Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Modern science and anarchism
Image 44
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kni͡azʹ, 1842-1921. Modern science and anarchism - Image 44. 1912. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. September 30, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/scpamp/item/1009/show/936.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kni͡azʹ, 1842-1921. (1912). Modern science and anarchism - Image 44. Socialist and Communist Pamphlets. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/scpamp/item/1009/show/936

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kni͡azʹ, 1842-1921, Modern science and anarchism - Image 44, 1912, Socialist and Communist Pamphlets, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed September 30, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/scpamp/item/1009/show/936.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Modern science and anarchism
Creator (LCNAF)
  • Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, kni͡azʹ, 1842-1921
Publisher Freedom Press
Place of Creation (TGN)
  • London
Date 1912
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Anarchism
Genre (AAT)
  • pamphlets
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Extent 110 pages; 20 cm.
Original Item Location HX915.K93 1912
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b8304395~S11
Original Collection Socialist and Communist Pamphlets
Digital Collection Socialist and Communist Pamphlets
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/scpamp
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://libraries.uh.edu/branches/special-collections
Use and Reproduction This item is in the public domain and may be used freely.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Image 44
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name uhlib_174052_043.jpg
Transcript 40 Modern Science and Anarchism. in reality infinitely more complex (and far more interesting) than we should be led to believe if we judged by metaphysical formulas. We have heard of late very much about tbe dialectic method, recommended to us by Social Democrats in order to elaborate the Socialist ideal. But we no more admit this method than would natural science. The dialectic method reminds the modern naturalist of something very antiquated that has had its day and is forgotten, happily long since forgotten by science. No discovery of the nineteenth century, in mechanics, astronomy, physios, chemistry, biology, psychology, or anthropology, has been made by the dialectic method. All the immense acquisitions of the century are due to the use of the inductive-deductive method—the only scientific method. And as man is a part of Nature, as his personal and social life is a natural phenomenon, just as the growth of a flower, or the evolution of life in societies of ants or bees—there is no reason why we should, when we pass from the flower to man, or from a village of beavers to a human city, abandon the method which till then has been so useful, and look for another method in the realms of metaphysics. The inductive-deductive method which we employ in natural sciences has so well proved its efficacy that the nineteenth century has been able to advance science in a hundred years more than it had progressed before during two thousand years. And when men of science began, in the second half of the century, to apply the same method to the study of human societies, never did they stumble upon an obstacle which rendered its rejection necessary, or made advisable a return to the mediaeval scholasticism resuscitated by Hegel. Besides, when some naturalists, doing honour to their bourgeois education, and pretending to be followers of the scientific method of Darwin, told us : "Crush whoever is weaker than yourself: such is the law of Nature !' it was easy for us to prove, first, that this was not Darwin's conclusion, and, using the same scientific method, to show that these scientists were on the wrong path : that such a law does not exist, that Nature teaches us a very different lesson, and that their conclusions were in nowise scientific. The same is t.ue as regards the assertion which economists tried to make us believe : namely, that the inequality of fortunes is "a law of Nature," and that capitalistic exploitation represents the most advantageous form of social organisation. By applying