Preface 



from the chemical reactions which are the essential 

 phenomena. 



In fine, as according to all evidence, animals as low 

 in the scale as the sponges and the corals, are but a 

 mere complex of elementary lives, the inference follows 

 that even a very complex and highly evolved animal 

 apparently highly centralised, is but an analogous 

 complex, existing and maintaining itself by affinity or 

 molecular cohesion, without the aid of a superior and 

 independent dynamism. 



Such is the reasoning and such are the conclusions 

 of the * ascending * method. Are these conclusions 

 true or false ? 



The reasoning is rigorous and flawless. If the 

 conclusions are false, it can only be that the method is 

 bad. 



We shall see by all that follows in the present work, 

 that in spite of the rigour of the reasoning, the results 

 of the method are such as cannot be accepted, and are 

 often absurd. 



It is easy to establish this without going outside 

 the domain of biology. As an example of an induction 

 at once absurd and inevitable from the ascending method, 

 take sensibility. 



We know by experience that we possess sensibility. 

 We infer that sensibility pertains to humanity. Taking 

 this apex as our point of departure, we judge that 

 superior animals also possess this sensibility because 

 their manifestations of pain or pleasure resemble our 

 own. 



If we descend the animal scale, the manifestations 

 are less defined, and, in the lower animals, are of doubtful 

 interpretation. 



' The signs of pain,' says Richet, 1 ' do not suffice 



for the affirmation that there is pain. When the foot 



of a decapitated frog is pinched, the animal struggles 



> Richet: Psychologic Gtntrale. 



xiv 



