November 3, 1923] 



NA TURE 



64: 



certainly inquisitive, the implied incertitude of biology 

 provides unending material for thought. 



It seems, indeed, that the technical literature has 

 ceased to reflect the form and content of modern 

 biological inquir}% for what else is the significance of 

 the fact — if fact it is — that those who contribute 

 preponderatingly to its mass and volume, workers and 

 teachers in the universities, are, in their academic 

 privacy, increasingly dubious concerning the funda- 

 mentals of their science ? Tribute is still paid to the 

 Darwinian theory, some of it good coin, most of it 

 lip-service unwholesomely rich in ambiguity. Behind 

 the Darwinian theory are its implications, very far- 

 reaching, inescapable, but for the most part disregarded 

 and feared. Still behind, entering into and doing 

 more than a little to guide the course of discussion, 

 a shady and scarcely mentionable background, is the 

 fear of a democracy crudely godless. The kind of 

 verbatim reporting and rapid snapshotting of Nature 

 which to-day passes as biological research can lead 

 at best to a mere reduplication of the universe : 

 to a vast library edition of the facts of Nature, less 

 rather than more orderly than the original, and less 

 profitable to consult with advantage. But that does 

 not mean that the mode of attainment or the con- 

 stitution of scientific knowledge has changed since 

 the middle of the nineteenth century, or that science 

 owes any obligation to social exigency or indivi- 

 dual composure. The present state of biology is not 

 healthy. 



We have brought these considerations to the reader's 

 mind because they constitute the essential circum- 

 stances for the discussion of Prof. Lloyd Morgan's book. 

 It is on their account that the two aims of the work 

 must be distinguished. One is an examination of the 

 ideas constituting the modern theory of relations to 

 discover whether they may not yield something of 

 value for bioloL^s ; ihc oiIht is a piTSdual affair of 

 the author and oi sinli of his readers '.s'lin. uitli him, 

 hold the "proper ullilude "' ot luiUiraliMii lo lie 

 i<)>ti( " and yet "cannot rest content'" 

 »iiM XV. .1 has always seemed to us that satisfaction 

 with Prof. Alexander's view of deity is more intelligible 

 in those who du not fully iniderstand it than in those 

 who do ; liot !ih I' tliis \ lew, wliieh Prnf. Lloyd Morgan 

 adopts, iiier(lv adjuii evolutionary 



theme, we projjo ispcct of his work 



which is of LTCate; ! . 



'! liieiiee i.\ jipears to 



1 time to time, sfjincUnn,: u iiu!:.< ' - - •. 

 iiples are afforded in the ad\cm ■ 



min<l,aiid III irtleiti\c 1 linn;, li' , w lull m ll:e |ih\Niral 

 world it is Ix-youd t', -! man tn miniiier the 



instances of "eiiui. I'.ul it noihiim luw 



NO. 2818, VOL. I 12] 



emerges, " if there be only regrouping of pre-existing 

 events and nothing more, then there is no emergent 

 evolution." Prof. Lloyd Morgan accepts the fact of 

 emergence, and its examples, " with natural piety " 

 (Alexander), which seems to mean little or nothing 

 more than " the frankly agnostic attitude proper to 

 science " (Lloyd Morgan). 



Relations in Nature may thus establish additive or 

 resultant characters, productive of quantitative con- 

 tinuity, and coexistent with emergence when it occurs, 

 or emergent characters, which are qualitative, and 

 always involve resultant effects also. In contra- 

 distinction to " the mechanistic dogma " the emphasis 

 is not upon physics and chemistry, receptor-patterns 

 and neurone-routes, but upon their " emergents," inter- 

 relation, as it were, in ever new relational orders. 

 Modem physics has removed such a conception from 

 the domain of metaphysics, and for better or worse 

 it must be admitted, if not to the bosom, at least to 

 the consideration of naturalism. The break is with 

 vitalism, too, for " if vitalism connote anything of the 

 nature of Entelechy or Elan — any insertion into 

 physico-chemical evolution of an alien influence which 

 must be invoked to explain the phenomena of life — 

 then, so far from this being implied, it is explicitly 

 rejected under the concept of emergent evolution." 

 " Alien influx into nature is barred." 



What Prof, Lloyd Morgan claims to be emergent 

 is " some new kind of relation," and all new hinds of 

 relation are incapable of prediction. Since relation is 

 " the vaguest term in the philosophical vocabulary," 

 it is well to understand the author's use of it. Related- 

 ness includes not only the relation-of-terms but also 

 the terms-in-relation. An atom is an instance of 

 relatedness ; so, too, is an organism, " Any concrete 

 situation in which entities play their part, each in 

 respect of others, is an instance of relatedness." The 

 relations upon whicli en h emergent entity depends 

 are intrinsic ; new exirinsic relations accompany its 

 emergence, the two kinds co-existing " inseparably in 

 (onc rete fact," Change is continuous : " the concrete 

 world we seek to interpret is a going concern ; . . . 

 there is a carr\ iul; forward of old relations and the 

 emergent ad\ cnt of new relations," 



l^'roni 1I11S i)oint an effort is made to meet the meta- 

 ph\sical |iiisitiiin in regard to the priority of mind to 

 rciaiions. Terms and relations s])rinL; into existence 

 togeiher, 'I'luiiui Imul his treatment of relatedness, 

 Prof. Lloyd Mm an h.-m. with the \i \s Kealists, 

 T" ' ' ,1 : :iir lMiilii;:\" l'e,> m w hat the 



lel.it i<i!i^, deemed here to 1)C 

 determined li\ naluial diiei nun. and m llie i h.irai ters 

 of tliri- ■ atiiation>. (onccrning the liist , the 



author en in the thought-proces,-, a .s[)ai lal 



