« PreviousContinue »
12. When analysis and synthesis are compared together, it may be said that the mind has no such natural tendency to analyze as to combine. It is forced to it only by the impression of differences which require analysis in order to find identities by means of which to unify. An illustration of the natural tendency to build up rather than analyze may be seen in the growth of the sciences. First, out of a multitude of facts the mind is able to put a few together, and the result is called an hypothesis. In this it is likely to rest for a time, but it gradually analyzes this hypothesis and other facts which it is able to unify, and it forms what is called a theory. When the analysis is so complete that all the facts that belong together are united by a recognized principle, the mind settles in an established law. Take for example the Nebular Hypothesis. It supposed that all the heavenly bodies were evolved from one mass of matter.
This was a unification of the stellar system with very little knowledge of the parts related together. The authors of the Hypothesis did not even inquire if the matter composing the different stars was all of the same kind. And the minds of men in general grasped much more eagerly after the hypothesis that satisfied them with so vast a unification, than they sought to understand the nature of the elements united. They clung to the Hypothesis, but made little effort to establish it as a theory, or to build up a science upon it. In the course of generations, a few have succeeded in analyzing the rays of light in such a way as to show that the matter is identical, and the Hypothesis takes a long step forward in the direction of theory or perhaps law.
13. In the first place, then, analysis must be forced upon the mind by experience. In the second place, the value of analytic effort in strengthening the mind lies in
the fact that it is a drawing of the mind away from its natural rest in unification, and thus calls its powers into greater exercise. In the third place, the mind must be allowed time to unify what it has analyzed, or, like an overstrained bow, it will be weakened, and become content to drivel and haggle about unimportant differences.
In conclusion, it may be said :
First, That synthesis is spontaneous, while the mind must be stimulated to analyze.
Secondly, That analysis and synthesis must go together.
Thirdly, That time is required for synthesis, and the mind must be held to do the work for itself. is short but difficult, and no necessary expense of time should be counted too great to secure this end.
LAW, PRINCIPLE, AND RULE ; AND SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY,
AND ART DISTINGUISHED.
HERE is much confusion in the use
of the terms science, philosophy, and art. The terms science and philosophy are not carefully distinguished even by the best
writers, although the growing necessity is generally recognized for a clearer distinction than is usually made. Philosophy is variously defined as the Science of Sciences, the Science of the Absolute, the Quintessence of Science, and so forth. We use the term Natural Philosophy to designate the physical sciences, and excite the ridicule of German writers by speaking of the instruments of scientific experiment as philosophical apparatus.
Again, the distinction between science and art must be much obscured, when the same subject is called both an art and a science, and this is done in many text-books, and no effort is made to set forth any part as belonging to the one or the other. A science may be tested and illustrated by its application to art, or an art may be based on the laws of science; but if a subject is treated both as a science and an art, a portion of the treatment should be devoted to the one end, and another distinct portion to the other.
2. In order to gain, at the outset, some conception of the scope of what is meant by the Science of Education, it is evident that the term science needs definition. S. E.-2.