Scientific Sophisms. 1 1 7 



In rejoinder, Dr. Stirling cites " Mr. Huxley's 

 own phrases " to prove that the alleged am- 

 biguity does not exist : " There is such a thing 

 as a physical basis or matter of life ; " . . . 

 or "fc physical basis or matter of life." There 

 is " a single physical basis of life," and through 

 its unity, " the whole living world " is pervaded 

 by "a threefold unity" "namely a unity of 

 power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity 

 of substantial composition." 



On the second point ; that " life-matter " is 

 "due only to chemistry," Dr. Stirling is "pleased 

 to think that Mr. Huxley has now come to 

 consider such an opinion ' absurd,' " but repeats 

 that "he has always, and everywhere, for all 

 that, described his 'life-matter as due .to 

 chemistry,' " and adds, " Here are a few ex- 

 amples : " 



" ' If the properties of water may be properly said to 

 result from the nature and disposition of its component 

 molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing 

 to say that the properties of protoplasm result from the 

 nature and disposition of its molecules.' 



" Is it possible for words more definitely to 

 convey the statement that the properties of 

 water and protoplasm are precisely on the same 

 level, and that as the former are of molecular 

 (physical, chemical) origin, so are the latter? 



