-
Articles/Ads
Article ON THE STUDY OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. ← Page 5 of 6 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
On The Study Of Natural Philosophy.
whether the one or the other be the case , no experiment we can make can possibly determine . Reason , however , operates in favour of the latter ; and , though it mi ght be expedient for Sir Isaac Newton to ground his geometrical system on the basis of the corouscuiarian plan , = tnd , perhaps , it is happy for science that he did so , yet his arguments for resting pmlosophical enquiry on the apparent properties of
perceptible bodies , as the essential qualities of the elements of which such bodies are composed , are certainly , weak and inconclusive This will appear further , m considerin g his conclusion respecting the hardness of the parts of bodies drawn from that of the bodies themselves . Some have said indeed , that he does not mean , by hardness , absolute impenetrability , or perfect solidity : certainly he does not , in- speakinoof the whole bod
, or perceptible , y , because we confessedl y know of no such perfectly solid bod y in the universe : but what could he mean else , in speaking of the particles of which such bodies are composed ? Certain it is , he meant impenetrability , or solidity , here ; at "least his followers have reasoned accordingly ; and it is not to be conceived but that he meant some absolute and positive quality , essential to body iiardness , considered in this li ght , can be understood as nothing- less tiian perfect solidity . - °
Now it . is extremely obvious , that we have no way to determinewhethet- any body be hard or soft , but by striking or pressing it against or as it ls-m fact , comparing it with " , some- harder or softer " body and though we should , by these means , ' discover the hard-st and most impenetrable of perceptible bodies , we should be still divested '' oi all experimental means of discovering whether such
body were mitselr , perfectly solid or net : so that hardness is still evidently a relative and comparative quality , even in perceptible bodies . To decide hence , therefore , of the absolute hardness or impenetrability of the particles , or impalpable elements , of which they are composed , is surely a . very fallacious method of conclusion
I might proceed , still further ,, and shew that the same bodies mayappear to possess different degrees of hardness , from different modes , ot making experiments on them , in comparing them with each oth » r - " but 1 have , at present , nothing more in view , than to give an instanceot thwemment philosopher ' s inattention to a logical method of argumentation . Indeedin other parts of his writingshe himself
, , admits that , with respect to the gravity of bodies , it may possibly be the mechanical effect of an impulsive force , or of the pulses of an elastic medium ; by wmch concession he does , in effect , admit also the fallacy or the above reasoning , as to this particular Quality : and , if it be in conclusive respecting one property of bodies / it must necessarily be soregarding the rest . J
' From this example , I doubt not my readers are convinced of the necessity which those who are desirous to become acquainted with , and be enabled to judge of , philosophical systems , lie under of paying a dueattention to the use of those signs whereb y our ideas are expressed ; or , in other words , to the art of philosophising . I would not advise those , however , who have not already made ; ome progress m logic , to rush preci pitately into , the labyrinth of so ,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
On The Study Of Natural Philosophy.
whether the one or the other be the case , no experiment we can make can possibly determine . Reason , however , operates in favour of the latter ; and , though it mi ght be expedient for Sir Isaac Newton to ground his geometrical system on the basis of the corouscuiarian plan , = tnd , perhaps , it is happy for science that he did so , yet his arguments for resting pmlosophical enquiry on the apparent properties of
perceptible bodies , as the essential qualities of the elements of which such bodies are composed , are certainly , weak and inconclusive This will appear further , m considerin g his conclusion respecting the hardness of the parts of bodies drawn from that of the bodies themselves . Some have said indeed , that he does not mean , by hardness , absolute impenetrability , or perfect solidity : certainly he does not , in- speakinoof the whole bod
, or perceptible , y , because we confessedl y know of no such perfectly solid bod y in the universe : but what could he mean else , in speaking of the particles of which such bodies are composed ? Certain it is , he meant impenetrability , or solidity , here ; at "least his followers have reasoned accordingly ; and it is not to be conceived but that he meant some absolute and positive quality , essential to body iiardness , considered in this li ght , can be understood as nothing- less tiian perfect solidity . - °
Now it . is extremely obvious , that we have no way to determinewhethet- any body be hard or soft , but by striking or pressing it against or as it ls-m fact , comparing it with " , some- harder or softer " body and though we should , by these means , ' discover the hard-st and most impenetrable of perceptible bodies , we should be still divested '' oi all experimental means of discovering whether such
body were mitselr , perfectly solid or net : so that hardness is still evidently a relative and comparative quality , even in perceptible bodies . To decide hence , therefore , of the absolute hardness or impenetrability of the particles , or impalpable elements , of which they are composed , is surely a . very fallacious method of conclusion
I might proceed , still further ,, and shew that the same bodies mayappear to possess different degrees of hardness , from different modes , ot making experiments on them , in comparing them with each oth » r - " but 1 have , at present , nothing more in view , than to give an instanceot thwemment philosopher ' s inattention to a logical method of argumentation . Indeedin other parts of his writingshe himself
, , admits that , with respect to the gravity of bodies , it may possibly be the mechanical effect of an impulsive force , or of the pulses of an elastic medium ; by wmch concession he does , in effect , admit also the fallacy or the above reasoning , as to this particular Quality : and , if it be in conclusive respecting one property of bodies / it must necessarily be soregarding the rest . J
' From this example , I doubt not my readers are convinced of the necessity which those who are desirous to become acquainted with , and be enabled to judge of , philosophical systems , lie under of paying a dueattention to the use of those signs whereb y our ideas are expressed ; or , in other words , to the art of philosophising . I would not advise those , however , who have not already made ; ome progress m logic , to rush preci pitately into , the labyrinth of so ,