72 NOTE ON MATERIALISM 



one set of forces recognised by the physicist and the 

 chemist." When, further, Sir Oliver Lodge airily observes 

 that " why Haeckel chooses to regard matter and energy as 

 one thing instead of two is not perfectly plain to me, nor, I 

 venture to say is it really plain to him " (p. 35), we may 

 advise him to turn to his own next page and see how he 

 describes ether as the one persistent thing, or "the most 

 fundamental known entity," in the material universe ; or to 

 p. 103, where he tells us that the "fundamental entities" 

 are " ether and motion." In other words, " energy " and 

 " matter " are identified in " ether " (motion certainly not 

 being an entity). He would also find, on patient inquiry, 

 that Haeckel nowhere says matter and energy are the 

 "same thing," but are two aspects of the fundamental 

 reality, much as the physicist does. Many physicists and 

 chemists say (I quote Mr. Whetham) that matter is com- 

 posed of energy. Ostwald, the only living physicist that 

 Sir Oliver Lodge quotes as "perhaps" agreeing with 

 Haeckel, really belongs to the latter school, differs entirely 

 from Haeckel, and is explicitly repudiated by Haeckel 

 (p. 8). Haeckel's " monism of the inorganic world " is the 

 ordinary teaching of physical science. These things, the 

 reader will note, are not biological matters with which Sir 

 Oliver Lodge may be presumed to be unfamiliar. 



In fine, it is most interesting to note that, if Sir O. Lodge 

 is right in saying that physical science now admits only 

 " ether and motion," we seem to be on the way to the 

 prettiest revival of Materialism that one could conceive. 

 Since the biologist will have none of Sir Oliver's immaterial 



