§5. Fallibilism, Continuity, and Evolution
153. How can such a little thing be of importance, you will ask? I answer: after all there is a difference between something and nothing. If a metaphysical theory has come into general vogue, which can rest on nothing in the world but the assumption that absolute exactitude and certitude are to be attained, and if that metaphysics leaves us unprovided with pigeonholes in which to file important facts so that they have to be thrown in the fire — or to resume our previous figure if that metaphysical theory seriously blocks the road of inquiry — then it is comprehensible that the little difference between a degree of evidence extremely high and absolute certainty should after all be of great importance as removing a mote from our eye.
154. Let us look then at two or three of the grandest results of science and see whether they appear any different from a fallibilist standpoint from what they would to an infallibilist.
Three of the leading conceptions of science may be glanced at — I mean the ideas of force, of continuity, and of evolution.
155. . . . The fourth law of motion was developed about forty years ago 1) by Helmholtz and others. It is called the law of the conservation of energy; but in my opinion that is a very misleading name, implying a peculiar aspect of the law under which the real fact at the bottom of it is not clearly brought out. It is therefore not suitable for an abstract and general statement, although it is a point of view which is very serviceable for many practical applications. But the law generally stated is that the changes in the velocities of particles depend exclusively on their relative positions.
It is not necessary now to examine these laws with technical accuracy. It is sufficient to notice that they leave the poor little particle no option at all. Under given circumstances his motion is precisely laid out for him.
We can from the nature of things have no evidence at all tending to show that these laws are absolutely exact. But in some single cases we can see that the approximation to exactitude is quite wonderful.
These laws have had a very wonderful effect upon physical sciences, because
they have shown the very high degree of exactitude with which nature acts — at least, in simple configurations. But, as I said before, the logic of the case affords us not one scintilla of reason to think that this exactitude is perfect.
156. The illustrious Phoenix [G. H. Derby], you remember, wrote a series of lectures on astronomy to be delivered at the Lowell Institute in Boston.2) But owing to the unexpected circumstance of his not being invited to give any lectures at that Institution, they were ultimately published in The San Diego Herald. In those lectures in treating of the sun he mentions how it once stood still at the command of Joshua. But, says he, I never could help thinking that it might have wiggled a very little when Joshua was not looking directly at it. The question is whether particles may not spontaneously swerve by a very little — less than we can perceive — from the exact requirements of the laws of mechanics. We cannot possibly have a right to deny this. For such a denial would be a claim to absolute exactitude of knowledge. On the other hand, we never can have any right to suppose that any observed phenomenon is simply a sporadic spontaneous irregularity. For the only justification we can have for supposing anything we don't see is that it would explain how an observed fact could result from the ordinary course of things. Now to suppose a thing sporadic, spontaneous, irregular, is to suppose it departs from the ordinary course of things. That is blocking the road of inquiry; it is supposing the thing inexplicable, when a supposition can only be justified by its affording an explanation.
157. But we may find a general class of phenomena, forming a part of the general course of things, which are explicable not as an irregularity, but as the resultant effect of a whole class of irregularities.
Physicists often resort to this kind of explanation to account for phenomena which appear to violate the law of the conservation of energy. The general properties of gases are explained by supposing the molecules are moving about in every direction in the most diverse possible ways. Here, it is true, it is supposed that there is only so much irregularity as the laws of mechanics permit — but the principle is there of explaining a general phenomenon by the statistical regularities that exist among irregularities.
158. As there is nothing to show that there is not a certain amount of absolute spontaneity in nature, despite all laws, our metaphysical pigeon-holes should not be so limited as to exclude this hypothesis, provided any general phenomena should appear which might be explained by such spontaneity.
159. Now in my opinion there are several such general phenomena. Of these I will at this moment instance but one.
It is the most obtrusive character of nature. It is so obvious, that you will hardly know at first what it is I mean. It is curious how certain facts escape us because they are so pervading and ubiquitous; just as the ancients imagined the music of the spheres was not heard because it was heard all the time. But will not somebody kindly tell the rest of the audience what is the most marked and obtrusive character of nature? Of course, I mean the variety of nature.
160. Now I don't know that it is logically accurate to say that this marvellous and infinite diversity and manifoldness of things is a sign of spontaneity. I am a logical analyst by long training, you know, and to say this is a manifestation of spontaneity seems to me faulty analysis. I would rather say it is spontaneity. I don't know what you can make out of the meaning of spontaneity but newness, freshness, and diversity.
161. Let me ask you a little question? Can the operation of law create diversity where there was no diversity before? Obviously not; under given circumstances mechanical law prescribes one determinate result.
I could easily prove this by the principles of analytical mechanics. But that is needless. You can see for yourselves that law prescribes like results under like circumstances. That is what the word law implies. So then, all this exuberant diversity of nature cannot be the result of law. Now what is spontaneity? It is the character of not resulting by law from something antecedent.
162. Thus, the universe is not a mere mechanical result of the operation of blind law.1) The most obvious of all its characters cannot be so explained. It is the multitudinous facts of all experience that show us this; but that which has opened our eyes to these facts is the principle of fallibilism. Those who fail to appreciate the importance of fallibilism reason: we see these laws of mechanics; we see how extremely closely they have been verified in some cases. We suppose that what we haven't examined is like what we have examined, and that these laws are absolute, and the whole universe is a boundless machine working by the blind laws of mechanics. This is a philosophy which leaves no room for a God! No, indeed! It leaves even human consciousness, which cannot well be denied to exist, as a perfectly idle and functionless flâneur in the world, with no possible influence upon anything — not even upon itself. Now will you tell me that this fallibilism amounts to nothing?
163. But in order really to see all there is in the doctrine of fallibilism, it is necessary to introduce the idea of continuity, or unbrokenness. This is the leading idea of the differential calculus and of all the useful branches of mathematics; it plays a great part in all scientific thought, and the greater the more scientific that thought is; and it is the master key which adepts tell us unlocks the arcana of philosophy.
164. We all have some idea of continuity. Continuity is fluidity, the merging of part into part. But to achieve a really distinct and adequate conception of it is a difficult task, which with all the aids possible must for the most acute and most logically trained intellect require days of severe thought. If I were to attempt to give you any logical conception of it, I should only make you dizzy to no purpose. I may say this, however. I draw a line. Now the points on that line form a continuous series. If I take any two points on that line, however close together, other points there are lying between them. If that were not so, the series of points would not be continuous. It might be so, even if the series of points were not continuous. . . .
165. You will readily see that the idea of continuity involves the idea of infinity. Now, the nominalists tell us that we cannot reason about infinity, or that we cannot reason about it mathematically. Nothing can be more false. Nominalists cannot reason about infinity, because they do not reason logically about anything. Their reasoning consists of performing certain processes which they have found worked well — without having any insight into the conditions of their working well. This is not logical reasoning. It naturally fails when infinity is involved; because they reason about infinity as if it were finite. But to a logical reasoner, reasoning about infinity is decidedly simpler than reasoning about finite quantity.
166. There is one property of a continuous expanse that I must mention, though I cannot venture to trouble you with the demonstration of it. It is that in a continuous expanse, say a continuous line, there are continuous lines infinitely short. In fact, the whole line is made up of such infinitesimal parts. The property of these infinitely small spaces is — I regret the abstruseness of what I am going to say, but I cannot help it — the property which distinguishes these infinitesimal distances is that a certain mode of reasoning which holds good of all finite quantities and of some that are not finite does not hold good of them. Namely, mark any point on the line A. Suppose that point to have any character; suppose, for instance, it is blue. Now suppose we lay down the rule that every point within an inch of a blue point shall be painted blue. Obviously, the consequence will be that the whole line will have to be blue. But this reasoning does not hold good of infinitesimal distances. After the point A has been painted blue, the rule that every point infinitesimally near to a blue point shall be painted blue will not necessarily result in making the whole blue. Continuity involves infinity in the strictest sense, and infinity even in a less strict sense goes beyond the possibility of direct experience.
167. Can we, then, ever be sure that anything in the real world is continuous? Of course, I am not asking for an absolute certainty; but can we ever say that it is so with any ordinary degree of security? This is a vitally important question. I think that we have one positive direct evidence of continuity and on the first line but one. It is this. We are immediately aware only of our present feelings — not of the future, nor of the past. The past is known to us by present memory, the future by present suggestion. But before we can interpret the memory or the suggestion, they are past; before we can interpret the present feeling which means memory, or the present feeling that means suggestion, since that interpretation takes time, that feeling has ceased to be present and is now past. So we can reach no conclusion from the present but only from the past.
