En un mot, pour tirer la loi de l'expérience, if faut généraliser; c'est une nécessité qui s'impose à l'observateur le plus circonspect.

In one word, to draw the rule from experience, one must generalize; this is a necessity that imposes itself on the most circumspect observer.

[A]stronomers... define duration in the following way: time... so defined that Newton's law and that of vis viva [or of the ] may be verified. Newton's law is an experimental truth... only approximate... [W]e still have only a definition by approximation.

Every definition implies an axiom, since it asserts the existence of the object defined. The definition then will not be justified, from the purely logical point of view, until we have proved that it involves no contradiction either in its terms or with the truths previously admitted.

All laws are... deduced from experiment; but to enunciate them, a special language is needful... ordinary language is too poor...
This... is one reason why the physicist can not do without mathematics; it furnishes him the only language he can speak. And a well-made language is no indifferent thing;
...the analyst, who pursues a purely esthetic aim, helps create, just by that, a language more fit to satisfy the physicist.
...law springs from experiment, but not immediately. Experiment is individual, the law deduced from it is general; experiment is only approximate, the law is precise...
In a word, to get the law from experiment, it is necessary to generalize... But how generalize? ...in this choice what shall guide us?
It can only be analogy. ...What has taught us to know the true profound analogies, those the eyes do not see but reason divines?
It is the mathematical spirit, which disdains matter to cling only to pure form.

Let us try to represent the figure formed by these two curves and their intersections in infinite number, each corresponding to a doubly asymptotic solution, these intersections form a kind of mesh, of fabric, of infinitely tight network; each of the two curves must never intersect itself, but it must fold back on itself in a very complex way in order to cross an infinite number of times all the meshes of the network. On will be struck by the complexity of this figure, which I do not even try to draw. Nothing is more likely to give us an idea of the complexity of the three-body problem and in general of all the problems of dynamics where there is no uniform integral and where the Bohlin series are divergent.

Behold... the only... [rule] we can follow: when a phenomenon appears... as the cause of another, we regard it as anterior. ...[T]herefore by cause... we define time; but...how do we recognize which is the cause and which the effect? We assume... the anterior fact, the antecedent, is the cause of the... consequent. It is then by time that we define cause. ...[S]hall we escape from this vicious circle?

Works in ChatGPT, Claude, or Any AI

Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living

A demonstration really based upon the principles of Analytical Logic will be composed of a succession of propositions ; some, which will serve as premises, will be identities or definitions ; others will be deduced from the former step by step ; but although the connexion between each proposition and the succeeding proposition can be grasped immediately, it is not obvious at a glance how it has been possible to pass from the first to the last, which we may be tempted to look upon as a new truth. But if we replace successively the various expressions that are used by their definitions, and if we pursue this operation to the furthest possible limit, there will be nothing left at the end but identities, so that all will be reduced to one immense tautology. Logic therefore remains barren, unless it is fertilized by intuition.

Il ne faut pas comparer la marche de la science aux transformations d’une ville, où les édifices vieillis sont impitoyablement jetés à bas pour faire place aux constructions nouvelles, mais à l’évolution continue des types zoologiques qui se développent sans cesse et finissent par devenir méconnaissables aux regards vulgaires, mais où un œil exercé retrouve toujours les traces du travail antérieur des siècles passés. Il ne faut donc pas croire que les théories démodées ont été stériles et vaines.