Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1858-06-21

/
don, by Henry Thomas Buckle, entitled, the
| influence of woman on the progress of know
Hedge" The address is intended to be both
plea in behalfof thorough education for woman
in all the higher branches of knowledge, as
well as a vindicatiun of her natural inteiiectu"
calibre. The address is too long for puolica-
/ ton, Ii, erteAso, in our columns Yet we doubt
il any abridgenent or synopsis Of its line of
argument can supply the place of the whole
Still, as il is a matter greatly deserving OF the
popular attention, and one about which there
can hardly be said to be II settled sentiment
even among the patrons and advocates OF thor
ough female education, We cannot resist the
impulse to give some limited consideration to
the address 1t was but the other day that we
had occasion. in the course Of review of a
book. Just issued, by distinguished authoress,
TO make some extracts, showing that itwas her
settled and deliberate conviction that education
had-not proved, nor was it likely to prove,
source of benefit or happiness to females. In
addition to this opinion, or, if VIC might so call
it, this confession, it has been generally received
| as q settled truth, that the line of woman's
sphere, in the physical relations of life, being
more limited than mans, her intellectual scope
was correspondingly limited, and that, therefore,
she had no call; neither, indeed, capacity for
| those more massive and abstract branches of
! knowledge, which were esteemed requisite for a
mans full developemept and equipment. The
very few instances in which woman have ever
exercised direct and papable influence in the
discovery or perfection of the arts and sciences,
has been always received, as incontrovertible
evidence of her being "weaker vessel" in in-
tellect, as she is admitted to be in body. And
this, now, brings us to the subject matter
of the address before US. The distinguished
author of this address first proceeds to con
slider what he styles the three divisions OF
knowledge These he makes to be Science, Art
| and Method. The object of the first he defines
to be solely truth-thc object of the second
either pleasure or utility; while Method is the
medium, process or system, by which truth,
pleasure or utility is attained. For instance,
in enlarging upon each of thsse divisions, he
says
As Art and Science have difFerents objects, so
also have they different faculties The faculty
of Art is to change events; the faculty of Science
is TO forsee them The phenomena with which
we deal are controlled by Art; they are pre-
dicted by Science. The more complete
Science is, the greater its power of prediction;
the more complete an art Is, the greater IFS
bower of control Astronomy, for instance, is
called the queen of the sciences, because 1t is
the most advanced of all; and the Astronomer,
while he abaudons all hope of controlling or
altering the phenomena, frequently knows what
the phenomena will he years before they actu-
ally appear; the extent of his fvreknowledge
proving the accuracy of his science, so, 100,
in the science of mechanics, we predict that
certain circumstances being present, certain re-
suits must follow; and having done this, our
science ceases. Our art then begins, and from
that IN moment the object of utility and the facu
ty of control come into play, so that in the art
Of mechanics, we alter what in the science of
mechanics we were ardent TO forsee,
Having thus defined the separate spheres of
Art and Science, and adduced other instances,
such as we have quoted above, he proceeds to
lay down the process by which he expects to
vindicate the intellectual strength of woman,
We quote at length
land the point which shall attempt to prove
is. that there is natural, leading, and proba-
bly, indestructbe element, in the minds OF wo-
men, which enables them, not indeed to make
scientific discoveries, but to exercise the most
motnentous and salutary influence over the
method by which discoveries are made. And
as all questions concerning the philosophy of
method lie at the very root of our knowledge,
will, in the first place, state, rs succlnctly az
am able the only Two Hlclnouh ny winch we C"u
arrive at truth.
'sThe scientific inquirer, properly so called,
| that is he whose object is merely truth, has
only two ways Of attaining his result He may
proceed from the external world to the internal;
or he Ray begin with the internal and proceed
to the external. In the former case he studies
the facts presented to his senses, in rier TO ar
rive at a true idea of them; in tn, after case
he studies the ideas already in his h,i.d, in or
der to explain the facts of which hi, senses are
cognizant If he begin with the facts mis- meth
cd is inductive; If he begin with tn idea il is
deductivc. The inductive philosopher collects
phenomena either by observation or hy expert
ment, and from them rises to the general princi-
pie or law which explains and covers them. =
| The deductiye philosopher draws the principle
| from the ideas already existing in his mind, aud
| explains the phenomena by descending on them,
! instead of rising from them. Several eminent
thinkers have asserted that every idea is the re-
suit of induction, and that the axioms ofgeome-
try, for instance, are the product of ea;ly and
unconscious induction. In the same way Mr..
Mil, in his great work on Logic, atfirms that all
reasoning is in reality from particular to partcu-
| lar, and that the major premise of every syllo-
gism is merely a record and register OF know
! ledge previously obtained. Whether this be
| true, or whether as another school OF thinkers
asserts, we have ideas antecedent to experience,