Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
7,788
edits
HPB-SB-10-118: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Progress of Psychology|10-117}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Progress of Psychology|10-117}} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|proceeding without, the society has not been idle within itself. It has inaugurated what may prove to be the beginning of a new era in scientific research. Some years ago I ventured a suggestion that a vast advantage would be won for science if a scientific tribunal could be established for trial of alleged scientific'' ''experiment and observation, by whom witnesses'' ''might be heard to detail the facts, to whom arguments based upon those facts might be addressed, and thus the truth ascertained by the hearing of both sides under the test of cross-examination, precisely as we pursue the truth in disputed matters in the business of life, and in our courts of justice.}} | ||
The suggestion found very general approval, but there were obvious practical difficulties in the way of its adoption as a scheme applicable to all scientific research. Nevertheless, there was no apparent objection to making trial of it by individual societies, and it seemed to be specially adapted for such a society as this, which avows itself a collector of ''facts. ''The scheme was new, but it was fraught with obvious advantages. The only question was, if it would find approval with the members and the public. | |||
The novelty was peculiarly adapted for the promotion of psychology as a science, the facts and phenomena of which, having been but lately investigated, were, like all novelties, received with more or less of denial or doubt. It was obviously desirable that the evidence should be thoroughly sifted before it was accepted as the basis for scientific deduction. The proposal was that evidence should be taken in'' ''the open court of the meetings of the society, where the voluntary testimony of witnesses could be examined and cross-examined, and the precise extent and nature of their observations and experiments ascertained by that which experience has shown to be the only test of truth. | |||
We felt that if this could be accomplished it would be of inestimable value, not to this society alone, but to all science: for if successful here the example would very likely be largely followed by other scientific associations. | |||
Our only doubt was, if witnesses would present themselves so confident in the correctness of their observations, and the truth of their statements, as thus to avouch them where they could be at once subjected to critical examination. | |||
The experiment was tried at the close of the last'' ''session with a success surpassing our anticipations. Two evenings were devoted to this most interesting and instructive work. It must be confessed that the reading of papers, however learned, is for the most part somewhat tedious to an audience. But ''viva, voce'' examination is singularly lively and amusing. Moreover, it is in truth far more instructive, inasmuch as'' ''it conveys to the audience facts instead of mere disquisition. So it proved in practice. The scheme will be continued during the present session, so long, at least, as witnesses present themselves, and of these there is no lack. To perfect the scheme, evidence and examination are followed by discussion, expressly to elicit from those who have heard it opinions as to the causes and consequences, the worth or the worthlessness of the facts and phenomena that have been thus attested. | |||
It would, of course, be extremely desirable if the valuable evidence thus taken should be printed and circulated. But the funds of the society do not permit of so costly an enterprise. A suggestion has been made that a report should be published periodically, at a moderate price, for the use of those who may desire to preserve minutes of the proceedings. If some such arrangement could be made, the Council would gladly adopt it. | |||
<center>A SOUL IN NATURE.</center> | |||
If the past year has been so productive of advantage to psychological science, we may venture to hope for much more from the session that opens to-day. We stand upon far firmer ground now than we occupied when we commenced our work. The very foundations of our science were then denied almost with indignation. Now, as I have shown you, science in its highest place and from the lips of its chosen mouthpiece has confessed, not only that there is a point at which physiology ends, but that at that point some other science begins—a science that relates to something beyond physiology, and which physiology can neither explore nor explain. The grand task of exploration and explanation is the proper province of psychology. Physiology descends from structure to protoplasm. Psychology, moving onward and upward, ascends from protoplasm to soul. Physiology reduces man to a jelly; psychology lifts him to an immortality. There is in the pursuit of this our science a grandeur and a dignity that cannot fail to impart something of themselves to the student who honestly enters upon the path with brave resolve to pursue it to the end. | |||
And what is that end?'' ''Knowing what we know, and seeing what we see, there can be little doubt of the goal at which we shall arrive. It is indeed, as yet, very dimly and doubtfully to be perceived, afar off and more, perhaps, by the eye of faith than by the sensual eye. But to that end tends every new fact revealed to us, and all investigation of the causes of observed phenomena. It is, in truth, the only reasonable solution of the problem which protoplasm has presented to the thoughtful mind of Professor Allman. It is here advanced, not as a dogma (psychology has no dogmas; it is a learner not a teacher), but as a suggestion merely, based, however, upon some, though avowedly as yet imperfect, knowledge of facts. | |||
The suggestion is that there is a soul in nature— that nature itself is soul; that all the molecular structures perceptible by our senses arc not the substance but the incrustation, the shell, the integument only of the molecular something that underlies it and gives to it shape and character. For this is the grand mystery of ''all ''being—of inorganic equally with organic structure—''what shapes it? ''Why does it/take certain definite forms and no other? To this question science has not condescended to give attention. I do not remember that ever it has been asked by any scientist. It is not enough to say that it is the fiat of Divinity; for Divinity has manifestly established the reign of law—creation is by evolution. We say that the formative force is that something we call soul; and seeing that force in operation everywhere, and everything taking some definite shape, it is surely a reasonable conclusion that the shaping soul is everywhere. | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-119}} | {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-119}} | ||