William Herschel's defense of speculative inquiry

Abstract

Although William Herschel (1738–1822) is most well-known as an astronomer and instrument-maker, he also had interests in speculative philosophy (e.g., metaphysics), as several papers he read at the Bath Philosophical Society reveal. These papers, arguably, are the context in which Herschel engaged most directly in philosophical argumentation and are thus worthy of greater scholarly attention. In this article, I focus on Herschel's paper entitled “On the Utility of Speculative Inquiries,” in which he debates the legitimacy of speculation with an unnamed interlocutor, referred to as the “Gentleman.” In section 1, I briefly discuss Herschel's intellectual background. In section 2, I review some of the main points of contention between Herschel and the Gentleman. In section 3, I situate their dispute within a broader intellectual context by reference to the distinction between “experimental philosophy” and “speculative philosophy” (ESD). In section 4, I discuss the possible identity of the Gentleman, favoring the itinerant teacher of experimental philosophy John Arden over the more well-known Joseph Priestley. In section 5, I argue for the historical significance of this exchange, specifically that Herschel's debate provides support for the superiority of the ESD as a historiographical framework over the more familiar rationalism vs. empiricism distinction (RED). In section 6, I examine three further arguments Herschel provides to defend speculative inquiry. I conclude in section 7 by connecting Herschel's arguments to contemporary debates in general philosophy of science on the role that speculation plays in advancing scientific progress.