Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Inconclusiveness And Aberrations Of Scientific Teachers.
THE INCONCLUSIVENESS AND ABERRATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC TEACHERS .
BY PHILOSOPII . PROFESSOR TYNDALL has recently delivered a lecture at Birmingham , which , hoAvever able in itself , and admirably conceived , masterly as a composition , and striking as a thesis , hardly maintains bis high character for scientific induction and logical accuracy . Whether or no be thought the argument be sought to elaborate and
the theory he appears anxious to enounce would suit the " meridian " of Birmingham I knoAv not , but much of tbe Professor ' s Avell-spun and someAvhat subtle discourse rests upon assumptions ho himself or any other dogmatic teacher would be the . first to deprecate and denounce .
I , for one , quite agree Avith the Times Avhen it says : "A lecture on Science from Professor TYNDALL is always pleasant to listen to . Whatever we may think of the point to Avhich he brings us in the end , AVO can hardly fail to enjoy the road by Avhich he conducts us to it . From the time he takes us in hand and sets out Avith us on our undefined journey to the final moment Avhen he announces that the goal is IIOAV reached , he does much to deserve our gratitude ancl to establish his claims upon our trust . Rough and forbidding as the path may lookhe makes it smooth
, to our unpractised feet ; he entices us further and further along it ; he lends us his arm when there is any special difficulty to be surmounted ; he laughs at our terrors , and is crafty enough to induce us to laugh at them ; he seems to be merely entertaining us Avith a fund of ready anecdote , Avhile tbe stories he is telling are all intended to serve . his mainpurpose , and to beguile us on a Avay Avhich Ave might otherwise not be induced to enter . " But I also fully endorse some other pertinent remarks of the same clear Avriter :
" It is , we must admit , somewhat startling to find Science leading us to Avhat AVC have been accustomed to consider the proper domain of metaphysics , and to have the old school dispute of free will and necessity revived for us as tbe most important question of the day . When Professor Tyndall can SIIOAV us intermediate laAvs as clear and as certain as those which bold good in tbe domain of physical nature , and connecting that domain with the moral and intellectual life of man , Ave shall be extremely g lad to
listen to him and draAv the conclusions Avhich the new science warrants . But we may decline to go Avith Mm in anticipating the course of discovery , and may fairly ask him by what right he asserts Avhat he does not prove . If we are too strict in this , he must blame himself for the habit of mind he has taught us to favour . We fully recognise the never-failing art and grace ancl persuasiveness Avith which he has concluded as Avell as commenced his lecture . We will only remind Mm that it is not tbe office of tho man of science to persuade otherwise than by strict . argument . "
For in much of tbe latter part of his lecture Professor Tyndall departs from the region of logic and science jiroper , ancl enters upon the debateable ground of theological and metaphysical controversies—on which , too , he seems ready to pronounce a most dogmatical opinion , and to lead bis hearers , on the " post hoc , propter hoc , " to what looks very much like , indeed , either the " morale independanto " of Massol , or that direct material bifidelity so popular just IIOAV with some shalloAV minds and some superficial " windbags , "
among whom I , for one , do not reckon Professor Tyndall . But yet it is most alarming to find a man of Ms eminence as a thinker and a writer descending to the claptrap ancl the incorrectness of the neAv sceptical school . When , for instance , Professor Tyndall assarts the " paradox " which follows calmly , complacently , he must knoAv that Ms "fact , " as a "fact , " is not a fact at all , for his statement is positively incorrect in itself , and therefore all that follows as based upon it must be rejected : " Most of you have been forced to listen to the outcries and denunciations which rung discordant through the land for some years after the publication of Mr . Darwin s
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Inconclusiveness And Aberrations Of Scientific Teachers.
THE INCONCLUSIVENESS AND ABERRATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC TEACHERS .
BY PHILOSOPII . PROFESSOR TYNDALL has recently delivered a lecture at Birmingham , which , hoAvever able in itself , and admirably conceived , masterly as a composition , and striking as a thesis , hardly maintains bis high character for scientific induction and logical accuracy . Whether or no be thought the argument be sought to elaborate and
the theory he appears anxious to enounce would suit the " meridian " of Birmingham I knoAv not , but much of tbe Professor ' s Avell-spun and someAvhat subtle discourse rests upon assumptions ho himself or any other dogmatic teacher would be the . first to deprecate and denounce .
I , for one , quite agree Avith the Times Avhen it says : "A lecture on Science from Professor TYNDALL is always pleasant to listen to . Whatever we may think of the point to Avhich he brings us in the end , AVO can hardly fail to enjoy the road by Avhich he conducts us to it . From the time he takes us in hand and sets out Avith us on our undefined journey to the final moment Avhen he announces that the goal is IIOAV reached , he does much to deserve our gratitude ancl to establish his claims upon our trust . Rough and forbidding as the path may lookhe makes it smooth
, to our unpractised feet ; he entices us further and further along it ; he lends us his arm when there is any special difficulty to be surmounted ; he laughs at our terrors , and is crafty enough to induce us to laugh at them ; he seems to be merely entertaining us Avith a fund of ready anecdote , Avhile tbe stories he is telling are all intended to serve . his mainpurpose , and to beguile us on a Avay Avhich Ave might otherwise not be induced to enter . " But I also fully endorse some other pertinent remarks of the same clear Avriter :
" It is , we must admit , somewhat startling to find Science leading us to Avhat AVC have been accustomed to consider the proper domain of metaphysics , and to have the old school dispute of free will and necessity revived for us as tbe most important question of the day . When Professor Tyndall can SIIOAV us intermediate laAvs as clear and as certain as those which bold good in tbe domain of physical nature , and connecting that domain with the moral and intellectual life of man , Ave shall be extremely g lad to
listen to him and draAv the conclusions Avhich the new science warrants . But we may decline to go Avith Mm in anticipating the course of discovery , and may fairly ask him by what right he asserts Avhat he does not prove . If we are too strict in this , he must blame himself for the habit of mind he has taught us to favour . We fully recognise the never-failing art and grace ancl persuasiveness Avith which he has concluded as Avell as commenced his lecture . We will only remind Mm that it is not tbe office of tho man of science to persuade otherwise than by strict . argument . "
For in much of tbe latter part of his lecture Professor Tyndall departs from the region of logic and science jiroper , ancl enters upon the debateable ground of theological and metaphysical controversies—on which , too , he seems ready to pronounce a most dogmatical opinion , and to lead bis hearers , on the " post hoc , propter hoc , " to what looks very much like , indeed , either the " morale independanto " of Massol , or that direct material bifidelity so popular just IIOAV with some shalloAV minds and some superficial " windbags , "
among whom I , for one , do not reckon Professor Tyndall . But yet it is most alarming to find a man of Ms eminence as a thinker and a writer descending to the claptrap ancl the incorrectness of the neAv sceptical school . When , for instance , Professor Tyndall assarts the " paradox " which follows calmly , complacently , he must knoAv that Ms "fact , " as a "fact , " is not a fact at all , for his statement is positively incorrect in itself , and therefore all that follows as based upon it must be rejected : " Most of you have been forced to listen to the outcries and denunciations which rung discordant through the land for some years after the publication of Mr . Darwin s