New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-02-09

But il is not account of these consequences that
Dr. Barnard rejects the doctrine No scientific
theory must be judged by appeal to moral stand
ards The philosopher must follow facts in his pur
suit of truth. His judgment must be preserved free
from the influence of feeling. If the law of conser
walton of forces necessarily leads to maeralism he
is bound to accept the conclusion But in view of
the author, thought cannot be a physical
force because thought admits of no measure.
There is no form of material substance no
known physical force of whichwe cannot express the
quantity, by reference to definite measuring unit.
Even while heat and light ane electricity were re-
garded independent forces, they still subject
to measurement. The ratio between the latent heat
of pound of water and that of pound of steam
as well known as it is now The mnutest quantities
of electricity were determined by delicate balances
The intensities of different lights were numerically
expressed by means of instrumental comparisons
But no such means of measuring mental action has
been suggested. No such means can be conceived
If thought Is only mode of physical force its me-
chancal equivalent must be determined, like that of
heat and notion by definite units of comparison.
Various other considerations forcibly presented
by the author showing that no explanation of men
tai phenomena can be founded on the hypothesis OF
their identity with physical forces Every attempt
of the kind leads to the conclusion that there is
something existent beyond the reach of scientific IN
vestgation, the existence of which is as certain, as
its nature is inconcevable The organic world FUR
nshes no less conclusive evidence of the existence OF
an influence superior to force than the physical
world exhibits Of the existence of force itself. Hence
there is field which the province of physical
science TO explore. The method of Positive Philos-
ophy will hold throughout the domain OF the Uni
verse of sense but is poweTlcss to explain the mys-
teries of human consciousness.
The Discourse of which we have given an imper-
feet outline challenges an interest which IS not
usually accorded to an anniversary address. 1t ex-
hibts the views of sagacious and instructed
thinker on what may justly be regarded as the lead
ing philosophical problem Of the present day. With
scarcely an approach TO the sphere of speculative
metaphysics it discusses the pretensi0ns of physical
science to exclusive possession of the field Of actual
knowledge from the standpoint of physical science
itself. The author is most widely known to the
public as practical educator and student OF ethics;
but he here shows himself equally conversant with
the development of physical science, and the preG-
nant questions which have arisen in its progress.
His reasonings may afford salutary balance to the
enthusiasm with which new scientific generalizations
are apt to be welcomed. Cordially accepting the
prevailing scope and tendencies of modern research
he still retains clear perception of its necessary
limitations. He sets forth his convictions, with be-
coming earnestness, but in singuarly temperate
spirit. His statements will commend themselves to
intelligent thinkers as rich i'll valuable suggestion.
if not as decisive ia the solution of the problems az
issue.