- Quoted by Stephen L. Whewell Dictionary of national biography London 1885–90 20 1365 1374 21 vols (p. 1371). For another contemporary appreciation see J. F. W. Herschel. ‘The Reverend William Whewell, D. D.’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 16 (1867–68), li-lxi.
- T. Forster to W. Whewell, 24 December 1841, in Todhunter I. William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 1 6 6 2 vols. The correspondent was probably Thomas Ignatius Maria Forster, a psychological and physiological writer. The full quote given by Todhunter is interesting: ‘We have all made some advances in mere physical science, but in metaphysics, as far at least as I am concerned, I am not conscious of having advanced one single step, since the period when you and I and Herschel and Babbage used to meet at our Sunday morning's philosophical breakfasts in 1815’ (pp. 5–6).
- Whewell to Rev. G. Morland, 15 December 1815 Todhunter I. William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 1 29 29 2 vols. For Charles Lyell's attitude to this, see ibid, vol. 1, 112.
- See, for example Ducasse C. J. William Whewell's philosophy of scientific discovery Philosophical review 1951 60 56 69 213–234; G. Buchdahl, ‘Inductivist vs. deductivist approaches in the philosophy of science as illustrated by some controversies between Whewell and Mill’, The monist, 55 (1971), 343–367; and R. E. Butts (ed.), William Whewell's theory of scientific method (1968, Pittsburgh).
- Blanché , R. 1935 . Le rationalisme de Whewell Paris and S. Marcucci, L' “idealismo” scientifico di William Whewell (1963, Pisa). See also G. C. Seward, Die theoretische Philosophie William Whewells und der Kantische Einfluss (1938, Tübingen).
- Belsey , A. 1974–75 . Interpreting Whewell . Studies in history and philosophy of science , 5 : 49 – 58 .
- See for example Cannon W.F. The problem of miracles in the 1830's Victorian studies 1960 4 5 32 his ‘The bases of Darwin's achievement: a revaluation’, Victorian studies, 5 (1961), 109–134; R. M. Young, ‘Darwin's metaphor: does nature select?’, The monist, 55 (1971), 442–503; and his ‘The historiographical and ideological contexts of the nineteenth-century debate on man's place in nature’, in M. Teich and R. M. Young (eds.), Changinging perspectives in the history of science (1973, London), 344–438.
- I have dealt with this theme in my unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Natural theology and the philosophy of knowledge in Britain, 1819–1869 University of Sydney 1977 For related approaches, see A. Ellegard, ‘The Darwinian theory and nineteenth-century philosophies of science’, Journal of the history of ideas, 18 (1957), 362–393 (pp. 391–393); and R. Smith, ‘The background of physiological psychology in natural philosophy’, History of science, 11 (1973), 75–123 (pp. 97–105).
- Houghton , W.E. 1957 . The Victorian frame of mind, 1830–1870 13 – 13 . London and New Haven
- See Mandelbaum M. History, man and reason. A study in nineteenth century thought Baltimore and London 1971 87 88 400
- This Baconian phrase appeared as the first of Whewell's Aphorisms in his Philosophy of the inductive sciences London 1840 2 Herschel used it as the title of a poem, and the physiologist William B. Carpenter made it the title of his Presidential Address to the British Association in 1872.
- This article will deal with epistemology rather than method. But for references to the social and moral aspects of scientific method, see Agassi J. Sir John Herschel's philosophy of success Historical studies in the physical sciences 1969 1 1 36 and R. R. Yeo (footnote 9), ch. 4.
- Whewell . 1834 . Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology , 2nd ed. 254 – 255 . London
- For a discussion of these attempts see Yeo Natural theology and the philosophy of knowledge in Britain, 1819–1869 University of Sydney 1977 111 124
- For clear statement of these assumptions see Moore G. The power of the soul over the body London 1845 9 9 George Moore was a popular medical writer.
- Herschel , J. 1830 . A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy 18 – 34 . London
- Chalmers , T. 1835 . On the power, wisdom and goodness of God as manifested in the adaptation of external nature to the moral and intellectual constitution of man Vol. 2 , 159 – 159 . London 2 vols.
- Powell , B. 1838 . The connexion of natural and divine truth 203 – 203 . London
- Herschel . 1857 . “ Man, the interpreter of nature ” . In Essays from the Edinburgh review, with addresses and other pieces London
- 1833 . Whewell's astronomy and general physics . British magazine , 3 : 589 – 589 .
- Whewell . 1834 . Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology , 2nd ed. 304 – 307 . London
- Whewell, notebook of 1825, quoted in Todhunter The problem of miracles in the 1830's Victorian studies 1960 1 363 363 4
- Whewell, unpublished sermon, 11 February 1827, Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 6.17.no.14. See also Wilson D.B. Herschel and Whewell's version of Newtonianism Journal of the history of ideas 1974 35 79 97 (pp. 94–97)
- Rose was a High Church theologian and editor of the British magazine
- Rose , H.J. 1826 . The tendency of prevalent opinions about knowledge considered v – vi . Cambridge 3–11
- Whewell to Rose. 19 November 1826 and 12 December 1826, in Todhunter William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 2 75 79 2 vols. also his unpublished sermons of 1827. Trinity College, R.6.17, nos. 13–16.
- Rose . 1834 . An apology for the study of divinity 12 – 12 . London see also p. 48 for criticism of the physical sciences.
- See, for example, Copleston F. A history of philosophy New York 1962–67 8 171 190 8 vols. part 1
- See Aarsleff H. Locke's reputation in nineteenth century England The monist 1971 55 392 422 (pp. 398–399, 411–416); and J. B. Schneewind, ‘Sidgwick and the Cambridge moralists’, The monist, 58 (1974), 371–404 (pp. 371–387).
- For criticism of Paley see Sedgwick A. A discourse on the studies of the University of Cambridge Cambridge 1834 57 67 126–142; and W. Whewell (ed.), Butler's three sermons on human nature (1848. London), ix–x. xxvi–xxvii.
- On Tooke, see Aarsleff H. The study of language in England, 1780–1860 Princeton 1967 chs. 2 and 3, For a critique of Tooke by another member of the Cambridge group, see J. W. Donaldson, The new Cratylus (1850, London).
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , iv – iv . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , iv – iv . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 26 – 27 . London 2 vols. 33–37.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 66 – 67 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 2 , 677 – 677 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 335 – 335 . London
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 334 – 336 . London and his Letter to the author of the Prolegomena Logica (1852, Cambridge), 3–8.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 54 – 78 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 347 – 349 . London See also R. E. Butts, ‘Necessary truth in Whewell's theory of science’, American philosophical quarterly, 2 (1965). 161–181.
- Whewell . 1849 . On the fundamental antithesis of philosophy . Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 8 : 170 – 181 . part 2 (read 5 February 1844).
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 42 – 42 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 40 – 40 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 1 – 1 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 3 – 3 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1841 . Two introductory lectures on moral philosophy 28 – 28 . Cambridge
- Whewell . 1841 . Two introductory lectures on moral philosophy Vol. 31 , 42 – 42 . Cambridge On Whewell's moral philosophy, see J. B. Schneewind, ‘Whewell's ethics’, American philosophical quarterly monograph, 1 (1968), 108–141.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 634 – 634 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1834 . Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology , 2nd ed. 344 – 344 . London also Whewell (footnote 33), vol. 1, 622–623.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 1 , 706 – 706 . London 2 vols.
- Mill , J.S. 1852 . Whewell's moral philosophy . Westminster review , 58 : 351 – 353 .
- de Morgan , A. 1840 . The Philosophy of Inductive Sciences . Athenaeum , September : 707 – 707 . no 672 (12
- R. Jones to Herschel. 1 June Herschel Papers Library of the Royal Society London 1841 10 no. 370.
- Chalmers . 1847 . Morell's modern philosophy . North British review , 6 : 307 – 307 .
- See de Morgan A. The philosophy of discovery Athenaeum April 1860 502 502 No. 1694 (14 and J. D. Morell, ‘[Victor] Cousin’, Edinburgh review, 93 (1851), 451. On Schelling, see B. Gower, ‘Speculation in physics: the history and practice of Naturphilosophie’, Studies in history and philosophy of science, 3 (1973), 301–356.
- 1841 . Whewell's philosophy of the inductive sciences . Dublin University magazine , 17 : 203 – 203 .
- 1845 . German philosophy and Christian theology . British quarterly review , 2 : 310 – 313 .
- 1841 . Whewell's philosophy of the inductive sciences . Dublin University magazine , 17 : 206 – 206 .
- 1841 . Whewell's philosophy of the inductive sciences . Dublin University magazine , 17 : 201 – 201 .
- Quoted in Newsome D. The parting of friends: a study of the Wilberforces and Henry Manning London 1966 302 302
- Farrar , A. 1862 . A critical history of free thought in reference to the Christian religion 39 – 39 . London In fact, John Daniel Morell (1816–1891), a philosophical and historical writer, told Whewell that he had attempted to apply an idealist philosophy of science to theology in his Philosophy of religion (1849, London) (see Morell to Whewell, 20 December 1848, Trinity College, Add. ms. c. 89, no. 172). But the intuitional religion which Morell espoused was precisely the kind which British commentators rejected (See Yeo (footnote 9), 300–317).
- Sedgwick , A. 1850 . A discourse on the studies of the University of Cambridge with additions and a preliminary dissertation cclxxi – cclxxiv . Cambridte and London cccc–ccccii.
- Whewell to Jones, 12 July 1837, in Todhunter William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 2 257 257 2 vols.
- Whewell to Jones, 14 July 1839, in Todhunter William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 2 280 281 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1847 . The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. Vol. 2 , 443 – 443 . London 2 vols.
- Whewell to Herschel, 11 April 1844, in Whewell The philosophy of the inductive sciences , 2nd ed. London 1847 1 676 676 2 vols.
- Butts . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 173 – 180 . London Whewell was not the only writer to support a scientific realism by an appeal to this form of the design argument. David Wilson has shown a similar connection in the thought of Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), noting also that Kelvin was influenced by the Cambridge theological traditions which Whewell represented. See his ‘Kelvin's scientific realism: the theological context’, The philosophical journal, 11 (1974), 41–60.
- There was also a larger unpublished edition of 1853 which is now held in Trinity College Library, Cambridge. See below Whewell W. Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. London 1854 334 334
- Brooke , J.H. 1977 . Natural theology and the plurality of worlds: observations on the Brewster-Whewell debate . Annals of science , 34 : 221 – 286 . For other recent comment see W. C. Heffernan, ‘The singularity of our inhabited world: W. Whewell and A. R. Wallace in dissent’, Journal of the history of ideas, 39 (1978), 81–100; and Yeo (footnote 9), ch. 6.
- But this was one of the contentious issues in the debate: Brewster and Chalmers, for example, did not believe that Christian doctrine was incompatible with the existence of rational beings on other planets (see Brooke Natural theology and the plurality of worlds: observations on the Brewster-Whewell debate Annals of science 1977 34 237 238 252–258). For Whewell's religious beliefs in relation to this issue, see Whewell to J. Stephen, 4 November 1853, in Todhunter (footnote 2), vol. 2, 392–394.
- For the philosophical background see Lovejoy A.O. The great chain of being New York 1960
- Whewell , W. 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 334 – 334 . London
- See for example Brewster D. More worlds than one: the creed of the philosopher and the hope of the Christian London 1854 183 196
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 330 – 334 . London
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 331 – 331 . London Alfred Tennyson had made similar observations in his poem ‘In memoriam’, of 1850. For a detailed study see S. Gliserman. ‘Early Victorian science writers and Tennyson's “In memoriam”: a study in cultural exchange’, Victorian studies, 18 (1975), 277–308, 437–460.
- For this concept see Paley W. Natural theology , 6th ed. London 1803 512 514
- The Reverend Thomas Malthus was willing to admit the unpalatable features of Nature, and regarded physical hardship as the means, instituted by God, for the improvement of the human mind. See his Essay on the principle of population London 1798 348 371 394–396. See also R. M. Young, ‘Malthus and the evolutionists: the common context of biological and social theory’, Past and present, 43 (1969), 109–145.
- See Powell B. Essays on the spirit of the inductive philosophy, the unity of worlds, and the philosophy of creation London 1855 135 137 J. Tulloch, Theism: the witness of reason and nature to an all-wise and beneficent creator (1855, London), 171–173; and J. McCosh and G. Dickie, Typical forms and special ends in Creation (1856, Edinburgh), 1–9, 30–44.
- On this dispute see Bourdier F. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire versus Cuvier: the campaign for paleontological evolution (1825–1838) Toward a history of geology Schneer C.J. Massachusetts 1969 36 61 in
- Quoted in Life and letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick Clark J. Hughes T. Cambridge 1890 2 86 86 2 vols. See also Whewell (footnote 33), vol. 1, 629.
- Whewell , ed. 1837 . History of the inductive sciences Vol. 3 , 463 – 478 . London 3 vols. During the 1830s Powell was one of the few English writers to praise the work of Geoffroy (see Powell (footnote 19), 128–134). However, the Scottish situation may have been different; see E. Richards, ‘The German romantic concept of embryonic repetition and its role in evolutionary theory in England up to 1859’ (Ph.D. thesis, 1976, University of New South Wales), 178–186.
- Powell , B. 1857 . “ The study of the evidences of natural theology ” . In Oxford essays 170 – 170 . London in
- Owen , R. 1848 . On the archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton 7 – 7 . London For an introduction to Owen's ideas, see R. M. Macleod, ‘Evolutionism and Richard Owen, 1830–1868; an episode in Darwin's century’, Isis, 56 (1965), 259–280.
- Owen , R. 1849 . On the nature of limbs 29 – 40 . London
- Owen , R. 1849 . On the nature of limbs Vol. 9 , 84 – 85 . London See also his Instances of the power of God in his animal creation (1864, London), 18; and Owen to Whewell, 31 October 1937. Trinity College, Add. ms. a 210 no. 54.
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 318 – 318 . London
- October 1853 . Stephen to Whewell October , 31 Trinity College, Add. ms. a. 216 no. 137.
- Whewell wanted his friends to read the unedited version. See Whewell to Sedgwick, 8 June 1854, in Douglas J.M. The life and selections from the correspondence of William Whewell, D. D. London 1882 434 435 and Whewell to J. D. Forbes, 19 February 1854, in Todhunter (footnote 2), vol. 2, 401.
- Whewell . 1853 . Of the plurality of worlds 250 – 250 . printers copy containing five chapters cancelled from the published work). Trinity College, ADV.C.16.27,
- Whewell . 1853 . Of the plurality of worlds 254 – 258 . printers copy containing five chapters cancelled from the published work), Trinity College, ADV.C.16.27, 267–268.
- Whewell . 1853 . Of the plurality of worlds 271 – 273 . printers copy containing five chapters cancelled from the published work), Trinity College, ADV.C.16.27, also Whewell (footnote 73), 34–37, 360–363.
- Owen . 1849 . On the nature of limbs 85 – 86 . London
- Whewell . 1853 . Of the plurality of worlds 236 – 240 . printers copy containing five chapters cancelled from the published work), Trinity College, ADV.C.16.27, 269–271. Although Owen shared Whewell's views about the relationship between Divine and human minds, he did not think that a denial of plurality followed as a necessary conclusion (see Owen to Whewell, 20 May 1854, Trinity College, Add. Ms. a.210 no. 82). Hugh Miller took a similar line; see his Geology versus astronomy (1855, Glasgow), 9–11, 16–20.
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 201 – 202 . London Stephen's reservations did not prevent Whewell from making this metaphysical statement in the published version.
- Whewell , W. 1849 . “ Second memoir on the fundamental antithesis of philosophy ” . In Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society Vol. 8 , 614 – 620 . 13 November 1848, in part 5 616
- Whewell . 1853 . Of the plurality of worlds 288 – 288 . printers copy containing five chapters cancelled from the published work), Trinity College, ADV.C.16.27, but see also p. 285 and (footnote 97), 617–620 for his rejection of the Absolute Idealism of German philosophy.
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 40 – 41 . London 125–136, 373; and (footnote 91), 328.
- Stephen to Whewell, 3 November 1853, Trinity College, Add.ms.a.216 no. 139. For similar criticism, see Smith H. The plurality of worlds Oxford essays London 1855 134 134
- 1854 . Contemporary literature . Westminster review , 61 : 593 – 593 .
- Mill , J.S. 1965–72 . Collected works Edited by: Robson , J. Vol. 7 , 237 – 248 . Toronto 17 vols.
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 113 – 115 . London and (footnote 91), 279.
- Whewell did admit the possibility of animal life on other planets (see Whewell W. Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. London 1854 112 112 118). However, he did not concede the existence of intelligent, moral beings on other worlds, even if these were inferior to man. To grant this would have been to allow the notion of degrees of rationality which would threaten his commitment to the absolute character of truth. I am not suggesting that Whewell's argument was flawless; indeed, it was circular. His confidence in the universal validity of human conceptions was dependent upon his previous belief in the empathy between Divine and human minds; but he then used this assumption to assert the special status of man, a status which explained his unique position in the universe and weakened the probability of a plurality of similar moral and intellectual beings. See (footnote 73), 118–136.
- Maurice , F.D. 1886 . Moral and metaphysical philosophy Vol. 2 , 620 – 620 . London 2 vols.
- On Mansel, see Freeman K.D. The role of reason in religion: a study of Henry Mansel The Hague 1969
- I have relied upon the exposition in Passmore J. A hundred years of philosophy Penguin 1968 32 32 For Hamilton's discussion of his position in relation to the views of Kant, Schelling and Cousin, see his ‘M. Cousin's course of philosophy’, Edinburgh review, 50 (1829), 194–221.
- Mansel , H. 1859 . The limits of religious thought examined Vol. 25 , 75 – 80 . Boston 84–87, 89–90.
- Mansel , H. 1859 . The limits of religious thought examined Vol. 25 , 127 – 127 . Boston
- Martineau , J. 1890–91 . “ Science, nescience and faith ” . In Essays, reviews and addresses Vol. 3 , 185 – 218 . London 4 vols. (pp. 196–202)
- Martineau , J. 1879 . “ The restoration of belief ” . In Studies in Christianity 356 – 398 . London (p. 395). Martineau wrote this before Mansel's lectures appeared.
- Martineau , J. Mansel's limits of religious thought . Martineau (footnote 110) , 3 117 – 142 . 134
- Merz , J.T. A history of European thought in the nineteenth century Vol. 2 , 1896 – 1914 . 326 – 326 . London and Edinburgh 4 vols.
- Smith , G. 1861 . Rational religion and the rationalistic objections of the Bampton Lectures for 1858 70 – 70 . Oxford and London See also C. Remusat. Philosophie religieuse (1864, Paris), 69–89. Remusat was surprised to find an English theologian undermining English natural theology.
- Whewell Sermon. 16 October 1859, quoted in Todhunter Todhunter I. William Whewell, D. D., An account of his writings London 1876 1 341 341 2 vols.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 374 – 374 . London For his discussion of this theme see chs. 29–32.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 320 – 325 . London also Martineau (footnote 110), vol. 3, 136–138, 212–213; and J. McCosh, The intuitions of the mind (1860, London), 227.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 325 – 325 . London also 376.
- Whewell . 1860 . On the philosophy of discovery 315 – 319 . London 350–353, 372–375, 385–399; and (footnote 91), 302–309.
- Whewell . 1854 . Of the plurality of worlds: an essay. Also a dialogue on the same subject , 2nd ed. 118 – 125 . London 137–138, 366–370 and (footnote 91), 302–309. I cannot deal fully with the historical dimension of Whewell's though. but it is interesting to consider him as sharing the Providentialist philosophy of history outlined by Julius and Augustus Hare in their Guesses at truth (1838); and more recently, in D. Forbes, The liberal Anglican idea of history (1953, Cambridge). For this suggestion, see Schneewind (footnote 30) 379.
- I have not attempted to discuss the social and institutional contexts of the debates on natural theology and science. But see Cannon W.F. Scientists and Broad Churchmen: an early Victorian intellectual network Journal of British studies 1964 4 65 88 S. F. Cannon, Science in culture; the early Victorian period (1978, New York), chs. 1 and 2; W. H. Brock and R. M. MacLeod, ‘The Scientists Declaration: reflexions on science and belief in the wake of Essays and reviews, 1864–5’, British journal for the history of science, 9 (1976), 39–76; and F. M. Turner, ‘The Victorian conflict between science and religion: a professional dimension’, Isis, 69 (1978), 356–376.
- Quoted in Brown A.W. The metaphysical society: Victorian minds in crisis, 1869–1880 New York 1947 78 79 Manning made this statement in his paper entitled ‘A diagnosis and a prescription’, delivered to the society on 10 June 1873.
Annals of Science
Volume 36, 1979 - Issue 5