But now I am
to examine nature more particularly, in order to compare those different
opinions with the actual state of things, on which every physical theory
must be founded. Therefore, the opinions of other geologists should be
clearly stated, that so a fair comparison may be made of theories which
are to represent the system of this earth.
Now, if I am to compare that which I have given as a theory of the
earth, with the theories given by others under that denomination, I
find so little similarity, in the things to be compared, that no other
judgment could hence be formed, perhaps, than that they had little or no
resemblance. I see certain treatises named Theories of the Earth; but, I
find not any thing that entitles them to be considered as such, unless
it be their endeavouring to explain certain appearances which are
observed in the earth. That a proper theory of the earth should explain
all those appearances is true; but, it does not hold, conversely, that
the explanation of an appearance should constitute a theory of the
earth. So far as the theory of the earth shall be considered as the
philosophy or physical knowledge of this world, that is to say, a
general view of the means by which the end or purpose is attained,
nothing can be properly esteemed such a theory unless it lead, in some
degree, to the forming of that general view of things.
Pages:
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259