Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/267

 METHODOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 249

ark, in which all the knowledges that were to be saved must be able to find a place. The new philosophy is a growing city, which enlarges its borders and increases its means of sheltering the people who demand accommodation. Or, more literally, philosophy is today not a dictator of science, but a collector and organizer of science. Philosophy has to do with the proximate results of sciences what each science has to do with the proximate results of its own kind of observations, viz., get them so clear that they do not contradict each other, but rather complement each other.

In accordance with the remark above to the effect that science is endoge- nous philosophy, we find that all sciences which have become somewhat mature have preserved and sharpened the distinction between their strictly positive elements and the ^>'^<7M^/;Va/ elements, which also have a place in the final form of the science. Thus in physics we have the more positive ele- ments summed up in the formulse of inertia and energy, united with the more hypothetical elements summed up in the theorems about the general proper- ties of matter (indestructibility, transference of energy, etc.).'

While the parallel between natural and psychical sciences in their actual development is not absolute, it is o\i\\o\i%, first, that philosophical theses up to date play an important role. The historians cherish the fond illusion that with them the dominance of a priori philosophy is ended. But if we look closely at the presentdiscussionsabout such subjects as the nature oilaw, state, industry, society, we soon find that most of the disputants are following the tactics of mediaeval philosophy, while armed with the verbal weapons of modern knowledge. When the historians declare that the philosophy of history is a humbug, they mean that they do not accept some other man's philosophy of history. They do not mean that they themselves have no philosophy of his- tory. Every modern historian who is large-minded enough to advance from facts to the relations of facts has his own philosophy of history, whether he has formulated it or not. The difference between natural science and his- torical science, in this respect, is simply that in the former a certain minimum of fundamental philosophy is agreed upon and accepted. In the historical sciences men are all at sea, but each historian supposes himself to be in the path of the trade winds. The present situation among the historians is precisely like that among the scientists at the beginning of the modern era. We may, therefore, anticipate like approach to common fundamental philosophy of history and of society.

Elements of such common philosophy will be discussed later. At present we are concerned with the kinds of philosophical presuppositions with which the psychical sciences start. They are a sort of guiding maxims. They must everywhere be brought to bear on the special problems of psychical science. They are drawn from the arsenal of philosophy, because they anticipate every analysis of individual cases. They have consequently occupied the skirmish line of positive science in its war of liberation against speculative philosophy.

' Vide Logic of Physics and Chemistry.