August 23, 1883] 



NA TURE 



387 



being all teleological factors in the expression of this 

 " ideal." 



Now in the first place we do not require a revelation 

 from another sphere to tell us that " there's ne'er a villain 

 dwelling in all Denmark but he's an arrant knave," and 

 Tjiologists may similarly remark that they do not require 

 any transcendental analytic to inform them that an or- 

 ganism is something more than a mechanism. But it is 

 indeed a startling announcement to be told that in the 

 investigation of an organism we are to rise above "the 

 category of causation," and carry into our inquiry the 

 conception of teleology. And still more startling is this 

 announcement when we are told that the teleology which 

 •we are thus to embrace is not in any way connected with 

 the hypothesis of a designing mind, but is a something 

 which we ourselves are, as it were, to read into the farts 

 which we investigate, by means of a "creative synthesis 

 of thought." It is here, we think, that the "men of 

 science " ought to take their stand ; we are all agreed 

 that an organism is something more than a mechanism, 

 but we are not agreed that in any department of science 

 are we justified in quitting the category of causation. On 

 the contrary, for our own part we decidedly maintain that 

 this is the category the limits of which mark the limits of 

 all scientific research, and that in whatever degree science 

 presumes to overstep these limits, in that degree has it 

 ceased to be science and become metaphysical specula- 

 tion. Moreover, we should say that the speculation is, 

 so far as science is concerned, of an exceedingly vicious 

 kind. It was bad enough to have the "final causes "of 

 the older teleologists posited as the ultimate touchstones 

 of scientific truth ; but it seems to us much worse to 

 have a system of teleology of our own manufacture put 

 into its place. Thus, to take an illustration, it is the out- 

 come of a judicious "application of the categories" to 

 assert that a great gulf is fixed between the living and the 

 not living in nature, and therefore that "we can never 

 hope to find a case of a biogenesis as a matter of fact." 

 Now we conceive it is the part of a man of science as such 

 to entertain no such bold statement as this. It is, to use 

 a term of which this school of philosophers is particularly 

 fond, the worst form of "dogmatism" thus to affirm, on 

 grounds of metaphysical speculation alone, the antecedent 

 impossibility of any discovery in science — most of all 

 with reference to a matter touching which we are so much 

 in the dark. If our working biologists were ever to adopt 

 the categories as guides to their methods of inquiry, here 

 is a case in which all attempts at inquiry would be barred 

 by an a priori dogma ; and the same is true of every other 

 case where the "category of causation" is sought to be 

 overshadowed by " the higher categories." Thus, to take 

 another example, in order to show the necessity for the 

 employment of these higher categories in science, it 

 is argued that the regeneration of the amputated limb 

 of the newt is "wholly unintelligible," save as an 

 expression of the teleological impulse to the recon- 

 struction of our ideal type or organism. But, without 

 waiting to ask what becomes of such an impulse in the 

 case of any of the higher Vertebrata when similarly muti- 

 lated (perhaps the matter in this case is " wholly unin- 

 telligible," but whether or no the illustration can scarcely 

 be deemed a happy one), we object, in the first place, 

 that by discarding the category of causation an a priori 



barrier is arbitrarily set up against any scientific inquiry 

 into the facts ; and in the next place, that the higher 

 categories cannot possibly furnish any semblance of what 

 may properly be termed an " explanation." To say that 

 " each cell is directly determined in its action simply by 

 what it has to do in order that the vital activity of the 

 newt may be restored to its normal condition," is not to 

 explain the process ; it is merely to restate the fact. And 

 in all similar cases the so-called "explanation" which is 

 furnished by the higher categories amounts to nothing 

 more than saying that the thing to be explained is what 

 it is The truth, in short, is that outside the category of 

 causation we cannot explain anything in a scientific sense. 

 We may change our " point of view " as often as we choose 

 by regarding a thing now as mechanism, now as organ- 

 ism, now as beautiful, again as moral, and (if we may be 

 allowed to add to the categories) lastly as comical. But 

 by thus changing our point of view we are in no wise 

 adding to our knowledge in the way of explanation ; we 

 are merely regarding one aspect of a thing to the exclu- 

 sion of its other aspects. 



Let it not be thought that in making these remarks 

 we are actuated by any animus against the transcendent- 

 alists. In the region of philosophy their " Copernican 

 change of thought," which makes the universe revolve 

 round the philosopher, may be a change fraught with all 

 the importance which its adherents claim for it. With 

 this, as we have said, we are not here concerned ; we are 

 only considering the system "from one point of view," or 

 in its relation to science, and here we find that its teach- 

 ing appears to be seriously at fault. We have endeavoured 

 to show that it is not only of no use to puzzle the " plain 

 man '* of Locke in the person of the modern biologist by 

 telling him that "the organism, qui organism, is not in 

 space at all;" but that even if the biologist could be 

 made to understand what is meant by such a statement, 

 his acceptance of the meaning would be worse than use- 

 less to him in his work. Far, therefore, from feeling 

 with our authors that for "such a class (i.e. specialists 

 in science) the mastery of the critical investigations of 

 Kant and Hegel, or at least of conceptions which have 

 been profoundly influenced by these writers, will in the 

 near future be absolutely essential," we believe that the 

 less men of science, in their capacity as such, have to do 

 with these investigations the better will it be for the pro- 

 gress of their own. And, on the other hand, seeing that 

 the critical philosophers are so ready with their advice, 

 we may in our turn conclude with a word of advice to 

 them, by observing that it will be the better for the credit 

 of their system if they cease from their kindly endeavours 

 at teaching our Hannibals to fight. 



George J. Romanes 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

 [ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 

 or to correspond with the -writers of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken oj anonymous communications. 

 [ The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 

 as short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great 

 that it is impossible othei-uiise to insure the appearance even 

 of communications containing interesting and novel facts.] 



Simultaneous Affections of the Barometer 

 I have just read in the columns of your journal the very 

 interesting communication (Part II.) from Mr. A. N. Pearson 



