Scepsis Scientific

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1885. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... CHAP. XXIII. Its queried whether there be any Science in the sense of the Dogmatists: (1.) We cannot know any thing to be the cause of another, but from its attending it; and this way is not infallible; declared by instances, especially from the Philosophy of Des-Cartes. All things are mixt; and 'tis difficult to assign each Cause its distinct Effects. (2.) There's no demonstration but where the contrary is impossible. And we can scarce conclude so of any thing. CONFIDENCE of Science is one great reason, we miss it: For on this account presuming we have it every where, we seek it not where it is; and therefore fall short of the object of our Enquiry. Now to give further check to Dogmatical pretensions, and to discover the vanity of assuming Ignorance; we'll make a short enquiry, whether there be any such thing as Science in the sense of its Assertours. In their notion then, It is the knowledge of things in their true, immediate, necessary causes: Upon which I'le advance the following Observations. 1. All Knowledge of Causes is deductive: for we know none by simple intuition; but through the mediation of their effects. So that we cannot conclude, any thing to be the cause of another; but from its continual accompanying it: for the causality it self is insensible. But now to argue from a concomitancy to a causality, is not infallibly conclusive: Yea in this way lies notorious delusion. For suppose, for instance, we had never seen more Sun, then in a cloudy day; and that the lesser lights had ne're appeared: Let us suppose the day had alway broke with a wind, and had proportionably varyed, as that did: Had not he been a notorious Sceptick, that should question the causality? But we need not be beholding to so remote a supposition: The French Philosophy f...