(1) We have shown, negatively, that the notion of a form of proof, by which conclusions can be absolutely demonstrated by dint of pure logic alone, is a delusion. No such form can be constructed (§§ 13, 15), and if it could, it could neither find scientific material worthy of it (§ 28), nor contain the material which is fabricated by the sciences.
(2) We have thereby shown that formal logic cannot represent the logical nature of discovery or of any of the processes of actual knowing, and must condemn them all as ‘invalid’ (§§ 18, 20, 26, 28).
(3) We have seen that a logic which attempts to understand actual knowing cannot prescribe to the sciences how they are to solve their problems (§ 33).
(4) But it can grasp the general character of scientific procedure, appreciate its difficulties and dangers, understand the expedients for meeting them, and trace it to its roots in the constitution of the human mind and in the needs of life (§ 35).
(5) In virtue of its general grasp of the aim and method of the sciences a logic of science can at times offer advice to scientists: it may draw their attention to the general problems which their work involves, but which are apt to be overlooked by specialists, such as the claims of consistency and novelty and the regulation of risks (§ 36). Or, better still, if they will study it themselves, it may broaden their minds and enable them to handle these general problems for themselves far more effectively than a pure logician could do it for them.
(6) By abandoning its pretensions to rigour and conclusiveness logic does not really lose: it gains immensely by coming into contact with science and life, and becoming of use in the world.
INDEX
Abano: see Peter of Abano.
Abercrombie, John, Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers, 249 n.
Abi ‘Uṣaibia, Ibn, 227 and n. 4, 228 n. 5, 229.
Abu’l Faraj Gregory, cited, 228 n. 3.
Achillini, Alessandro, 95, 98, 105; Annotationes anatomiae, 95 n. 4.
Adelphus, Johannes (J. A. Muelich), Mundini de omnibus humani corporis interioribus membris Anathomia, 93 n. 3, 96 n. 2, 128 fig. 22.
Adrian IV, Pope, St. Hildegard’s correspondence with, 5.
Agobard, St., of Lyons, on witchcraft, 191.
Agrippa, Cornelius, opposition to witch mania by, 214, 215.
Al Afdal, Sultan, 226.
Alberic the younger, Benedictine monk, of Monte Cassino, 21.
Albertotti, G., Nuove osservazioni sul ‘Fasciculus medicinae’ del Ketham, 90 n. 3.
Albertus Magnus, 22, 32, 51, 113, 114.
Albigensian heresy, 192.
Alcoatim, anatomical work by, 121.
Alexander III, Pope, St. Hildegard’s correspondence with, 5.
Alexander V, Pope, 99; post-mortem examination on, 94.
Alexander of Neckam, 22, 23.
Alexander of Tralles, 182.
Alhazen, 122.
‘Ali ‘Abbas: see Haly Abbas.
Studies in the History and Method of Science, Vol. 1 (of 2) · The Wunder Library — complete classics, free to read, with narration.