ADDRESS AT THE EIGHTH ANNUAL COMMENCEMENT

LELAND ST AN FORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY

MAY 24, 1899

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND

ITS LIMITATIONS

FERNANDO SANFORD

Professor of Physics
Leland 8tan.fo1·d J1;,nior University

PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1899
 THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND
ITS LIMITATIONS.

FERNANDO SANFORD.

The century which is just closing will probably always

be remembered as a period of remarkable scientific advance­
ment. This does n ot im ply that there have not been remark­
able advancemen ts m ade in other lines of human activity.
Probably in no cen tury h as there been such general and
substan tial progress in all lines of intellectual activity as
in the one whose closin g year is about to dawn u pon u·s.
Much of this activity has bee n d u e to the scientific char­
acter of t h e age ; much has been in spite of it. Certainly,
at no time in the world's history h as the general level of
literary and m usical and a rt istic culture been so high as at
the p rese n t time, and the u n prejudiced observer wil1not
@Ssli!edlJ'iittributethis high level of attai n m e n t t� the
scientific character of the age.
But it is also tr u e that not in l i terary, artistic, nor even
philosophical lines has the best work of previous centuries
been surpassed, while in every line of proper scientific inves­
tig&tion the kno w led ge and doctrin es of previous centuries
have become antiquated. Scarcely a scientific theory held
today is as old as the century, and the great generalizations
upon which all natural and physical science are now b ased
d ate back barely fifty years. It is certainly well within t he
truth to say that the human race has made greater scien­
tific progress in our centllfy t h a n in the whole previous
period of its existence upon the ea r t h .

'
The cause of this remarkable progress m u st be s ough t

principally in the scientific method of our age; for while ex­

pe rimental science was born abou t three hundred years ago,
4 The Scientific Method

it h as only reached its mature growth d u r i ng th e p resen t

cen tur y . A brief com p ar is on of mod er n e x per iment a l
science with the older natural philosophy of Aristotl e a n d
the middle ages will help make plain the reasons for t he
relatively great success of the modern me t ho ds .
Before attemp ting any comp a rison of their method with
ours, it is bu t proper that we should acknowledge the great
debt which mode r n science owes to the Greeks. Not that
t heir scienti fic knowled ge was greatly superior to tbat of
the r e s t of the world, for it was not; but i t has been sai d of
the Greeks t h at th ey o n ly, of all the na tions of antiquity,
see m to have sought for a knowable relation betwe e n n a t u r a l
phen o mena . They, alone, seem to have reco gn ize d th a t the
phenomena of nature bear a c a u s al relation to each other,
a n d with out a recognitio n of this re l at i o n no scie n ce would
be possible. Fo r science is not mere ca t a l og u ed k nowledge
of obse rved fact s . Such knowle d ge must form the ground­
work u p o n which any true sci e nce is bui lt ; but a know ledg e
of th e causal relations between the o b s e r ve d facts and phe ­
nome n a is the es sential a im of all sci entific i n vestigation.
In all an cient nations except the Gr e e ks the speculations
con ce rn i n g nature were of a myst i c or a rel ig i o us character.
Su pe rn at u ral a n d spiritual po w ers were supposed to be the
causes of physic al pheno men a, a n d even the Gr eek n a tura l
phi loso p h y is s trongly colored with th ese oriental su pers ti ­
tions.
B u t though t he Gree k s s ou g h t fo r c a u s al rel a ti o ns be t w een
nat u ral p h en ome n a , the y did n ot succeed i n finding a sure
meth od of discov e ri ng these relations. It is true that we
are often told t h a t all the great generalizations of modern
sc ience were anticipated a t one time or another by Greek
p hilosop h ers ; b ut th ese so - c a ll e d an tici pations were no t hi ng
more than guesses, and had no scientific value whatever.
T he only authorit y upon whic h any of them rested was the
p hilo s o p hical repu t a tion of th e i r a u t h or s , and scie n tific laws
are n ot based upon h u m an opin ions.
The meth od of th e Grecian natural philosophy, in so far
 And Its Limitations. 5

as the scientific speculations of the philosophers can be char­

acterized by one who i5 compelled to rely upon the opinions
of others for most of his ideas of Greek science as well as
Grecian philosophy, was essentially the method of debate or
argument, which is so often mistaken for the method of in­
vestigation even at the present time. It consisted in stat­
ing a general proposition, and then, by means of logic, in
drawing all possible legitimate conclusions from it. If the
conclusions were not found to be contradictory to known
facts, the general proposition was regarded as established.
Later, as methods of mathematical analysis were devel­
oped, these were used to assist in making deductions from
general laws-the method still used in mathematical physics.
In the use of the method of logical argument, no people
have ever surpassed, if any have ever equalled, the ancient
Greeks, and the reason why they made almost no progress
in physical science is evidently because the logical method
alone is not capable of discovering scientific truth. The
modern scientist still uses the logical method, and as expressed
in the form of mathematical analysis it is a very impor­
tant instrument of modern scientific investigation ; but the
great achievements of modern science are due to the fact that
man has learned to arbitrarily interfere with natural phe­
nomena for the purpose of collecting and verifying the facts
of nature and of discovering their relations to each other.
The method of physical experimentation separates the old
science from the new. When man first began to bring about
physical changes under varying conditions, so that he might
estimate the influence of the different elements of a phenom­
enon upon the re1mlt, modern science had a beginning.
In this modern definition of the term, Archimedes of Syra­
cuse is generally regarded as the first physical scientist.
The Greeks were philosophers, the Alexandrians were mathe­
maticians, but Archimedes was an engineer and a physicist.
He united with his knowledge of the Greek philosophy and
the Egyptian mathematics the practice of testing his con­
clusions by experiment, and he accordingly made more scien-
 6 The · Scientific Method

tific d isco veri es and m ore mechanical inven tio n s than al­
most all his predecessors co m bined .
But the world was s l o w to take ad vantage of the method
used with s uch wonderful succes s by Archimedes. Now and
then a singl e in ve s tig a t o r would u n d ertake to bri n g physical
experimentation to the aid of his nat ur al ph.iloso"phy,
and invaria bly wi th sta rtli n g results in the way of discov­
ery ; but the natural philosophy of Aristot l e furnished the
princip al method of acquiring knowledge in the en tire civil­
ized world for about two th ousand years.
In this entire period , incl uding the first sixteen hundred
years of the Chri s tian Era, the few men whose names h ave
come clown to us in connection with i m p ortant discoveries
in phy sica l science were in variably the men who u nde rtook
the s t udy of nature by the ex perimental method. This was
a perio d of the greatest possible activity in philosoph ical and
theological co ntroversy, and yet it was in th ese very s ubj e cts
that the human race seem s to have made the least improve­
ment during the greater part of that time. On the other
hand, every serious attempt at scientific in vest ig a tion by
the experimental method seem s to ha v e led to an in cre a s e
of o u r kn o wled ge of natural phenomena.
The gr eat modern awakening of s c ie n t ifi c investigation
may be said to cla te back to the y ear 1600, and can be at­
tributed largely to the work of Gilbert in England and
Galileo in Italy. In that year William Gilbert published
his gre a t work on Magnet iA m and Electricity, in which he not
o n ly taugh t, b u t s ucces sfull y illustrated, the only m ethod
of scientific research which ha8 ever led to definite r es ults .
The scien tific work of Gilbert is not only important in
that he was the firs t experimenta l inves tig a to r of magnetic
pheno mena , and tha t he d i scovered m u ch more about mag­
netism than all those who had p receded him, but because be
discovered nearly all about mag n et ism that the world yet
knows, and because h i s theory of a m a gn e t i c field, after be­
ing d i sreg arded for nea rl y three hundred y ea r s, haA, in a
modified form, come i nto g en eral acceptance with i n the
 And Its Limitations. 7

last twenty years. It would seem that a m ethod of scientific

research which in the hands of a s ingle investigator coul d
accomplish s o m u c h must h a v e i n it something o f value t o
t h e world, and it was o f great i mportance t o succeedi ng
investigators that Gibert explained his m ethod so clearly.
Gilbert recognized the fact that he was dealing with a
n e w m an n er of investi gation, and that his methods would
be subj ected to u nfavorabl e criticism by the philosophers of
h i s day. In the openi n g paragraph of his preface he says:
" Si nce in the discovery of secret things and in the investi­
gation of hidden causes, stronger reasons are obtai ned from
sure experiments and demonstrated arguments than from
probable conj ectures and the opinion s of phi losophical spec­
u l ators of the com mon sort; therefore, to the end that the
noble substance of that great loadstone, our com mon mother
(the earth), stil l quite unknown, and also the forces extra­
ordinary and exalted of this globe m a y the better be u nder­
Rtood, we h av e decided first to begin with the com mon stony
and ferru ginous matter, and magnetic bodies , and the parts
of the earth that we may handle and may perceive with the
s e n ses ; then to proceed with plain magnetic experiments
and to penetrate to the inner parts of the earth."
In another place he says : " This natural philosophy is
almost a n e w thing, unheard of before ; a very few writers
h ave simply pu b lished some m eager accounts of certain
magnetic forces. Therefore we do not at all quote the
ancients and the Greeks as our supporters, for neither c a n
paltry Greek argu m e ntation demonstrate the truth m ore
subtly nor Greek terms m ore effectively, nor can both eluc­
idate i t b etter. Our doctrine of the loadstone is contrad ic­
tory of m ost of the prin ciples and axioms of the Greeks."
In his defe n se for offering this n ew method of research to
the world he says : " To you alone, true philosophers, i ngen ­
uous minds, who not on ly in books but in thi ngs themselves
look for knowledge, have I dedicated these foundations of
magnetic sci e n ce-a new style of philosophizing. B ut if
any see fit not to agree with the opinions here e xpressed and
8 The Scientific Method

not to accept certain of my paradoxes, still let them note

the great multitude of experiments and discoveries-these
it is chiefly that cause all philosophy to flourish; an d we
have d u g them up and demonstrated them with m uch pains
a n d sleepless nights and great m o n ey expense. Enjoy them
you, and, if ye can , employ them for better purposes."
I have referred especially to Gilbert's great work becau se,
t o the Eng lis h spea king race, he is the father of experi ­
mental science. At the time when his work was published,
however, Galileo, though at the begi n ning of his career, had
already made his memorable experiments on fallin g bodies,
and was lectur i n g in the University of Pad u a and l ayin g
the foundation of the science of mechanics. For the first
time in the history of t h e world t wo great experimen tal scien­
tists were living and working at the same time, and to their
combined influence we are largely indebted for t he rap i d de­
velopment of the experiment a l method in scienc:e which has
since followed.
The me thod of scientific in ves ti gation to which our cen­
tury owes its wonderful progress is the method of Gilbert and
Galileo , and has never been more clearly stated nor more
successfully exemplified than by these t wo me n. It con ­
sists :
Firs t-In collecting carefully authenticated facts as the
basis of all gener al i zation;
Seco n d-In looking for some co m m on causal relation
between these facts, which relation is stated in the for m of a

general proposition, or a so-called law of nature;

Third-In ded uci n g by the meth ods of both formal logic
and mathematic'8J.. conclusions concerning other ph e mone n a
which have not yet bee n observed; and
Fourth-In experimentin g to see if these concl usions are
correct.
In the fi rst and last steps o n l y does experi mental science
differ from the old n at u r al philosophy . The gen e raliza­
tions of the phil osophers were as legitimate from the data
upo n which th ey were based as are any of our own.
 And Its Limitations. 9

The i r l ogic�l accuracy has never been s u rpassed. B u t the

su p posed facts u pon which their general izations were based
w ere not carefully collected and a u thenticated , and either
w e r e not facts at all, or were true only under special cond i ­
tions which were n o t u nde rstood . Eve n t h e simpl est phe­
n o m e n a of nature are ·so obscured by oth e r p h enomena
which frequently occur alo n g with them that with out some
artificial m ethod of sepa ratin g them we can not tell which
relations are cas u a l and which are merely accidental. It
is the artificial s eparation of phenomena i n the laboratory
t h at has made th e gen eralizations of the scientist more valid
th a n th ose of th e phi losopher.
The fourth step, viz., the testing of the final deductions
by artificial means, was also un1rnown to the natural ph il­
osophers, and w i th out th i s final step sci e nce could have
made littl e adva nceme n t . Nea r ly all t h e generalizations of
scie nce wh ich h a ve yet bee. n made, n o matter h o w carefully
th e data have been coll ected, have h ad to be abandon ed
wh e n the legitimate deductions from the m have been s u b­
j ected to the test of experiment. O n l y a fe w of the m illions
of s uch generalizations wh ich have been atte m pted are now
accepted. The re ason for this is pl a i n . Induction ca n , at
the best, only consider a few of the many possible instan ces
wh ich are included u n der the ge neral law . I f from these
few a generalization has bee n made wh ich wi l l sti l l hold
when all t h e in cluded insta n ces a re k nown, it may al most
be regarded as a lucky accide nt, e v e n in me n of the greatest
scientific insight. In fact, as Jevons has said, " In all prob­
abi lity the errors of the great mind exceed in number
those of the l ess vigorous one. Ferti lity of imaginati on
and a b unda n ce of guesses at truth a re among the first
requ isites of discovery ; but th e erroneous gu esses must be
many times as numerous as those which p rove well founded."
It is this fact which makes the fou rth step in the mod­
ern sci e ntific method so important, and it is because this
test of experime n t can n ot be appl ied i n many of the fiel ds
of human i nvestigation that our knowledge in those fiel ds
sti l l remains so u ncertain.
 10 The Scientific Method

My justification for this somewhat lengthy consideration

of the m ethods of modern physical and n a tural science
m ust be found in the fact that many prominent writers on
ed ucation al topics seem to still believe in t h e efficacy of
t h e methods of t h e old natural philosophy for scientific dis­
covery, while others think th ey are e m ploying the methods
of experimental science in fields of research w h ere, from t h e
nature o f t h e phenomena involved, experiment i s impos­
sib l e.
The ten dency to mix the results of scientific investigation
and metaphysical spec u lation h a s a l ways existed among
men trained especially along lines of metaphysical t hink­
ing. In th e earl y part of the pres
. ent cen tury the ph ilosop her
Hegr-1 l ived and tau g h t i n Heidel berg and Berlin, and
thr o ugh his teach ing and h is publis h ed works s ucceeded in
building u p a l:lchool o f philosophy which still has many
prominent adh erents. The genera l proposition of Hegel's
philosophy which especially concerns our subject is his as­
s u m p tion that both the spiritual and the physical universe
are the result of an act o f thoug h t by a creati ve mind, ide n ­
tical, i n a t least many respects, with t h e h u ma n m i n d ;
and that it is accordin gly possible for t h e h uman mind,
without a n y experien ce whatever of natural phenome n a, to
think over again t h e thoughts of t h e Creator, and hence by
its own activity to rediscover those relations between phe­
nome n a which we call natur a l laws.
It was believed by many of the educated men of the time
that Hegel did succeed to a large extent in constructin g
a p riori the le a d i n g principles o f eth ics and theology, but
his Hystem of nature deduced from th e same h ypothesis,
was, according to Helmholtz, regarded by t h e sci e ntific in­
vestigators of the period as abso l u tely insan e. Hegel r eal­
ized that if h is system of philosoph y was to win fi n al recog­
nition it m us t succeed in ex pl aining the p h e n o mena of
nature as well as of m ental and moral science, and he made
a vigorous a ttack u pon t he scie n tific m e thods of Newton
and h is s uccessors. Th is l ed to a bitter controversy between
 And Its Lirnitations. 11

t h e students of scie nce and t h e p hilosophers, and caused

many of t h e keen est scienti fic minds of the cen tury to totally
r eject philosophy as a means of acq u i ring knowledge of a n y
ki nd, while many of t h e followers o f Hegel sti l l regard sci ­
entific investigators a s a class o f n arrow specialiRts who fai l
to use t h e means offered b y philosoph y for advancing the i r
knowledge of t h e u n iven;e .
It w ill prob ably be adm i tted by one who giv es t h e sub­
ject u nprejudiced con siderati on that the opposition between
natu ral science and t h e sub jects classed under the head of
mental a nd moral sci ence, while i t was greatly exaggerated
.
by t h e Hegel ian contr o versy, st i l l has som e foundation in
t h e nature of the pheno m ena under i n vestiga tion and the
i ntellectual processes i n v olved in the two groups of study.
Most of the ph enom ena i n vol ved in t h e m e n tal a nd moral
sciences are incapable of bei n g arti ficial ly i solated from t h e
other phenomena which invariably accompany the m in
natu re ; h e n ce t h e laboratory method of study cannot b e
a ppl i e d t o them . In th ese fields o f in vestigat ion, where
knowledge often see ms t o us t o be m o r e i m porta n t than
in any other, and w h ere m any of the dearest in terests of
life are involved, we are sti l l dependent u po n the old
method of natu ral ph i losophy, wh ich has proved so
i n adequate as a means of acquiring a k n o wledge of nature.
It is not to be wondered at that the experimen tal sci entist
who has been co m pelled to abandon one t heory afte r
an other which h as see med to h i m to be based upon as sure a
founda tion as the prin ci ples of t h e m eta physician and theo­
logian, should become skeptical in re gard to these princi ­
ples. Neith e r is it strange that the studen t of eth ics and
social pheno m ena, w h o is accustom ed to deal with subjects of
the most vital h u m an i nterest, should look upon the natural
scie n ces, concerned as they seem to be with lifeless, indiffer­
ent m atte r and unintellige n t forces, as mere util i tarian sub­
jects, b e n eath the con sideration of on e devoted to culture
a nd i n tellectual development. In thus u n de rrating othe r
fields of in vestigation than their o w n both parties are alike
12 The Scientific Method

open to the ch a rge of narrowness. It doe s not neces s a rily

follow tha t a method of inve stiga tion which h a s utterly
failed to give exact knowledge of p h y sical nature may not
give more reliable knowledge when the phenomena under
investigation, are the actio n s of the h u m an mind. It is not a

priori impossible t h a t an accurate knowledge of the human

mind, if s uch knowledge can be h a d apart from a know­
ledge of physical phenomena, may ena ble one to recognize
the p rinciples of those sciences whose phenomen a are the
activities of the human min d. Whether or not such an
achievement be possible, no one who does not believe in the
absolute iden tity of mental and physical phenomena can de­
rive any arg u m ent for the employ me n t of the philosopi1ical
method in n atural science from its s u p posed success ful u s e
in the mental a n d mor a l sciences.
B u t the tendency to dep reciate the m ethods of experi­
menta l science which was so strong in t h e followers of Hegel
is now quite in significa n t, while, on the other hand, the
inves tigators in nearly all l ines of intellectual activity h a ve
lea rned to u s e the la n g u a ge and to adop t the name of the
scientific method. That there may be no mis u n derstanding
of what scien tific m ethod they claim to have adopted, we a re
told by those who wish to appear especially p rogressive that
history, sociology, philology, and eve n elementary Latin
are now studied by the "laboratory method."
This, to the worker in experimental science, is a mere
confusion of terms that ought to be kept distinct. Neithe r
the his torian nor the philologist nor the sociologist ca n have
a n ythi n g correspondin g to the scientific laboratory. A lab­
oratory, in the scientific sense, is a place devoted excl u­
si vely to the s t u dy of phenomena. It i s not a library nor a

museum. Does the hiRtorian have some place where he can

b ri n g a bou t artifici a l cha nges in governme n t or s tudy arm­
ies upon the field of action ? Does the philologist bring the
nations of a ntiquity before him where he can produce arti­
ficial c h a nges in their e n vironment or artificial interming­
l i n g of races, th a t he may note the modifications m a de in
 And Its Limitations. 13
'
language by th ese changes ? Unfortunately, they do not.
Both are l imited to the study of the records of the pas t as
preserved in libraries and museums. The scie n tist also u ses
libraries and mu seums , and h e uses them for exactly the
same purpose as do other sch olars. He m ay som etime s even
use the h istorical method of s tudying physics or chemistry,
but when he wishes to verify the statements which he read s ,
h e h a s recourse, n o t to o t h e r ma n u scripts o f the period , b u t
t o his laboratory.
Much of thi s cant about scien t ific method in other su bjects
comes fro m the attempts which are being continually m a de
to apply the la w s of the p h ysical u niverse to p heno m ena
which are usually classed as men tal or spiritual. Exagger­
ated examples of this tendency are found in s u ch books a s
" Natural Law i n the Spiritual World." In w ritings of this
class the ter m s of exp erime n tal science are used with a
mea n i n g wholly foreign to t h eir scientific use. We hear
much today a bout the study of hum a n society as an" organ­
ism ," that is, a living individual, and the logical in ference
is t h at t h e m eth ods of botany and zoo l o gy, whic h h ave been
u s e d with some success in t h e study of livin g organisms,
are in the sam e way app lica ble to the st udy of s ocie ty.
From a recent article on " How to Study His tory" in a

leading ed ucational journal I quote the followi n g state m e n t

of this generalization : " T h e laws of thought force u s t o the
concl usion that m a n , as t h e totality of in dividuals, is b y
11ature o n e and u ndivided. One m ighty, com posite perso n­
a lity who differentiates himself in to men that h e may better
help him sel f: an organism whose m ultiform m ember s ap­
pear as me n. And j u st as in a n y organism, the exis tence
of each member is condition ed by t h e existe n ce of t h e whole,
so the existen ce of each man de pends u p o n the existence of
all other men."
A little farther along in the sam e article I read: "The
indivi d u a l is the specific aspect, tone , color, in which God
would see t h e di v ine life ; he is the u tterance of God himself
at a given poi n t of tim e and s pace. He nce individu ality
14 The Scientific Method

has the very sacredness of God, and to u n fold it is the fi n a l

cause of o u r existence." Evide n tly t h e a u thor has failed to
con sider the res ul t upon this mig h ty, co mposite org a n ism
when each of his h u n d reds of million s of members begi n s to
u n fold its sacred individua lity.
The distinction betwee n s uch sciences as s ociology and
ethics and the scie nces which a re classed as n a t u r a l or phy s­
ica l has been further emphasized by the scie ntific i n v e s tiga­
tio n of our centu ry. To ma ke this clear it wil l be necessary
for me to give a somewha t tech n ical discussion of some of the
cha n ges whiQh h a ve taken pl ace in o u r co nception of the
p h ysical u niverse d u ri n g the last hundred years.
Three hu ndred years ago Galileo investigated with great
success the l a ws of motio n of material bodies, a n d hal f a cen­
tury l a ter these l a ws were s t a ted by Newton i n the s a me
form in which they a re taught today. G a l ileo first ass u m ed
the exis te nce of forces as the ca use of acceleration. Gilbert
s u pposed one mag n e t or electric c h a r g e to act upo n another
mag n e t or c h a rge by m ea n s of s o m e ki n d o f i nvisible med­
ium exis ti n g between them ; but Galileo and his succe ssors
assumed that bodies m a y act directly upon each o ther with­
o u t the i n terve n tion of a ny substa n ce whatever, and Lord
Kelvin tells us tha t before the e n d of the eighteenth ce ntury
this ide a of actio n a t a distance through absol u te vacuum
had beco m e so firmly established tha t the n otio n o f the
p ropagatio n of ele c" tric or magn etic actio n by me a n s of a n
interve ning medium see med utterly wild, even t o scie n tific
investigators.
The le gitimate res u l t o f this doctri n e of forces was the
a s s u mptio n tha t every particle i n t h e u niverse was acted
u p o n by n umberless fo rces. If t h e p a rticle r e m a i n ed a t
rest, it was bec a u se these forces bal a nced e ach oth er. If
one force came to overbala nce its oppo n e n ts, th e body
m oved. A body o nce in m o tio n could o n l y be b rought to
res t by a fo rce acting i n a direction oppo site to the motion
of the body. Thus all the phen omena of physical n ature
res u l ted from the warfar e of a n infinite num ber of forces.
 And Its Limitations. 15

These forces, them selves, were incapable of any fu rther

physical explanation , since they were utterly indepen den t of
mechanism of any kind. An attractive or repulsive force
could act between bodies when there was n othi n g whatever
between them. Manifestly, the only explan ation for a force
of this kind must be a m etaphysical explanation, and the
phenomena of thE) physical universe were apparen tly d u e to
influences not of them selves physical.
Then, si n ce the phen omena of nature are of many d ifferent
kinds, they m ust res u l t f r om many differen t kinds of forces.
Thus the existence of the h u m an body was conditioned
upon the equilibrium between the vital forces , which were
regarded as different from mere physical forces, and the
forces of decay, which were chemical fo rces. The m ovements
of the body were regarded as the over-balancing of physical
forces by mental or spiritual forces. This led to the notion
of certain superior grades of force, as spiritual or mental,
capable whe n properly exerted of over-mastering ordinary
physical forces, and the probability of any phenome non in
the phyoical u niverse being the res u l t of phy sical forces
became very rem ote. A physical phenomenon might be d ue
either to physical, vital, or spiritual forces, or it might res u l t
at one tim e from one k i n d o f force and a t another time
from another kin d. In other words , there was n o certainty
of u nifor mity in natural phenomena, and an impossibility
of tellin g what particular force had been efficient in pro­
ducin g a given phen omen o n .
But al l of t h i s notion of forces a s the cause o f pheno mena
has been changed by the physics o f t h e present ce ntu ry.
One hundred and one years ago, Benj amin Thompson,
Count Rumford, performed his m emorable experi men t on
the generation of heat by frictio n , in which he showed that
the qu antity of heat produced was proportional to the work
expended in its production. The followin g year, Hum phrey
Davy s ucceeded in melting ice by friction in a vacuum at a

tem peratu re lower than the freezing point. Previou s to

this time heat had been regarded as an imponderable fluid
16 The Scientific Method

which could p a s s from one body to a n other at a l ower tem­

perature; but these experimen ts showed that an indefini te
qu antity of heat could be obtained f rom bodies at a low tem­
pera ture wi thout in a ny way l o wering their capacity for
giving off more heat. Rum ford a nd Davy both con clude
that the cause of heat is motion and that to heat a body is
merely to set in motion the u l tima te p a rticles of the body.
But if this were true, the heat produced should be p ropor­
tional to the qu a n tity of mo tion expended in its production,
and this was found not to be the ca se. The quantity of
m otion of a body had, since Newto n's time, been measured
by the prod u ct of its m a s s into its velocity. Measu red in
this way, i ts heati n g effect bore no relation to its qua ntity of
m otion. Evidently, heat coul d not be a m ere mode of
motion.
It took fifty yea r s of investigation by the physicists of t h e
entire world t o find the rel ation bet ween the heating capac­
ity of a moving body and its mass and velocity. Carnot, in
France, writing a bout 1830, s ay s: "Heat is s imply motive
power, or r a ther motion which has ch anged for m .
Wherever there is a destruction of motive power, t h ere is
at the same time a production of heat exactly proportional
to the quantity of motive power des troyed. Recip rocally,
whenever there is a destruction of heat, th ere is p roduction
of motive power. We can then esta blish the general propo­
sition th a t motive power is in qu a n tity invaria ble in na ture
-that is, correctly speaking, never ei ther produced or des­
troyed." Thi s is the first statement of the greatest gener­
alization of physics. But Carnot faile'd to show how to
measure motive power so that it shou l d always be propor­
tional to t h e heat expended in its production, a nd his gener­
aliza tion w a s not placed upon a thoroughly satiefactory
theoretical l:ktsis until t h e g reat work of Helmholtz in 1847,
and its complete experimenta l verification by Jon le was not
finished u ntil two years later, j ust fifty yea r s ago. Then
the word energy came to be used for motive power, and the
generaliza tion of Carnot a n d Helmh oltz came to be known
as the Doctrine of the Conservation of Energy.
 And Its Limitations. 17

The establ ishment of thi s th eory is u ndoubtedly the great­

est achievemen t of physical science up to the pres ent time.
It necessarily Jed to an enti rely new conceptio n of t he phys­
ical universe. If th i s doctrine of the con servation of en­
e r gy was to be acc ep ted , no s uch t h i n g a s a force of any
kind would be left in th a t p a r t of the u ni verse properly
cal led physic a l . In place of all the c o nfl icti ng forces of the
earlier ph y R ics , there wou l d be left merely a de fi nite quan­
tity o f e n ergy, somethi n g as indestructible as matter, and
with m atter making u p the sum total of tlYe materials of
which the ph y s ic al u niverse is composed. A phys ical
change m erely involves a redistrib ution of the energy in
t h at part of the p h ysi c al u ni verse in which the change takes
place. Some mass, or m olecule, or atom gives up its energy
to som e other mass, or molecule, or atom , and that is a l l .
The q u ant i t y of m atter, as we m eas u re matter, is not
c hanged . The q ua n tity of energy , meas ured by its capacity
for doing wo r k , is not ch a nged . What we prev iou s l y called
the force acti n g between the differ e nt parts of m atter is
merely the m eas u re of the rate at which the energy is being
transferred from the one to the other.
Th us, i n stead of a heter ogeneou s universe, m ade u p of
many different k inds of matter and innumerable forces, we
h ave come to believe i n a phys ical universe in which only
matter and energy exist. Every chan ge in the physical uni­
verse fol l o ws the same l a w as any other cha n ge . The" uni­
formity " of p h y sica l nature is established.
Our de finiti o n of natu ral l aw is al so influenced by this
conception of the universe. A n a tu r al law, in the physic a l
u niver se, c a n mean n othing m ore tha n an observed order o f
events. I t i s a natural l a w that bodies u n s up po r ted fall t o
the earth ; that a cold bod y m a y acq u ire heat from a
warmer body , a nd the like. That is, these transformation s
or tra n sferences of energy which are associated with p hysi ­

cal p henomena al ways take pl ace in a de finite way. The

physical changes are a l wa y s in a definite direc tion. There
are no reve r s i b l e processes in n a t ure. The physical universe
18 The Scientific Method

itself is apparently not a reversible phenomenon. It came

from a condition essentially different from the present. It
is passing into a condition essentially different from the pres­
ent. It is but a phase of so me immensely greater system.
And it is no t only the physical sciences which h ave been
revolutionized by the doctrine of thA conservation of en­
ergy, but the sciences of life as well. Hardly had the uni­
formity of natural processes been established for physics and
chemistry when it was recognized in geology and biology.
The geology of cataclysms and special creations gave way
to the geology of slow, continuous changes. The doctrine of
special creation of species gave place to the theory of evolu­
tio n of organic forms fro m older and simpler forms. Helm­
"
holtz's Erhaltung der Kraft" was followed in o nly twelve
years by Darwin's "Origin of Species."
The influence of this work upon the thought of the world
has certainly not been equalled by that of any other book
of the century. Professor Jackman, in a recent number of
the Educational Review, truly says : " The dominating in­
fluence in the world's thought at the present time is the doc­
trine of evolution. Beginning its conquest but a generation
ago with what seemed to be chiefly the question of man's
physical or corporeal relationships, it has penetrated Ji ttle
by little his intellectual and moral domains so completely
that tod ay there is not a phase of thought or a human
activity that has not been stimulated and vivified by this
greatest of all human conceptions. With the advent of this
idea, chaos and chance went out and the reign of order and
universal law was ushered in."
But the doctrine of evolution represents an attempt on
the part of the biologist to include the phenomena of life
under the generalization of physics. If the orig,in of life, as
well as the origin of species, be included in the doctrine, then
is it asserted that all the phenomena of life are physical
phenomena, that is, that they result fro m physical changes
alone, and physiology becomes merely the application of
the laws of 11hysics and chemistry to a Rpecial class of
phenomena.
 And Its Limitations . 19

In this sense w e mus t rem ember that the theory o f evol u ­

tion lack s t h e e x p e ri me n t a l e viden c e o f the doctrine o f the
conservation of e nergy in the p h y sical world. While i t is
k n o wn t h a t most, i f n o t a l l , p h ysiologi c al p roces ses are ac·
co m panie d by a transfo r m ation and redistr i bution of energy ,
it is not yet p o s s i b le to m easure t h e qua nti ties of e nergy
tra n sfor m e d in the d i f fe r e n t ope ra t ions and to show a defi ­
n i te pro p o r ti o n a l i t y bet wee n the energy tra n s formed and
the r e su l t s acco m p l i s h e d . L i kewi s e, we know of no case
w h e re a n y o r ga n i z a ti o n of mat ter and e nergy has res ulted
in the g e n e r a t io n of l i fe de novo. T h e livin g bei n g t a k e s
e n ergy fro m o t h e r p a rts of the p h y s i cal u n i verse and trans ­
for m s it i n to the energy of m u scul ar con traction and
re t u r n s it a g a i n to the p h y si c a l u n i verse in the form of work
accom p l i shed o r of heat g i v e n off ; but the power to do thi s
i s always, i n o u r e x p e r i e n ce , a c q u i r ed from a nother livi n g
be i n g . T h e r e is no ex p e ri m e n t a l p roof of the or i gin of life
by m ea n s of e volut i on.
B u t it is not o n l y i n t h os e departm ents of science where
t h e un i fo rm i ty of na tural law would seem to be a legiti ­

mate deduction that the scientific method has fou nd favor

w i th i n ves t i ga tor s , for at the p rese n t time many of the w ri t ­

e rs on e t h ic s a n d sociology a n d theology are at t e m p t i n g to

apply the m e thods and the law s of p hysic al science i n their
fields of i n ves t i gation . It i s noticea ble, howe v er , tha t it is
n o t t h e n e w ph y s i c s of en ergy , but the ol d phys i c s of for ces ,
w h ich is bei n g thus a p p l ied. T h e phy sics which has been
rendered obs o le t e b y t h e in v estiga t i on of t h e cen t ury has
b e e n t a k e n u p by t h e s o c i ol og i s t , a n d we have th is m i ghty
orga n i s m , man, st i l l struggling w i t h as m a n y forces as were
formerly s up p o s e d t o b a t t l e for the contl'ol of the phys i c al
bod ies of his i n di vidu al m em be r s .
It is h e r e , if I may be al lowed to p ro phesy , that the i ntel ­
lect ual b<:Lttles o f the fi r s t half o f the com i n g cen t u r y w ill be
fou g h t. When the doctri n e of the evol ution of o rgan i c l ife
w a s fi r s t p roposed it was bitterly opposed by philoso phers
a n d t h e o l ogi a n s w h o th o u g h t they s a w in it an a ttem p t to
 20 The Scientific Method

en large the d o m ains of the ph ysical uni v er se so as to i n cl u d e

all the pheno m en a which ha d heretofore been regarded a s
men tal or spiri tual . F i n ally, when the battle had been
won by evolut i on, it was seen t h at the q u es ti o n was not
whether there are both a s piri tual and a ph ysical uni verse,
but w hether the special ph en o m ena of ani m al li fe should be
cl assed as spi r i t ual or physical. But the question r ai s ed
by the a ttem pts to apply the l aws of physics to ethics a n d
sociology is an entirely d ifferent one. If t here is any spir­
i tual universe, the phenomen a of ethics are spi ritual p he­
nomena . T he as sumption of natural law , that is, physica l
law, i n the spi r i tual uni verse means th at there is no spi r­
itual uni verse. A u n i verse governed by the laws of ph ysics
i s a un iverse i n which there is n o right or wrong, j ustice
or inj ustice, rewar d or pun i sh m ent : n o th i n g but inevita ble
con sequences. A ph ysica l u ni vers e is o n e in which no force
or i n fluence whatev er exists, noth ing but the unvarying
transfor m ation of energy, always in o n e di rection and
accor d i n g to d efi nite metho d s ; for if a single atotn i n the
universe can be moved by any force whatever , either mental,
moral, or spiri t ual, except by the tr ansference of en erg y
from so m e o th er atom, then is it not a. physi cal u n iverse.
If the physics o f the present century has established an y ­
th i n g, it is that the physica l world is mad e u p o f m atter a n d
energy alone. I f the laws o f the physical universe apply t o
sociology and eth ics, i t i s reasona ble t o suppo se that only
m atter and energy a re i nvolve d in the phenomena treated
i n these sciences . If, on t h e other h and , the development
of society an d the d evelo pmen t of h um a n ch ar acter are d e­
pend en t upo n spiritual i nfluences , there is man ifestly no
prob ability th at the processes which tak e place as a result
of these i n fluences will bear an y analogy to ph yAical phe­
nomena. If such an ana logy be shown to ex i st, it will seTVe
as an argument agai n s t the s upposition of spi ritual i nflu­
en ces .
W hether such a n analogy really ex ists or n o t is not a
questio n for t he physi cist to d ecide. Th is question can o n ly
 A n cl Its Limitations. 21

be determined by the c a r eful obser v a t i on of m a n y m e n who

are trained to o b serve and to a n alyze social p h enom e n a , a n d
w h o are a t the s a m e t i m e fam i liar with the l a w s o f the phy­
sic al u n iver se. This m u ch, at lea s t , is cert ain : if there is
not a u n i for m i t y of nature in social phenomen a so tha t
·effects follow c a u se s with, the same certainty a s they do in
the physical u n iverse, t he n is there n o scie n ce o f sociology,
a n d no s u ch thi n g as a m o r a l or social law. In so far as man
·
is a free, moral age n t , capable of determinin g his own con­
d uct, all a t te m p ts at p r e d i c t i n g what he wil l do unde r give n '
circ u m s t a n c es m u s t fa � . Only in so far as ma n is governed, I 'L
not m erel y i n fl ue n ced, b y l a w s as u n alterable a n d u nv a ry­ I
in g aR are the laws of the physical uni verse, can his
action s furn ish t he m a t e r i a l s of scien tific s tudy. If, on t h e
other h a n d, there a re such laws, the n a l l attem p t s o f m a n at
i n fl uenci n g the social order will be a s successful as would
a ttempts at rev i s i n g the law of g r a v i t a t i o n .
A pparen tly, the k i n d o f questions for the sociologist to
study are : What, if any , a re the established orders of de­
velopm ent of soc i ety and human i n s t i t u t i o n s ? What con­
d i tio n s a l w ays precede a n d what condi t io n s accom pany the
d evelopme nt of what we regard as the higher civilization ,
a n d what con d i t i o n s a l ways acco m pa n y the decadence of
social i n sti t u t i ons ?
These ques t i o n s will not be a n s wered by looking for an­
a l ogies between the growth of n atio n s a n d the growth of
trees or a n i m a l s . They m u s t b e a n s wered , i f answered a t
a l l , by the c a reful c o l l ection a n d ver i fication of fac t s , a n d
b y m a kin g ge neral i z a tio n s ba sed upon f a cts after the facts
are k n ow n . I t m u s t b e remem bered , too, that a l a w o f n a ­
tu r e i s n o t , l i k e a l a w of gra m m ar, subject t o e x ceptio n s .
" A l aw o f n a t u r e , ' ' s a y s Hel m holtz, " is n o t a mere logical
conception that we ha ve a d o p ted as a kind of memoria
technir,a to e n able us more readi l y to rem ember facts . w·e of
the present day have already s u ffici ent i n s i ght to k n ow t h at
the law s of nat u r e a re not th i n gs wh i ch we c a n evolve by
a n y speculative method. On th e con trary, we have to discever
 22 1'he Scientific Method.

them in facts ; we have to test them by re peated observation

or experiment, i n con s ta n tly new cases, u nder ever vary i n g
circum_sta nces ; and in proportion o n l y a s they hol d good
unde r,tc'o n s tantly i n crea s i n g cha nge of conditions, in a co n ­
stantly i ncrea s i n g n u m btll r of cases, and with greater del i ­
cacy i n the means o f observation , does o u r con fidence i n
their trustworthi ness rise.
" Th u s the laws of nature occu p y the position of a po wer
with whi ch we are not fami l iar, not to be arbitrarily selected
a n d determ i ned in our minds, a s one m i ght devise vario u s
systems o f a n i m a ls a n d pl an t s , o n e after a nother, s o lon g aR

the obj ect i s o n l y o n fl o f cla ssifi c a tion. Before w e c a n s a y

th a t our k nowledge o f a n y o n e law of n a ture i s complete,
we m u st see tha t it holds good withoiit excep tion, wnd ma ke
this the tes t of its correc tness . If w e c a n b e a ssured tha t
the condi tion s u n der wh ich the l a w oper a tes h a v e presen ted
themsel ves, the res u l t m u s t ensue, wi thou t arbitra riness ,
without ch oice, wi thout our co - opera tion , and from t h e very
necessity wh ich r eg ul a te s the thi ngs o f the ex tern a l world as
well a s our perception. "
It is upon such l a w s as these that a n y true science must be
b a sed , a n d it is only to subj ec ts of i nvestig a tio n i n whi c h
some s u c h la w s have been established th a t the name sci­
ence can be properly applied . Appa rently, w e h a ve discov­
ered a method of fi na l l y arrivin g at a k no w led ge of s u c h
l a ws i n t h e phy s i c a l universe. Th a t this method i n its en ­
ti rety c a n not be a pp l ied to the m e n tal a nd m o ra l s c i e n c es ,
I ha ve tried to show. That it cann ot be u sed a t a l l i n the
stud y of l a n g u a ge or litera t u re or ma thema tics w o u l d seem
sel f-evident. The d isco v e ry a n d a d o ptio n of the scie n tifi c
metho d represe nts the grea test in tellectu a l a c q u i rem e n t of
t h e last three centuries, and it i s only in tho s e dep a rt m e n ts
of h um a n kno wl edge to w h ic h t h e s c i e n t i fic method c a n be
w h olly or i n part a pplie d th a t t h e intellectual ach ievem ents
of our cen t u r y surpass t h ose o f form er cen tu r i es. It y et
rem ai ns for i n ves ti gato rs in o t h e r s u bj ects to fi n d a m ethod
of researc h w h ich wi l l lead to the same rel a tivel y sure .
resu l ts in their fiel ds of investiga ti o n .