Evolution of Moral*. 283 



rejected by experience. Take, for example, the command, "Who- 

 soever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other 

 also." We all agree in rejecting such a rule as impracticable. 



Professor P. H. van deb Weyde: — 



Professor Davidson has said that evolutionists are ignorant of 

 metaphysics, but it is my experience that metaphysicians are all 

 ignorant of the simplest principles of physics. Now it seems to 

 me that metaphysics must be based on physics. The material 

 world should be the first subject of study, but this is neglected by 

 metaphysicians, who are far more open to the charge of ignorance 

 of physics than are the scientists to the charge of want of knowl- 

 edge of metaphysics. 



Dr. Robert G. Eccles: — 



Professor Davidson declares that evolutionists have metaphysi- 

 cal-phobia ; but he has evidently come in contact with Comteists 

 rather than with Spencerians. Evolution has no contempt for 

 metaphysics. On the contrary, it admits a measure of truth in 

 all systems of thought, and desires to harmonize the truths of 

 varying systems into a synthetic philosophy. Professor Davidson 

 cannot get back of phenomena, nor can any metaphysician, however 

 boldly he may proclaim his ability to do so. The "fulness of 

 life," which he criticises, means adjustment; it means the perfec- 

 tion or correspondence between inner relations and outer relations, 

 between organization and environment. 



Dr. Janes: — 



I regard it as a high compliment to be criticised by Professor 

 Davidson, one of the ablest metaphysicians, without doubt, in 

 this country. And if his criticism has taken the form, mainly, of 

 unverified assertion and barren negation, its weakness is a defect 

 in the method of metaphysics, not in the man. Evolution, as Dr. 

 Eccles has said, recognizes that all systems of thought contain 

 some truth, and explains also why this must be so. The human 

 mind can but reflect, in some degree, the truth of that Universe 

 out of which it has been evolved. Metaphysical assumption, 

 however, should be verified by experiential tests. Since all thought 

 is a part of experience, I confess I am unable to see how we can 

 have any extra-experiential knowledge. It seems to me that my 

 -critic descended from his usual high plane of thought in raising 

 the questions about gnats, mosquitoes and carnivorous animals. 

 I think the principle which I laid down is clear to all unprejudiced 



