B. C. Burt

Summary

B. C. Burt The Philosophical Review (1892)

To exhibit the difference of method and spirit between the philosophy of nature and natural science by means of examples, let us consider the doctrines, say, of the conservation of energy, instead of being merely “given” as a general “fact” or, rather, perhaps, as a postulate, is a self-evident, identical proposition, since energy, and energy alone, is being in activity, energy.
Source: Wikisource

B. C. Burt The Philosophical Review (1892)

And the characterization of nature in terms of thought is just the work of the pure philosophy of nature. Such a characterization presupposes for its realization an accurate and most "general" knowledge of nature, in and by itself considered, or as object. It likewise presupposes the knowledge of the forms or functions of thought. Its office will be, or is, the synthesis of these sorts of knowledge, the reading into the highest truths of the sciences, those of pure mind, the transformation of the formulas of natural science into those of thought.
Source: Wikisource

B. C. Burt The Philosophical Review (1892)

From the foregoing it seems clear that for thought there is a philosophy of nature distinct from mere natural science, formerly dignified, especially in England and America, by the name "Natural Philosophy"; that natural science does not exhaust the knowledge of nature, is not exclusive and absolute as regards its object, nature.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature