Are William Whewell's views consistent with O'ism?

[Tom]

William Whewell argues that scientific induction requires concepts:

from the Mechanical Euclid, Section 2, paragraph 55

or

from Theory of Scientific Method, copyright 1989, 1968, Robert E. Butts

We take a standard and measure the facts by it; and this standard is created by us, not offered by Nature.  ... we assert that a body left to itself will move on with unaltered velocity not because our senses ever disclosed to us a body doing this but because we find that all actual cases are intelligible and explicable by means of the notion of forces which cause change of motion and which are exerted by surrounding bodies.  In like manner, we see bodies striking each other and thus moving, accelerating, retarding, and stopping each other.  But in all of this, we do not perceive that abstract quantity momentum, which is always lost by one as it is gained by another.  This "momentum" is a creation of the mind, brought in among facts in order to convert their apparent confusion into order, their seeming chance to certainty, their perplexing variety into simplicity.  The idea of momentum gained and lost does this. In like manner in any other case inductive truths are established, some idea is introduced as the means of passing from the facts to the truth.

emphasis mine

ibid., paragraph 59

...the ideas which we introduce must not only be distinct but also appropriate.  They must be exactly and closely applicable to the facts so that when the idea is in our possession and the facts under our notice we perceive that the [idea]includes and takes up the [facts]....

Has anyone else read any works by Whewell? How compatible are they with Objectivism?

[Spearmint]

we assert that a body left to itself will move on with unaltered velocity not because our senses ever disclosed to us a body doing this

This is surely incorrect?

I can't say for sure, but I suspect that Objectivists would use the term 'concepts of method' to describe his 'constructs of the mind', at least when he is talking about things such as momentum.

edit: Here is a more comprehensive outline of his views on induction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/#2