146 THE POPULAR SCLEXCE MONTHLY. 



that Professor Xewconib is a prominent scientist, at the head of a 

 scientific bureau in Washington; while the author of the book he pro- 

 fesses to review, if known at all, is known only in connection with 

 pursuits which are generally supposed to preclude, not only distinc- 

 tion but even reputable standing in the domains of scientific investi- 

 gation. I take the liberty, therefore, to subject the strictures of my 

 critic to a counter-critical examination, trusting that the learned pro- 

 fessor himself will find it thorough, and that the reader who has not 

 only perused his article, but also looked into a chapter or two of my 

 book, will recognize it as neither impertinent nor unfair. 



Whatever may be thought of the soundness or unsoundness of the 

 general argument of the little book in question, the drift of that argu- 

 ment, it seems to me, can hardly be mistaken by the reasonably intelli- 

 gent reader. TThat I attempt to show is simply this : that modern 

 physical science aims at a mechanical interpretation of physical phe- 

 nomena, seeking to effect a reduction of them to two elements which 

 are ordinarily designated as matter and motion, but which (for reasons 

 briefly stated in the book, but to be stated more at length presently) 

 are more correctly designated as mass and motion. I then attempt to 

 show that, if to these premises we add the assumption of the atomic 

 constitution of matter, the mechanical theory necessarily involves four 

 distinct propositions, relating severally to the equality, inertia, and in- 

 elasticity of the atoms or ultimate molecules and the essentially ki- 

 netic character of what is now universally termed energy. In order to 

 enforce the irrecusability of these propositions on the basis of the 

 atomo-mechanical theory, and to guard against the imputation that I 

 am engaged in the frivolous pastime of chopping logic, I am at pains 

 to show, in the next four chapters, that every one of these pro]30si- 

 tions is insisted on and propounded in terms identical with, or equiva- 

 lent to, those in which I state them, by men whom I was under the 

 delusion, up to the time of the aj^pearanc'e of Professor Xewcomb's 

 article, of regarding as persons of the highest scientific authority 

 such men as Professors Du Bois-Reymond, Thomas Graham, Wundt, 

 etc. I then proceed to inquire what is the relation of these proposi- 

 tions to the sciences of chemistry, physics, and astronomy, as they are 

 actually constituted, endeavoring to ascertain whether or not the funda- 

 mental propositions of the atomo-mechanical theory are available as 

 theoretical solvents of the facts with which these sciences are con- 

 versant, and whether or not they are consistent with them. The result 

 of this inquiry is, that the man of science, however emphatic he may 

 be in the general assertion that all physical phenomena are due to the 

 interaction of atoms or ultimate molecules, is constrained by the data 

 of scientific experience to repudiate and discard the propositions 

 which his assertion necessarily involves. It thus appears that there is 

 conflict between the facts and working hypotheses or theories of the 

 sciences on the one hand and the atomo-mechanical theory on the 



