J.—PSYCHOLOGY. 169 
protest. Many perhaps will not accept the distinction I-draw between 
what I regard as empirical and what I regard as metempirical treat. 
ment. I have, however, only dwelt upon it so far as seemed 
to be necessary to indicate my concept of what science is and 
what it should seek to do. And though, on this occasion when 
men of science are gathered together, I hold a brief for the 
science in whose name we meet, it has been no part of my aim 
to disparage metaphysical explanation within its proper sphere. I 
may perhaps be allowed to say that, on a different platform, I should 
be prepared to defend, to the best of my ability, the Creative concept as 
nowise antagonistic to that of emergent evolution. I should then ask 
with Kant: ‘May it not be that while every phenomenal effect must 
be connected with its cause in accordance with empirical causation, this 
empirical causation, without the least rupture of its connection with 
natural causes, is itself an effect of a Causality that is not empirical 
: but [as Kant puts it] intelligible? ’ 
1921 fr) 
