The Scientific Basis of National Progress, Including that of MoralityGore, George
Philosophy
The Scientific Basis of National Progress, Including that of Morality
Gore, George
Ethics; Progress; Science
Other persons seem to think that the laws of matter are different in the
laboratory from what they are in the workshop; that the principles which
regulate a scientific experiment are different from those which govern a
large manufacturing process; but this is a wrong idea. The laws of matter
are universal, substances have nearly the same properties in all places and
in the hands of all men; water boils at the same temperature whether in the
retort of a chemist, the saucepan of a kitchenmaid, or the pan of a
soap-boiler; iron wire is as readily deprived of its rust in a chemist's
acid bottle as in a wire-drawer's pickling tub; a piece of phosphorus will
as readily ignite in the hands of a chemist as in those of a match maker; a
galvanic battery yields the same quantity of electricity whether it be in
the hands of an experimentalist or in those of a working electro-plater.
It is true that many things which have appeared very promising in theory or
in experiment, have {49} failed altogether in practice, but why is this? it
is not that the principles of nature operated in the one case and did not
operate in the other, but that we have imperfectly understood them, that
from some unforeseen circumstances we have been unable to apply them; or
that we have indolently abandoned them without sufficient or proper trial.
In many cases we are unable to obtain the same conditions of success upon
the large scale that we have upon the small one. In other cases a process
fails because of its too great expense; many attempts have been made to
supersede steam as a motive power by means of electro-magnetism, and
engines driven by that force have been constructed of five or ten
horse-power, but the cost of driving them has been found to be at least ten
times the amount of that of the steam-engine of equal strength. And in
other cases we fail because we attempt _at once_ to carry out upon a large
scale that which has only been the subject of limited experiment, instead
of enlarging the process by small degrees, and adapting the apparatus, the
materials and the treatment, to the size of the operation.
That also which appears very simple in the hands of an experimentalist,
almost invariably becomes much more complex when carried into practice in a
manufactory, simply because there is then a greater number of conditions to
be fulfilled. Electro-plating a piece of steel with silver is to a chemist
a very simple matter, because it is of no importance to him {50} whether
the silver adheres firmly, is of good colour, or is deposited at a certain
cost; but with a _manufacturer_ unless _all_ these conditions are
fulfilled, the process is a failure. These matters, however, belong to
invention and not to original discovery.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account