73Turner’sChemistry, 1834, p. 95574Berzelius’Jahresbericht, xv. p. 372.Liebig, examining the product of distillation of alcohol, sulphuric acid and amber, found a substance which he termedAldehyd, from the wordsAlcoholdehydrogenated75. This mode of making Words has been strongly objected to by Mr. Dumas76. Still more has he objected to the wordMercaptan(of Zeise), which366he says rests upon a mere play of words; for it means bothmercurium captansandmercurio aptum.75Ibid.xvi. p. 308.76Leçons de Chimie, p. 354.Dumas and Peligot, working on pyroligneous acids, found reason to believe the existence of a substance77which they calledmethylene, deriving the name frommethy, a spirituous fluid, andhyle, wood. Berzelius remarks that the name should rather bemethyl, and thatὕληmay be taken in its signification of matter, to imply the Radical of Wine: and he proposes that the older Æther-Radical,C4H10shall be calledÆthyl, the newer,C2H6,Methyl.77Berzelius’Jahresbericht, xv. (1836).This notion of marking by the terminationylthe hypothetical compound radical of a series of chemical compounds has been generally adopted; and, as we see from the above reference, it must be regarded as representing the Greek wordὕλη: and such hypothetical radicals of bases have been termed in generalbasyls.Bunsen obtained from Cadet’s fuming liquid a substance which he calledAlkarsin(alkali-arsenic?): and the substance produced from this by oxidation he calledAlkargen78. Berzelius was of opinion, that the true view of its composition was that it contained a compound ternary radical =C6H12As2,after the manner of organic bodies; and he proposed for this the name79Kakodyl. Alkarsin is Kakodyl-oxyd, K̇d, Alkargen is Kakodyl-acid, K̈̇d.78Ibid.xviii. p. 497.79Ibid.xx. p. 527.The discovery of Kakodyl was the first instance of the insulation of an organic metallicbasyl80.80Miller’sChemistry, iii. 220.The first of the Hydrocarbon Radicals of the Alcohols was the radical of Tetrylic alcohol obtained by Kolbe from Valerate of Potash, and hence calledValylC16H18.Chloroformis perchlorideofformyl, the hypothetical radical of formic acid81.81Dumas,Leçons sur la Phil. Chim.p. 356.367The discovery of such bases goes back to 1815. The substance formerly calledPrussiate of Mercury, being treated in a particular manner, was resolved into metallic mercury andCyanogen. This substance,Cyanogen, is, according to the older nomenclature,Bicarburet of Nitrogen; but chemists are agreed that its most convenient name isCyanogen, proposed by its discoverer, Gay-Lussac, in 181582. The importance of the discovery consists in this; that this substance was the first compound body which was distinctly proved to enter into combination with elementary substances in a manner similar to that in which they combine with each other.82Turner’sChemistry(1834), p. 420. Miller’sChemistry, ii. 66.The truth of our Aphorism (XXV.) that in such a science as chemistry, the history of the scientific nomenclature is the history of the science, appears from this; that the controversies with respect to chemical theories and their application take the form of objections to the common systematic names and proposals of new names instead. Thus a certain compound of potassa, sulphur, hydrogen, and oxygen, may be regarded either asHydrosulphate of Potassa, or asSulphide of Potassium in solution, according to different views83. In some cases indeed, changes are made merely for the sake of clearness. Instead ofHydrochloricandHydrocyanicacid, many French writers, following Thenard, transpose the elements of these terms; they speak ofChlorhydricandCyanhydricacid; by this means they avoid any ambiguity which might arise from the use of the prefixHydro, which has sometimes been applied to compounds which contain water84.83Miller’sChemistry, vol. ii. p. 583.84Ibid.ii. 433.An incompleteness in chemical nomenclature was further felt, when it appeared, from the properties of various substances, that mere identity in chemical composition is not sufficient to produce identity of chemical character or properties85. The doctrine of368the existence of compounds identical in ultimate composition, but different in chemical properties, was termedIsomerism. Thus chemists enumerate the following compounds, all of which contain carbon and hydrogen in the proportion of single equivalents of each86;—Methylene,Olefiant gas,Propylene,Oil gas,Amylene,Caproylene,Naphthene,Eleene,Peramylene,Cetylene,Cerotylene,Melissine.85Ibid.ii. 653.86Miller’sChemistry, ii. p. 654.I will, in the last place, propound an Aphorism which has already offered itself in considering the history of Chemistry87as having a special bearing upon that Science, but which may be regarded as the supreme and ultimate rule with regard to the language of Science.87Hist. Ind. Sc.b. xiv. c. 1.AphorismXXIX.In learning the meaning of Scientific Terms, the history of science is our Dictionary: the steps of scientific induction are our Definitions.Itis usual for unscientific readers to complain that the technical terms which they meet with in books of science are not accompanied by plain definitions such as they can understand. But such definitions cannot be given. For definitions must consist of words; and, in the case of scientific terms, must consist of words which require again to be defined: and so on, without limit.Elementary substancesin chemistry, for instance, what are they? The substances into which bodies can beanalysed, and by the junction of which they arecomposed. But what isanalysis? what iscomposition? We have seen that it required long and laborious courses of experiment to answer these questions; and that finally the balance decided among rival answers. And so it is in other cases. In entering upon each science, we come upon a new set of words. And how are we to learn369the meaning of this collection of words? In what other language shall it be explained? In what terms shall we define these new expressions? To this we are compelled to reply, that we cannot translate these terms into any ordinary or familiar language. Here, as in all other branches of knowledge, the meaning of words is to be sought in the progress of thought. It is only by going back through the successful researches of men respecting thecompositionandelementsof bodies, that we can learn in what sense such terms can be understood, so as to convey real knowledge. In order that they may have a meaning for us, we must inquire what meaning they had in the minds of the authors of our discoveries. And the same is the case in other subjects. To take the instance of Morphology. When the beginner is told that every group of animals may be reduced to anArchetype, he will seek for a definition of Archetype. Such a definition has been offered, to this effect: the Archetype of a group of animals is a diagram embodying all the organs and parts which are found in the group in such a relative position as they would have had if none had attained an excessive development. But, then, we are led further to ask, How are we in each case to become acquainted with the diagram; to know of what parts it consists, and how they are related; and further; What is the standard ofexcess? It is by a wide examination of particular species, and by several successive generalizations of observed facts, that we are led to a diagram of an animal form of a certain kind, (for example, a vertebrate;) and of the various ways, excessive and defective, in which the parts may be developed.This craving for definitions, as we have already said, arises in a great degree from the acquaintance with geometry which most persons acquire at an early age. The definitions of geometry are easily intelligible by a beginner, because the idea of space, of which they are modifications, is clearly possessed without any special culture. But this is not and cannot be the case in other sciences founded upon a wide and exact observation of facts.370It was formerly said that there was no Royal Road to Geometry: in modern times we have occasion often to repeat that there is no Popular Road—no road easy, pleasant, offering no difficulty and demanding no toil,—to Comparative Anatomy, Chemistry or any other of the Inductive Sciences.THE END.CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.Transcriber’s NotesWhewell published the first edition of thePhilosophy of the Inductive Sciencesin 1840 in two volumes, as a companion to the 1837History of the Inductive Sciences. Revised second editions of both works appeared in 1847. The third editions saw a major reshaping of thePhilosophy: a two volumeHistory of Scientific Ideas(1858 – in Project Gutenberg as #69093),Novum Organon Renovatum(1858 – the present text, relying upon resources kindly provided by the Internet Archive), andOn the Philosophy of Discovery: chapters historical and critical(1860 – long since in Project Gutenberg’s collection: #5155). (The third edition of theHistory of the Inductive Sciencesis available in PG as #68693.)Adaptations in this textIn the present text footnotes are numbered by Book and are placed after the paragraph to which they attach; in the original, notes were numbered by chapter. Page numbers appear in colour; where a word was hyphenated across pages the number has been placed before the word. Fractions have been transcribed as numerator ⁄ denominator; the original usually has numerator over a line with denominator below.Some unusual symbols occur. On pages357and 358, there are italic letters with a number written above them. On two occasionsBhas a 1 above it, and onceChas ½ above it. On page364a formula is written with two entries containingHon a line aboveCl. These superpositions have all been transcribed by superscripting the first and subscripting the second item (with the result that the letters are printed smaller than in the original). The other oddities have been captured in Unicode.On pages152and197Whewell uses a raised dot as a decimal point and in footnote26of Book III. a comma. These have been replaced by a mid dot.Inductive ChartsAt the end of Book II. (p. 140), Whewell included two very large inserts, described in some detail in the Book itself. They were not captured by the scans available in the Internet Archive. I was kindly provided with photographs of them. Those charts were four times as wide as the normal page and a quarter as long. In the html version they have been fairly accurately represented via tables; but with up to 25 columns these tables will be very difficult to decipher on small screens. In the text version, coded structure diagrams have been used, which again utilise the full 70 spaces Project Gutenberg allows.CorrectionsCorrections are comparatively few. Apart from the silent ones, they have been marked by dotted red underline, on mouse-over revealing the nature of the change. Given the various editions, some of the internal cross-references turn out to be obsolete or erroneous:note 11in Book III. The text reads B. viii. c. iii. but it refers actually to Book viii. c. ii. article 3 in earlier editions and in theHistory of Scientific Ideas, cf.Aphorism 88in Book I. of the present volume. Compare alsoAphorism 19in this volume’s Book IV.notes 58 and 59in Book III. refer to Book v. c. i. For the present third edition they should have been aimed at that chapter of theHistory of Scientific Ideas.On page252we are told that the Work is about to conclude, as the first edition did in a way (all the aphorisms were gathered after Book XIII. [= our Book III.], followed by various appendices). But we have Book IV. yet to come, plus some extra illustrations regarding language and symbols in science.(I might add that I have not checked the many references to Whewell’s other related works. The errors here suggest one might need to take them with a pinch of salt, and help from the browser’s search function.)There are some inconsistencies, notably in spelling, which have in general not been adjusted; nor have Whewell’s unbalanced quotation marks and positioning of footnote anchors been modernized.
73Turner’sChemistry, 1834, p. 955
74Berzelius’Jahresbericht, xv. p. 372.
Liebig, examining the product of distillation of alcohol, sulphuric acid and amber, found a substance which he termedAldehyd, from the wordsAlcoholdehydrogenated75. This mode of making Words has been strongly objected to by Mr. Dumas76. Still more has he objected to the wordMercaptan(of Zeise), which366he says rests upon a mere play of words; for it means bothmercurium captansandmercurio aptum.
75Ibid.xvi. p. 308.
76Leçons de Chimie, p. 354.
Dumas and Peligot, working on pyroligneous acids, found reason to believe the existence of a substance77which they calledmethylene, deriving the name frommethy, a spirituous fluid, andhyle, wood. Berzelius remarks that the name should rather bemethyl, and thatὕληmay be taken in its signification of matter, to imply the Radical of Wine: and he proposes that the older Æther-Radical,C4H10shall be calledÆthyl, the newer,C2H6,Methyl.
77Berzelius’Jahresbericht, xv. (1836).
This notion of marking by the terminationylthe hypothetical compound radical of a series of chemical compounds has been generally adopted; and, as we see from the above reference, it must be regarded as representing the Greek wordὕλη: and such hypothetical radicals of bases have been termed in generalbasyls.
Bunsen obtained from Cadet’s fuming liquid a substance which he calledAlkarsin(alkali-arsenic?): and the substance produced from this by oxidation he calledAlkargen78. Berzelius was of opinion, that the true view of its composition was that it contained a compound ternary radical =C6H12As2,after the manner of organic bodies; and he proposed for this the name79Kakodyl. Alkarsin is Kakodyl-oxyd, K̇d, Alkargen is Kakodyl-acid, K̈̇d.
78Ibid.xviii. p. 497.
79Ibid.xx. p. 527.
The discovery of Kakodyl was the first instance of the insulation of an organic metallicbasyl80.
80Miller’sChemistry, iii. 220.
The first of the Hydrocarbon Radicals of the Alcohols was the radical of Tetrylic alcohol obtained by Kolbe from Valerate of Potash, and hence calledValylC16H18.Chloroformis perchlorideofformyl, the hypothetical radical of formic acid81.
81Dumas,Leçons sur la Phil. Chim.p. 356.367
The discovery of such bases goes back to 1815. The substance formerly calledPrussiate of Mercury, being treated in a particular manner, was resolved into metallic mercury andCyanogen. This substance,Cyanogen, is, according to the older nomenclature,Bicarburet of Nitrogen; but chemists are agreed that its most convenient name isCyanogen, proposed by its discoverer, Gay-Lussac, in 181582. The importance of the discovery consists in this; that this substance was the first compound body which was distinctly proved to enter into combination with elementary substances in a manner similar to that in which they combine with each other.
82Turner’sChemistry(1834), p. 420. Miller’sChemistry, ii. 66.
The truth of our Aphorism (XXV.) that in such a science as chemistry, the history of the scientific nomenclature is the history of the science, appears from this; that the controversies with respect to chemical theories and their application take the form of objections to the common systematic names and proposals of new names instead. Thus a certain compound of potassa, sulphur, hydrogen, and oxygen, may be regarded either asHydrosulphate of Potassa, or asSulphide of Potassium in solution, according to different views83. In some cases indeed, changes are made merely for the sake of clearness. Instead ofHydrochloricandHydrocyanicacid, many French writers, following Thenard, transpose the elements of these terms; they speak ofChlorhydricandCyanhydricacid; by this means they avoid any ambiguity which might arise from the use of the prefixHydro, which has sometimes been applied to compounds which contain water84.
83Miller’sChemistry, vol. ii. p. 583.
84Ibid.ii. 433.
An incompleteness in chemical nomenclature was further felt, when it appeared, from the properties of various substances, that mere identity in chemical composition is not sufficient to produce identity of chemical character or properties85. The doctrine of368the existence of compounds identical in ultimate composition, but different in chemical properties, was termedIsomerism. Thus chemists enumerate the following compounds, all of which contain carbon and hydrogen in the proportion of single equivalents of each86;—Methylene,Olefiant gas,Propylene,Oil gas,Amylene,Caproylene,Naphthene,Eleene,Peramylene,Cetylene,Cerotylene,Melissine.
85Ibid.ii. 653.
86Miller’sChemistry, ii. p. 654.
I will, in the last place, propound an Aphorism which has already offered itself in considering the history of Chemistry87as having a special bearing upon that Science, but which may be regarded as the supreme and ultimate rule with regard to the language of Science.
87Hist. Ind. Sc.b. xiv. c. 1.
AphorismXXIX.
In learning the meaning of Scientific Terms, the history of science is our Dictionary: the steps of scientific induction are our Definitions.
Itis usual for unscientific readers to complain that the technical terms which they meet with in books of science are not accompanied by plain definitions such as they can understand. But such definitions cannot be given. For definitions must consist of words; and, in the case of scientific terms, must consist of words which require again to be defined: and so on, without limit.Elementary substancesin chemistry, for instance, what are they? The substances into which bodies can beanalysed, and by the junction of which they arecomposed. But what isanalysis? what iscomposition? We have seen that it required long and laborious courses of experiment to answer these questions; and that finally the balance decided among rival answers. And so it is in other cases. In entering upon each science, we come upon a new set of words. And how are we to learn369the meaning of this collection of words? In what other language shall it be explained? In what terms shall we define these new expressions? To this we are compelled to reply, that we cannot translate these terms into any ordinary or familiar language. Here, as in all other branches of knowledge, the meaning of words is to be sought in the progress of thought. It is only by going back through the successful researches of men respecting thecompositionandelementsof bodies, that we can learn in what sense such terms can be understood, so as to convey real knowledge. In order that they may have a meaning for us, we must inquire what meaning they had in the minds of the authors of our discoveries. And the same is the case in other subjects. To take the instance of Morphology. When the beginner is told that every group of animals may be reduced to anArchetype, he will seek for a definition of Archetype. Such a definition has been offered, to this effect: the Archetype of a group of animals is a diagram embodying all the organs and parts which are found in the group in such a relative position as they would have had if none had attained an excessive development. But, then, we are led further to ask, How are we in each case to become acquainted with the diagram; to know of what parts it consists, and how they are related; and further; What is the standard ofexcess? It is by a wide examination of particular species, and by several successive generalizations of observed facts, that we are led to a diagram of an animal form of a certain kind, (for example, a vertebrate;) and of the various ways, excessive and defective, in which the parts may be developed.
This craving for definitions, as we have already said, arises in a great degree from the acquaintance with geometry which most persons acquire at an early age. The definitions of geometry are easily intelligible by a beginner, because the idea of space, of which they are modifications, is clearly possessed without any special culture. But this is not and cannot be the case in other sciences founded upon a wide and exact observation of facts.370
It was formerly said that there was no Royal Road to Geometry: in modern times we have occasion often to repeat that there is no Popular Road—no road easy, pleasant, offering no difficulty and demanding no toil,—to Comparative Anatomy, Chemistry or any other of the Inductive Sciences.
THE END.
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Transcriber’s NotesWhewell published the first edition of thePhilosophy of the Inductive Sciencesin 1840 in two volumes, as a companion to the 1837History of the Inductive Sciences. Revised second editions of both works appeared in 1847. The third editions saw a major reshaping of thePhilosophy: a two volumeHistory of Scientific Ideas(1858 – in Project Gutenberg as #69093),Novum Organon Renovatum(1858 – the present text, relying upon resources kindly provided by the Internet Archive), andOn the Philosophy of Discovery: chapters historical and critical(1860 – long since in Project Gutenberg’s collection: #5155). (The third edition of theHistory of the Inductive Sciencesis available in PG as #68693.)Adaptations in this textIn the present text footnotes are numbered by Book and are placed after the paragraph to which they attach; in the original, notes were numbered by chapter. Page numbers appear in colour; where a word was hyphenated across pages the number has been placed before the word. Fractions have been transcribed as numerator ⁄ denominator; the original usually has numerator over a line with denominator below.Some unusual symbols occur. On pages357and 358, there are italic letters with a number written above them. On two occasionsBhas a 1 above it, and onceChas ½ above it. On page364a formula is written with two entries containingHon a line aboveCl. These superpositions have all been transcribed by superscripting the first and subscripting the second item (with the result that the letters are printed smaller than in the original). The other oddities have been captured in Unicode.On pages152and197Whewell uses a raised dot as a decimal point and in footnote26of Book III. a comma. These have been replaced by a mid dot.Inductive ChartsAt the end of Book II. (p. 140), Whewell included two very large inserts, described in some detail in the Book itself. They were not captured by the scans available in the Internet Archive. I was kindly provided with photographs of them. Those charts were four times as wide as the normal page and a quarter as long. In the html version they have been fairly accurately represented via tables; but with up to 25 columns these tables will be very difficult to decipher on small screens. In the text version, coded structure diagrams have been used, which again utilise the full 70 spaces Project Gutenberg allows.CorrectionsCorrections are comparatively few. Apart from the silent ones, they have been marked by dotted red underline, on mouse-over revealing the nature of the change. Given the various editions, some of the internal cross-references turn out to be obsolete or erroneous:note 11in Book III. The text reads B. viii. c. iii. but it refers actually to Book viii. c. ii. article 3 in earlier editions and in theHistory of Scientific Ideas, cf.Aphorism 88in Book I. of the present volume. Compare alsoAphorism 19in this volume’s Book IV.notes 58 and 59in Book III. refer to Book v. c. i. For the present third edition they should have been aimed at that chapter of theHistory of Scientific Ideas.On page252we are told that the Work is about to conclude, as the first edition did in a way (all the aphorisms were gathered after Book XIII. [= our Book III.], followed by various appendices). But we have Book IV. yet to come, plus some extra illustrations regarding language and symbols in science.(I might add that I have not checked the many references to Whewell’s other related works. The errors here suggest one might need to take them with a pinch of salt, and help from the browser’s search function.)There are some inconsistencies, notably in spelling, which have in general not been adjusted; nor have Whewell’s unbalanced quotation marks and positioning of footnote anchors been modernized.
Transcriber’s Notes
Whewell published the first edition of thePhilosophy of the Inductive Sciencesin 1840 in two volumes, as a companion to the 1837History of the Inductive Sciences. Revised second editions of both works appeared in 1847. The third editions saw a major reshaping of thePhilosophy: a two volumeHistory of Scientific Ideas(1858 – in Project Gutenberg as #69093),Novum Organon Renovatum(1858 – the present text, relying upon resources kindly provided by the Internet Archive), andOn the Philosophy of Discovery: chapters historical and critical(1860 – long since in Project Gutenberg’s collection: #5155). (The third edition of theHistory of the Inductive Sciencesis available in PG as #68693.)
Adaptations in this text
In the present text footnotes are numbered by Book and are placed after the paragraph to which they attach; in the original, notes were numbered by chapter. Page numbers appear in colour; where a word was hyphenated across pages the number has been placed before the word. Fractions have been transcribed as numerator ⁄ denominator; the original usually has numerator over a line with denominator below.
Some unusual symbols occur. On pages357and 358, there are italic letters with a number written above them. On two occasionsBhas a 1 above it, and onceChas ½ above it. On page364a formula is written with two entries containingHon a line aboveCl. These superpositions have all been transcribed by superscripting the first and subscripting the second item (with the result that the letters are printed smaller than in the original). The other oddities have been captured in Unicode.
On pages152and197Whewell uses a raised dot as a decimal point and in footnote26of Book III. a comma. These have been replaced by a mid dot.
Inductive Charts
At the end of Book II. (p. 140), Whewell included two very large inserts, described in some detail in the Book itself. They were not captured by the scans available in the Internet Archive. I was kindly provided with photographs of them. Those charts were four times as wide as the normal page and a quarter as long. In the html version they have been fairly accurately represented via tables; but with up to 25 columns these tables will be very difficult to decipher on small screens. In the text version, coded structure diagrams have been used, which again utilise the full 70 spaces Project Gutenberg allows.
Corrections
Corrections are comparatively few. Apart from the silent ones, they have been marked by dotted red underline, on mouse-over revealing the nature of the change. Given the various editions, some of the internal cross-references turn out to be obsolete or erroneous:note 11in Book III. The text reads B. viii. c. iii. but it refers actually to Book viii. c. ii. article 3 in earlier editions and in theHistory of Scientific Ideas, cf.Aphorism 88in Book I. of the present volume. Compare alsoAphorism 19in this volume’s Book IV.notes 58 and 59in Book III. refer to Book v. c. i. For the present third edition they should have been aimed at that chapter of theHistory of Scientific Ideas.On page252we are told that the Work is about to conclude, as the first edition did in a way (all the aphorisms were gathered after Book XIII. [= our Book III.], followed by various appendices). But we have Book IV. yet to come, plus some extra illustrations regarding language and symbols in science.
(I might add that I have not checked the many references to Whewell’s other related works. The errors here suggest one might need to take them with a pinch of salt, and help from the browser’s search function.)
There are some inconsistencies, notably in spelling, which have in general not been adjusted; nor have Whewell’s unbalanced quotation marks and positioning of footnote anchors been modernized.