did not in the least mean to
imply that the Abstract-Concrete Science of Mechanics, when dealing
with the motions of bodies in space, is limited to the interpretation
of planetary movement such as it would be did only a single planet
exist. It never occurred to me that my words might be so construed.
Abstract-Concrete problems admit, in fact, of being complicated
indefinitely, without going in the least beyond the definition. I do
not draw the line, as Prof. Bain alleges, between the combination of
two factors and the combination of three, or between the combination
of any number and any greater number. I draw the line between the
science which deals with the theory of the factors, taken singly and
in combinations of two, three, four, or more, and the science which,
_giving to these factors the values derived from observations of actual
objects, uses the theory to explain actual phenomena_.
It is true that, in these departments of science, no radical
distinction is consistently recognized between theory and the
applications of theory. As Prof. Bain says:―
“Newton, in the First Book of the Principia, took up the problem of
the Three Bodies, as applied to the Moon, and worked it to exhaustion.
So writers on Theoretical Mechanics continue to include the Three
Bodies, Precession, and the Tides.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account