Every natural appearance, therefore, which is explained, i.e. which is made to come into the order of things that happen, must so far confirm the theory to which it then belongs. But is it necessary, that every particular appearance, among minerals, should be thus explained in a general theory of the earth? And, is any appearance, which is not explained by it, to be considered as sufficient to discredit or confute a theory which corresponded with every other appearance? Here is a question which it would require some accuracy to resolve.
If we knew all the powers of nature, and all the different conditions in which those powers may have their action varied, that is to say, if we were acquainted with every physical cause, then every natural effect, or all appearances upon the surface of this earth, might be explained in a theory that were just. But, seeing that this is far from being the case, and that there may be many causes of which we are as yet ignorant, as well as certain conditions in which the known action of powers may be varied, it must be evident, that a theory of the earth is not to be confuted by this argument alone, That there are, among natural bodies, certain appearances which are not explained by the theory. We must admit, that, not having all the data which natural philosophy requires, we cannot pretend to explain every thing which appears; and that our theories, which necessarily are imperfect, are not to be considered as erroneous when not explaining every thing which is in nature, but only when they are found contrary to or inconsistent with the laws of nature, which are known, and with which the case in question may be properly compared.
But we may have different theories to compare with nature; and, in that case, the question is not, How far any of those theories should explain all natural appearances? but, How far any one particular theory might explain a phenomenon better than another? In this case of comparison, it will be evident, that if one theory explains natural appearances, then the opposite to that theory cannot be supposed to explain the same appearances. If for example, granite, porphyry, or basaltes, should be found naturally formed by fusion, the formation of those stones could not be supposed in any case as formed by water, although it could not be demonstrated that water is incapable of forming those mineral productions.
In like manner, if those three bodies were proved to have been actually formed by water alone, then, in other cases where we should have no proof, they could not be supposed as having been formed by fire or fusion. It must be evident, that an equal degree of proof of those two different propositions would leave our judgment in suspence, unless that proof were perfect, in which case, we would have two different causes producing similar effects. But, if we shall have a sufficient proof upon the one side, and only a presumptive proof or probability upon the other, we must reject that probability or presumption, when opposed by a proof, although that proof were only an induction by reasoning from similar effects as following similar causes. A fortiori, if there be on one side a fair induction, without the least suspicion of error, and on the other nothing but a mere presumption founded upon a distant analogy, which could not even properly apply, then, the inductive proof would be as satisfactory as if there had not been any supposition on the opposite side.
So far as a theory is formed in the generalization of natural appearances, that theory must be just, although it may not be perfect, as having comprehended every appearance; that is to say, a theory is not perfect until it be founded upon every natural appearance; in which case, those appearances will be explained by the theory. The theory of gravitation, though no ways doubtful, was not so perfect before the shape of this globe had been determined by actual measurement, and before the direction of the plummet had been tried upon Shihallion, as after those observations had been made. But a theory which should be merely hypothetical, or founded upon a few appearances, can only be received as a theory, after it has been found to correspond properly with nature; it would then be held a proper explanation of those natural appearances with which it corresponded; and, the more of those phenomena that were thus explained by the theory, the more would that, which had been first conjectural, be converted into a theory legitimately founded upon natural appearances.
Matter of fact is that upon which science proceeds, by generalization, to form theory, for the purpose of philosophy, or the knowledge of all natural causes; and it is by the companion of these matters of fact with any theory, that such a theory will be tried. But, in judging of matter of fact, let us be cautious of deceiving ourselves, by substituting speculative reasoning in place of actual events.
Nature, as the subject of our observation, consists of two sorts of objects; for, things are either active, when we perceive change to take place in consequence of such action, or they are quiescent, when we perceive no change to take place. Now, it is evident, that in judging of the active powers of nature from the quiescent objects of our information, we are liable to error, in misinterpreting the objects which we see; we thus form to ourselves false or erroneous opinion concerning the general laws of action, and the powers of nature. In comparing, therefore, generalised facts, or theory, with particular observations, there is required the greatest care, neither, on the one hand, to strain the appearances, so as to bring in to the theory a fact belonging to another class of things; nor, on the other, to condemn a proper theory, merely because that theory has not been extended to the explanation of every natural appearance.
But, besides the misinterpretation of matters of fact, we are also to guard against the misrepresentation of natural appearances. Whether warped by the prejudice of partial and erroneous theory, or deceived by the inaccuracy of superficial observation, naturalists are apt to see things in an improper light, and thus to reason from principles which cannot be admitted, and, which often lead to false conclusions. A naturalist, for example, comes to examine a cavity in the mines, he there finds water dropping down all around him, and he sees the cavity all hung with siliceous crystals; he then concludes, without hesitation, that here is to be perceived cause and effect, or that he actually sees the formation of those crystallizations from the operation of water. It is thus that I have been told by men of great mineral knowledge, men who must have had the best education upon that subject of mineralogy, and who have the superintendance of great mineral concerns in Germany, that they had actually seen nature at work in that operation of forming rock-crystal;—they saw what I have now described; they could see no more; but, they saw what had convinced them of that which, there is every reason to believe, never happened. With regard to my theory, I wish for the most rigorous examination; and do not ask for any indulgence whatever, whether with regard to the principles on which the theory is built, or for the application of the theory to the explanation of natural appearances. But, let not geologists judge my theory by their imperfect notions of nature, or by those narrow views which they take of the present state of things;—let not mineralogists condemn my theory, for no other reason but because it does not correspond with their false principles, and those gratuitous suppositions by which they had been pleased to explain to themselves every thing before. First let them look into their own theory, and correct that erroneous principle, with regard to the action of water, or the assumption of unknown causes, upon which they have reasoned in forming their vague notions of the mineral region, before they can be properly qualified to examine, impartially, a theory which employs another principle. Every thing which has come under my observation shall be, as far as I can, faithfully related; nor shall I withhold those which neither the present theory, nor any other that I am acquainted with, can, I think, explain.
Appearances cannot well be described except in relation to some theory or general arrangement of the subject; because the particular detail, of every part in a complicated appearance, would be endless and insignificant. When, however, any question in a theory depends upon the nature of an appearance, we cannot be too particular in describing that by which the question is to be decided. But though it be sometimes proper to be minute in a particular, it is always, and above all things, necessary to be distinct; and not to confound together things which are of different natures. For, though it be by finding similarity, in things which at first sight may seem different, that science is promoted and philosophy attained, yet, we must have a distinct view of those things which are to be assimilated; and surely the lowest state of knowledge in any subject, is the not distinguishing things which, though not to common observation different, are not truly the same.
To confound, for example one stone with another, because they were both hard, friable, and heavy, would be to describe, with the superficial views of vulgar observation; whereas science specifies the weight and hardness, and thus accurately distinguishes the stone.