From gods to forces to laws
Does every branch of knowledge grow up the same way, from gods through abstract forces to observed laws? Mill accepts Comte's history of the sciences and asks what it leaves out.
Mill grants Comte the law of the three stages. People first explain events by wills like their own, then by abstract entities such as Nature or a vital force, and finally stop asking why and look for the laws by which things happen. He also accepts the ranking of the sciences from mathematics up to sociology, each resting on the one beneath it. His objections are to the gaps. Comte dismisses psychology, because he thinks the mind cannot observe itself. He writes off political economy as metaphysics. And he describes how science discovers without ever supplying a test of proof.
- positivism
- scientific method
- philosophy of science
- classification of sciences
- sociology
- intellectual history
- philosophy of history
- metaphysics
- theology
- causation
- induction
- polytheism
- monotheism
- epistemology
- scientific inquiry
- historical method
- natural law
Enter a dialogue
- People first explained events by gods, then by abstract forces, then by observed laws. Why do you accept that every science passes through these three stages?
- You praise Comte for showing how science discovers and fault him for never saying how a claim is proved. Why does that gap weigh so heavily?
- Comte holds that the mind cannot watch itself think, and so strikes psychology from the sciences. What makes you sure he is wrong?
- Political economy is for Comte no science at all. Why do you defend studying wealth by itself before society as a whole is understood?
- Unlimited liberty of conscience is for Comte a tool for pulling down the old order, useless for building. How do you answer a thinker you otherwise admire?