HISTORY OF THOUGHT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2016, 25 March 1914, Page 5

HISTORY OF THOUGHT.

MR. BALFOBR'S LECTIIRES. I BELIEF RUNS BEFOKE SCIENTIFIC INSPIRAM, Mr. Balfour devoted his ninth Gifl'ord lecture ou February 4 to showing chut, in addition to swh fundamental aud iiievitablo postulates as the belief in an external world and the belirf in the regularity of the universe, there are also tendencies, inclinations to feoliere, probabilities in his special -smse of tho word, which guide the course of human speculation. He said that tho full importance of theso inclinations and probabilities can bo discovered only when we look back upon the history of thought -. but ho insisted that there are such tendencies, and that they have had, and aro having a most important- effect upon tho structure of our beliefs The fact was generally admitted with regard to primitive beliefs and superstitions, but it was.apt to be denied with regard-.to modern thought.. It was one -of his quarrels with Positivism that tie JPositivists argue that the-fabric of scientific knowledge has been arrived at by different from all that was do«e in. the earlier intellectual history ol mankind. Mr. Balfour thai proceeded to show that tho idea that jaaukiiid has accumulated, its scientific knowledge as a child picks up shells by the sea-shore-, moved only by the wJjim of tho niaaent and without guiding infltrences 01 inclinations, is consistent with tho history of scientific investigation. Ho ' selected two examples of seiontific doe-trifte to illustrate tho fallacy of the jaotion that there is no favouritism in science, no inclination towards one ki&d of thins rather.than another;

Atomism. Ha first oiJthej* illustrations wasatomism—the theory which ascribes- ail tho variety and splendour au4'interest of tha material world to tho lnavernsats and the "relative position of tho very smatl particles of which the world caw-, sists. That theory may be found in early Oriental speculations; it was the. theory of Democritits; it ran through tho whole of antiquity; and tliotigji it was thrown into -the shade in tie Mid-' dlo Ages, it burst out agaiii at the re* vival of learning, and was the theory of Uacon and Gasscadi and Hobbes and Boyle and Newton and Li&taitz; all of whom wero in their respective fashions the heirs of Demoeritus. Modern, physical science is atomic; through and, through, and modern theories o£ njatjtor, of electricity, and of heat are based upon atomism. When Tyndall, at the Belfast meeting of the British Association, gavo his presidential address on the history of atomism, neither tho lectaer nor his critics seemed to have thoiujht of as-kinc; hovr it came, about that, through ail these centuries this theory, v/itieh had oriiiiriallx.no experimental or of scientific basis, came to prevail an| never lost its'hold, andl'mw it turns out now to be true witb, a, degree of accuracy truly astonishing;. ' Mr. Balfour fcund the answer to this Question in tile fact that the belief had tmi before the evidence, and that the evidence had justified the belief. ' Theories c! Conservation. The second illustration was the group of theories concerned witii.amservatjon, which, ho' said, showed .» ifaedi rosoke on the,part of scieiitife inquiries to.'fhid conservation whciTOVei- they can. Ho pointed out that master, mass, weight, motion, force, heat,-, and energy haveall been regarded as Unchanseaivie- iii quantity, conserved among all .vicissi* tildes, unalterablo in amount. Hq dealt with eaclrof these in- turn, and pointed out how tho idea of conservation had been wrongly applied or bud -been afi* ■plied in the wrong: form, and yet scientific investigators., after the discovery of each error, pursued, their search for conservation until they were rightly happy when the desire for eoiiscrvittioa had found j.ts legitimate exemplar. Tho discussion of the changes in the idea of the conservation of energy led Mr. Balfour to an interesting speculation. He had, he said, often amused himself by wonderiiiß what iTotikl liavo happened .if, .in, tho early ■ 'forties of the 19th century, tho v idea> of the conservation of energy, had been a theological dogma. Ho, said that it rrrieht easily have been so, for James ffescott Joule, who discovered tlse- eonservatioii of energy, in its modern form,, 'distinctly asserted, that he believed in it .'because he thought it the method, by whieh God had made the world'. In. aft amusing passage Mr. Balfottr described'Bß irliaginary Positivist criticism' upon this! medieval theological theory, and lie represented the critic '&s insisting uDan the I fact that Joule's, results attained by modem methods did not boar' out his a priori view that the grand agencies of: Nature are by tho Creator's fiat indii- . structable. Joule's results 'in point of ■ fact did .vary enormously,, and his critie would accuse him of the fallacy of assuming his conelusian and saying that the variations in his results were errors of observation. Subsequent experiments.' have shown that the variations were e-r-' rors of observation, but Joute. started j with the clear belief, .that ho was to find : his rule, and this belief kept hifn rictht. about tho errors in his observations,'

Mr. Balfour, haviaig illustrated these scientific tendencies to believe certain ■things, went on to argtie that such inclinations cannot le regarded as happy accidents. He could not himself feefibe them by the word hick; ho thought the word inspiration more to tho put-fiosc-. They were, , ho' said in conclusion, very much what M. Bergson has calted vital iinpulse in the organic world. These ■tendencies of scientific belief press on' definitely in one direction, 'they are defeated in one lino ef advance awl vktorious in another, but tliey always move onwards, and with thorn develops all that is valuable iii our thought, alike about the material world and, as he hinibelieved, about religious themes.. They have been anil, tlicy arc rich in fruit for human progress a-ud for haman knowledge. Experiment and observation are guided by those tendencies, and inclinations, i