Advertisement

Faraday on Scientific Method

  • Geoffrey Cantor

Abstract

That Faraday expounded an empiricist view of science all commentators agree. Yet there are many incompatible strands within empiricism, and this chapter sets out to specify in a much more precise manner Faraday’s rather complex, and apparently inconsistent, views on scientific method, and also to examine why he held those views. Questions about the proper method for pursuing science were very important to him and he felt obliged on numerous occasions to expound his views on this subject so as to defend himself and his scientific work against alternative, but false, conceptions of science. In this chapter we shall be concerned with his methodological pronouncements rather than the actual methods he employed in the laboratory (a topic which will be discussed in chapter 9), although the two were closely related. An appropriate starting point for this discussion is his views about the proper role of the imagination.

Keywords

Scientific Method Physical World Royal Institution Natural Theologian Eternal Life 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Faraday to Auguste de la Rive, 2 October 1858: Correspondence, 913–4. Emphases added.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    J. Glas, ‘Predestination impugned and defended’, in The works of Mr John Glas (2nd ed., five vols, Perth, 1782), vol.2, pp.395–414, esp. p.398.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    D.B. Murray, The social and religious origins of Scottish non-Presbyterian Protestant dissent from 1730–1800 (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of St Andrews, 1976), pp.112–4.Google Scholar
  4. On the similar use of the plain style by Puritan divines see P. Miller, ‘The plain style’ in S.E. Fish, ed, Seventeenth century prose (Oxford, 1971), pp.147–86.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    R. Sandeman, The law of nature defended by Scripture against a learned class of moderns, who think it needful, in order to support the credit of revealed religion against deists, to deny the existence of that law (1760)Google Scholar
  6. R. Sandeman, The law of nature defended by Scripture against a learned class of moderns, who think it needful, in order to support the credit of revealed religion against deists, to deny the existence of that law (1760), in Sandeman, Discourses on passages of Scripture: With essays and letters (Dundee, 1857), pp.273–85. Quotation on pp.278–9.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Faraday to Auguste de la Rive, 16 December 1859: Correspondence, 943–4.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    William Barrett used a different but not dissimilar metaphor when he claimed that Faraday considered the Bible as ‘God’s revelation to man of the Divine purpose’, and science as ‘man’s revelation of the Divine handicraft’. William Barrett to J.H. Poynting, 6 March 1911: University of Birmingham, Physics Department.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    Faraday to Adolphe Quetelet, 25 February 1850: Correspondence, 579–80, Emphasis added.Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    T.H. Levere, ‘Faraday, matter, and natural theology — reflections on an unpublished manuscript’, British Journal for the History of Science, 4 (1968), 95–107. Passages quoted on pp.105 and 107. Report of H.M. Commissioners appointed to inquire into the revenues and management of certain colleges and schools and the studies pursued and instruction given therein, in Parliamentary Papers, 1864, vol.4, p.381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 22.
    Faraday to Adolph F. Svanberg, 16 August 1850: Correspondence, 588.Google Scholar
  12. 25.
    A.A. Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury, An inquiry concerning virtue (London, 1699); Id., Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times (three vols, London, 1711).Google Scholar
  13. 26.
    Sandeman, op. cit. (n.7); J. Locke, A paraphrase and notes on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, in The works of John Locke (12th ed., ten vols, London, 1824), vol.8, pp.373–427.Google Scholar
  14. 28.
    J. R[orie], Selected exhortations delivered to various Churches of Christ by the late Michael Faraday, Wm. Buchanan, John M. Baxter, and Alex. Moir (Dundee, 1910), pp.15–18.Google Scholar
  15. 31.
    Faraday’s discussion of prejudice bears a marked resemblance to Francis Bacon’s ‘Idols’, those false images in the mind that vitiate knowledge. Indeed, the three types of prejudice mentioned in the text correspond, respectively, to the ‘Idols of the Tribe’, the ‘Idols of the Market-Place’ and the ‘ldols of the Theatre’. Bacon, The great instauration, in J. Spedding, R.L. Ellis and D.D. Heath, eds, The works of Francis Bacon (fourteen vols, London, 1872–4), vol.4, pp.53–65.Google Scholar
  16. 33.
    Faraday, ‘Historical sketch of electro-magnetism’, Annals of Philosophy, 2 (1821), 195–200 and 274–90; 3 (1822), 107–21Google Scholar
  17. L.P. Williams, ‘Faraday and Ampere: A critical dialogue’, in D. Gooding and F.A.J.L. James, eds, Faraday rediscovered: Essays on the life and work of Michael Faraday, 1791–1867 (Basingstoke and New York, 1985), pp.83–104, esp. pp.86–90.Google Scholar
  18. 37.
    Faraday and P. Reiss, ‘On the action of non-conducting bodies in electric induction’, Philosophical Magazine, 11 (1856), 1–17.Google Scholar
  19. 38.
    Faraday to William Whewell, 19 September 1835: Correspondence, 294–6.Google Scholar
  20. 40.
    I. Newton, Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (two vols, Berkeley, 1934), vol.1, p. xxvii.Google Scholar
  21. 45.
    Faraday to Christian E. Neeff, 24 March 1846: Correspondence, 491–2. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
  22. 48.
    L.P. Williams, Michael Faraday: A biography (London, 1965), pp.73–80Google Scholar
  23. P.M. Heimann, ‘Faraday’s theories of matter and electricity’, British Journal for the History of Science, 5 (1971), 235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 49.
    J. Agassi, Faraday as a natural philosopher (Chicago, 1971), p.117.Google Scholar
  25. 53.
    Faraday to Auguste de la Rive, 29 May 1854: Correspondence, 737–8.Google Scholar
  26. 56.
    Chuang Tzu, Basic writings, trans. Burton Watson (NY and London, 1964), p.45.Google Scholar
  27. 57.
    Faraday’s contribution to ‘Addresses delivered at the commemoration of the centenary of the birth of Dr Priestley’, Philosophical Magazine, 2 (1833), 390–1. The question of who discovered oxygen is now recognised as a complex problem and the palm cannot simply be presented to Priestley.Google Scholar
  28. 66.
    Faraday to Julius Plücker, 23 March 1857: Correspondence, 863–4.Google Scholar
  29. 67.
    Augustus de Morgan to William H. Dixon, 17 March 1857: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
  30. 69.
    ‘Commonplace book’, f.87: Institution of Electrical Engineers, Faraday Papers; Jones, 1, 199; S.B. Smith, The great mental calculators. The psychology, methods, and lives of calculating prodigies, past and present (New York, 1983), pp.181–210.Google Scholar
  31. 70.
    Faraday to John Tyndall, 19 April 1851: Correspondence, 623; Faraday to Peter Riess, 7 April 1855: Ibid., 791–2; J. Tyndall, Faraday as a discoverer (5th ed., London, 1894), pp.63–4.Google Scholar
  32. 76.
    Quoted in E.C. Patterson, Mary Somerville and the cultivation of science, 1815–1840 (Boston, 1983), p.135.Google Scholar
  33. 79.
    J. Hutchinson, A treatise of power essential and mechanical, in The philosophical and theological works of the late truly learned John Hutchinson, Esq (twelve vols, London, 1748–9), vol.5, pp.222–3.Google Scholar
  34. Mosess principia occupies the first two volumes. See also C.B. Wilde, ‘Hutchinsonianism, natural philosophy and religious controversy in eighteenth century Britain’, History of Science, 18 (1980), 1–24;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Id., ‘Matter and spirit as natural symbols in eighteenthcentury British natural philosophy’, British Journal for the History of Science, 15 (1982), 99–131; G.N. Cantor, ‘Light and enlightenment: An exploration of mid-eighteenth-century modes of discourse’, in D.C. Lindberg and G.N. Cantor, The discourse of light from the middle ages to the enlightenment (Los Angeles, 1985), pp.67–106.Google Scholar
  36. 82.
    Faraday to Tyndall: op. cit. (n.70); W. Barratt, review of J.H. Gladstone’s Michael Faraday, Nature, 6 (1872), 410–3, esp. 412.Google Scholar
  37. 87.
    Crawford, op. cit. (n.42); Id., ‘Michael Faraday: Ideas about how he thought’, paper delivered to a joint meeting of the British Society for the History of Science and the British Psychological Society, 7 February 1987.Google Scholar
  38. 89.
    Faraday to Ernst Becker, 25 October 1860: Correspondence, 975–6. Cf. S. Shapin, ‘Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology’, Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984), 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 91.
    J.H. Gladstone, Michael Faraday (2nd ed., London, 1873), pp.138–9; Faraday to Becker: op. cit. (n.89).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey N. Cantor 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Cantor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations