February 2, 1899] 



NA TURE 



1^1 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[T/id Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous commnnications.'\ 



Prof. Meldola and Mr. Herbert Spencer as Critics. 



Three letters have lately appeared in these columns com- 

 menting on my book lately published under the title of " Organic 

 Evolution Cross-examined." Two of these are by Prof. 

 Meldola, and one by Mr. Herbert Spencer. By the first I ought 

 to feel much honoured, because the Professor lays down the law 

 that nobody outside the class to which he himself belongs, 

 namely professional experts, should be allowed to write or be 

 listened to on such subjects as biology. One feels the atmo- 

 sphere of condescension throughout his ostensible criticism, and 

 he thinks it necessary to excuse himself for taking so much 

 trouble as to criticise it at all. Perhaps he will allow me to 

 explain what my doctrine and practice about experts has always 

 been. It has been to take them frankly for all that they are worth, 

 and that is much. First, I always accept everything they can 

 tell Hs on matters of fact. Secondly, I always examine closely the 

 language or phrases under which those facts are expressed, to see 

 how far silent assumptions, or artificial conceptions, are imported 

 into the interpretations of the facts of nature. Thirdly, I watch 

 to see how far they set up an artificial vocabulary of their own, 

 having for its object to wipe out of all natural phenomena the 

 highest intellectual conceptions to which they are related. I am 

 sorry to say that I do not know enough of Prof. Meldola's 

 writings to be able to say how they would be found to stand 

 this weapon of analysis. But I am struck by the fact that 

 he seems to attribute to me the application of the word " plan " 

 to organic structures : thus showing, on the one hand, great 

 antipathy to the word ; and, on the other hand, complete ignor- 

 ance or forgetfulness that the word, in that sense, is not mine, but 

 the word systematically used by Prof Huxley in all his most 

 typical works. This makes me suspect that Prof. Meldola may 

 yield to the very common temptation to manipulate language so as 

 to keep out of sight suggestions of thought which are instinctive 

 but which are dangerous to his own theories and philosophy. I 

 note, also, that in his condescending criticism of my book he 

 deals a good deal in chatf ; and when he encounters a fact or an 

 argument not easily dealt with, he rides oft' in some flippant joke, 

 as in the case of the electric organs of the torpedo and other 

 fishes. Considering that Dr. Romanes thought my argument on 

 those organs so strong, that if there were many other cases in 

 nature of the same kind, he would be obliged to give up the 

 ■Darwinian theory, it is surely worth the trouble even of so great 

 an expert as Prof. Meldola to give some serious reply. 



But I pass from Prof Meldola to a criticism which con- 

 cerns me a great deal more — because it comes from Mr. Herbert 

 Spencer, for whose intellectual integrity I have the highest 

 admiration and respect. 



In my book I have dwelt at some length on the sad fate 

 which has befallen both the celebrated phrases in which the 

 Darwinian theory has been clothed. I have represented both of 

 them as having come to grief, and as having been exposed to a 

 most destructive criticism at the hands of no less an authority 

 than Mr. Herbert Spencer, himself the author of one of these 

 phrases, and one of the earliest patrons of the other. In this Mr. 

 Spencer thinks I have been unfair to him. Let us hear, then, 

 what he says in explanation. 



.\s regards the phrase "natural selection," Mr. Spencer says 

 that he pointed out that "its metaphorical character is apt to 

 mislead." Exactly so ! But how ? It is all metaphor together. 

 " Selection " is the idea on which it turns, and in the Darwinian 

 theory there is no selector. But its whole popularity, and 

 the whole possibility of the phrase representing the facts of 

 biological science depended on the analogy of a breeder ; and 

 when this element of meaning was abandoned and denounced, 

 nothing remained behind. Men may choose to go on using il, if 

 they like, but as the expression of a systematic theory it is gone. 



Well, now, what has Mr. Spencer done with the alternative 

 phrase invented by himself? He says that "kindred objections 

 may be urged against 'survival of the fittest,' " for just as selection 

 suggested a human selector, so did the word "fittest" suggest 

 some fitter. Therefore both phrases were alike metaphors, and 

 both were therefore equally deceptive. There is no fitting, he 

 -says, in nature like that of a glove to a hand, or of a key 



NO. 1527, VOL. 59] 



to a lock. I deny this absolutely. But assuming it to be 

 so, then the word should be given up as applied to the 

 marvellous adaptations of structure to functions in organic life. 

 The whole virtue of the phrase is gone. I have not meant to 

 allege that Mr. Spencer himself sees the full eft'ect of his destruc- 

 tive criticism, or that he may not continue to hold by the child 

 of his earlier years for some purposes of literary convenience. 

 But we — the public and the scientific world — have nothing to do 

 with that. What we have a right to deal with is a phrase which 

 has enjoyed a wide popularity, and which has purported to express 

 and to explain correctly the course of development in organic 

 life. We find the author of this phrase admitting that it has in 

 it elements lending themselves to deception, and that it sug- 

 gests correlations of a kind which have no place in nature. 

 This is to me an abandonment of the phrase, whether the 

 original author of it thinks it so or not. The phrase is no 

 longer his exclusive property. It belongs to the history of 

 philosophy, and the criticisms of its own orginator are among 

 the most valuable helps we have in estimating any value it ever 

 had. Mr. Spencer has now invented another phrase — "the 

 theory of indirect equilibration " — which he represents as 

 equivalent, and with reference to which I venture to predict that 

 it will speedily share the fate of both its predecessors, as only 

 one more attempt to hide out of sight, under the cover of anew 

 and grotesque vocabulary, some of the most salient facts of 

 biological science. Argyll. 



Ignoring all personalities, expressed or implied, in the 

 above communication, there are a few points which call for 

 rejoinder. In the first place, the statement that I have laid 

 down the law that none but professional experts should be 

 allowed to write on biological subjects is a complete mis- 

 representation of my views. I have on more than one occasion 

 made statements in precisely the opposite sense. If I may be 

 permitted to quote from an address to the Entomological 

 Society of London in 1896 (reprinted in these columns), I will 

 invite the Duke of Argyll's attention to the following passage : — 

 " .\s far as my reading extends, I am inclined to believe that 

 even in the case of the purely literary treatment of biological 

 problems by writers who are not experts, the danger of over- 

 weighting the science with hypothesis is much exaggerated. 

 Writers of this class are often capable of taking a wider and 

 more philosophic grasp of a problem than a pure specialist, and 

 ideas of lasting value have sometimes emanated from such 

 sources. I imagine that nobody will dispute that Mr. Herbert 

 Spencer's writings have largely influenced the public mind — 

 whether we agree with the details of his doctrines or not — in 

 accepting the broad principle of Evolution, although this pro- 

 found thinker lays no claim to an expert knowledge of any 

 branch of natural history. But every working naturalist can 

 ascertain for himself the credentials of any particular writer : 

 my remarks are simply offered with the object of claiming more 

 consideration for such writers, as a class, on the part of practical 

 workers. The philosophic faculty is quite as powerful an agent 

 in the advancement of science as the gift of acquiring new 

 knowledge by observation and experiment. It is not often 

 that the faculties are combined in one individual." 



In the next place, it is a misrepresentation to credit me with 

 an antipathy to the word " plan." I have not the least objec- 

 tion to the word or to the idea which it conveys, but I do protest 

 most emphatically against its being introduced by way of an 

 explanation into any branch of science, biological or otherwise. 

 The attempt to make Huxley responsible for the use of the term 

 in this sense is, as I have already pointed out, a misrepresentation 

 of that writer's views. 



The paternal insight into the affairs of nature which leads a 

 non-expert writer to put himself into the position of a judge of 

 the value of experts must be a source of immense admiration to 

 the working body of naturalists. I have nowhere laid claim to 

 the distinction of being classed among that body, as my work- 

 ing days in that field are, I am afraid, closed. Nevertheless, I 

 feel duly honoured at the Duke of Argyll's classification of 

 myself with the " experts." Any obscurity under which I may 

 be suffering in the scientific world through the neglect of his 

 Cirace to put my writings through his analytical process is, how- 

 ever, relieved — at any rate temporarily — by the invitation 

 of the editor of Nature to review the book which has 

 given rise to this correspondence. In performing that duty 

 in what I conceive to be the best interest of science, I have 

 preferred to encounter the Duke's views in the open, rather 



