138 ORGANISM AND MECHANISM 



development, so that any argument we use to-day about the 

 * irreducibility ' of vital phenomena refers only to modern 

 chemistry and physics (unluckily, to be frank, to what we 

 happen to understand of that chemistry and physics). The 

 only answer to this criticism is that at any given time we 

 must use the science we have got. No judgment in regard 

 to irreducibility can be prophetic, unless we feel confident 

 that we are dealing with generic differences, such as those 

 between a conscious organism and a crystal. 



(/) Finally, some would ask whether it matters much 

 after all whether a chemico-physical formulation of a living 

 organism is possible or not. Is there any depreciation of 

 the " lily-muffled hum of a summer bee " if it be " coupled 

 with the spinning stars " ? The answer is twofold : (1) that 

 science is all for veracity, and that the matter-and-motion 

 summing up of an organism seems to many to be at present 

 a false simplicity; and (2) that the treatment of a living 

 creature, say horse or dog, as exhaustible in chemical and 

 physical terms does not seem the way to get the most or 

 best out of them. A physician's success in treating his pa- 

 tient from the purely chemical aspect is often remarkable, 

 but it may be eventually necessary to recognise other aspects ! 



We agree, however, that what really matters is, that our 

 view of the living creature be thoroughly well-informed. 

 Whether our theoretical interpretation of it be, that it is 

 like a very subtle engine or an intricate solar system, or 

 that it is a system in which a new aspect of reality has mani- 

 fested itself so that special biological categories are required, 

 the most important thing is that we appreciate the facts of 

 the case. When the methods of theoretical discussion have 

 been exhausted, and it is doubtful whether they have ever 

 made any biologist change his mind from a position to which 



