104 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



upon this point and now upon that, as each is made the securely-fast- 

 ened point of attachment for the next. The great distinction between 

 the reasonings, say of the metaphysician and the man of science, con- 

 sists, not in any difference of degree, but in a difference of subject- 

 matter. For, while the man whom our author calls the " man of rea- 

 soning " has no other test by which to estimate the accuracy of his 

 conclusions than the subjective processes of reason itself, " the man of 

 observation " has the uncompromising court of objective fact whither 

 to bring his conclusions for a trial that is sure to be remorseless, and 

 for a judgment from which there can be no appeal. And because the 

 court of Nature is alone infallible, the man of science shows his wis- 

 dom as a seeker of truth by directing his best faculties of thought 

 toward the arguing of his case in such a way that the judgment of 

 this court upon the issue presented shall be final. The issue is that 

 concerning the truth of a laboriously reasoned hypothesis ; the argu- 

 ment is a perhaps no less laboriously reasoned experiment ; and the 

 judgment is either a triumphant verification or a crushing non-suit 

 with costs — the latter being now happily to some extent defrayed by 

 government. In a word, to disparage those faculties of mind which 

 elaborate scientific generalization, as contrasted with those which 

 elaborate philosophic speculation, is surely too preposterously absurd 

 to be entertained even by the most benighted reader of the " Edin- 

 burgh " or any other Review. 



The author of this attempt appears, from the authoritative style in 

 which he writes, to regard himself as among the favored " men of 

 reasoning, prone to speculation rather than to experiment." That he 

 would be " comparatively unfitted for the more matter-of-fact employ- 

 ment of investigation and research," we can not entertain the shadow 

 of a doubt, and therefore I see no reason why we should hesitate to 

 place him in the category of those who are " accustomed to deal with 

 the suggestions of the mind," without condescending to bring these 

 suggestions to the test of fact. If so, I grieve to observe that .in this 

 case the suggestions of the mind have certainly been of a most unfor- 

 tunate character. 



He first briefly considers the present balance of authority regard- 

 ing the question of spontaneous generation, or the development of 

 living from non-living matter. On this subject I have no remark to 

 make, except that, so far as the doctrine of evolution is concerned, 

 there is no a priori reason to anticipate the occurrence of spontaneous 

 generation within the limits of time that are possible to human obser- 

 vation. Miserably small as is our knowledge of protoplasm, we at 

 least know enough to be astounded at its enormously complex chemi- 

 cal constitution, and the no less enormously complex physical proper- 

 ties with which it is endowed. The numerous species of elaborately 

 sculptured shells which owe their varied and intricate forms to the 

 vital activities of protoplasm ; the fact that all cells, and therefore all 



