Mast, L. J. Henderson on "The Fitness of the Environment". 439 



times indicate that such illuminating discussions as have recently 

 come from Driesch, Jennings, Lovejoy and many others will, 

 in the near future, form a precipitate that can be handled with a 

 considerable degree of precision, and that we may some day know 

 more nearly what we are talking about when we use them. In 

 the meantime there appears to be little cause for apprehension. 

 The doctrines supposed to be lurking behind vitalism and teleology 

 as well as mechanism may be far less dangerous than statements 

 made here and there in the heat of argument would indicate. 



The aim of Science is experimentally to ascertain the order of 

 events in Nature, so that we may adjust our actions in such a 

 way as to avoid disaster or alter events in accord with our desires. 

 That the order of numerous phenomena in the biological world 

 has been established with a fairly high degree of accuracy can not 

 be doubted, and that there is every prospect that numerous other 

 orders will be ascertained can likewise not be doubted. I am 

 unable to understand how any doctrine short of one which denies 

 this, that is, the prospect of being able to ascertain the order of 

 many more biological phenomena, can seriously interfere with 

 progress. Some doctrines of vitalism if not all state that there are 

 biological phenomena, the order of which can not be ascertained, 

 that is, they teach experimental indeterminism with reference to 

 some vital phenomena, but none, so far as I know, states that the 

 limit has been reached. 



If this be true the aim of every vitalist, no matter of what shade 

 or stripe, must be to ascertain the order of vital phenomena as far 

 as possible, but this is precisely the aim of every mechanist. Thus 

 all sorts of vitalism as well as all sorts of mechanism demand the 

 employment of every means at our command, in attempting to 

 ascertain as far as possible the order or sequence of biological 

 phenomena. The essential difference between these two schools 

 of thot lies in the fact that the former holds that there are phen- 

 omena associated with animate systems the order of \vhich cannot 

 be ascertained; in other words, that there are, in the series of 

 some vital phenomena, factors which are not amenable to exper- 

 imental analysis, w r hile the latter school holds that there are no 

 such phenomena in the processes of life; or, at any rate, if there 

 are, they are of the same nature as some found in the inanimate 

 world. It is held by not a few that it is this peculiar charac- 

 teristic of the doctrine of vitalism that is dangerous. It is main- 

 tained that those who believe in this doctrine are likely to be 

 careless workers, for their principles, it is asserted, leads them 

 to ascribe phenomena to mysterious factors rather than to exert 

 themselves to trace back as far as possible the sequence of 

 events. 



