S. H. Warren — Tlie Eolithic Controversy. 547 



The main line of Mr. Eeid Moir's argument is this ' : tliat we, who 

 take the sceptical side, have no case until we can show reproductions 

 of the sub-Crag chipped flints made by an unguided natural force. 

 This is a perfectly safe cliallenge, and if it is in itself a sound 

 argument it is unanswerable, for I have never used an unguided 

 natural force in the conduct of flint experiments. But this which is 

 true of my experiments is equally true of those which have been 

 conducted by Mr. Reid Moir. 



But is it a sound argument ? Let us apply it to other cases. 

 Firstly, let me say : "I claim a chair to be an artificial product, and 

 anyone who claims a chair to be natural must produce one made 

 experimentally by an unguided natural force." This seems to be 

 right, and to confirm the soundness of my logic. But suppose I 

 repLice the word 'chair' by 'crystalline diamond'. Can anyone 

 reproduce a perfect crystal of a diamond, with its polished facets, by 

 an experimental process coming within the designation of an un- 

 guided natural force? I think not. Such things, if they are to be 

 done successfulh-, require great care in the arrangement and control 

 of the methods adopted. 



In fact, to speak of experimenting with an unguided natural force 

 is almost a contradiction in terms. The object of scientific experiment 

 is to discover what will happen under definitely known or controlled 

 conditions. 



Mr. Reid Moir has fallen into the error of supposing that a few 

 inadequate experiments can show everything that Nature can do. 

 Experiments cannot easily i-eproduce natural conditions, and if they 

 do not adequately reproduce natural conditions they cannot directly 

 show the product of tliose conditions. 



Sir Ray Lankester has graphically described the grinding of one 

 flint against another beneath the pressure of an ice-sheet in the 

 formation of the striations found upon their surfaces. Have the 

 experiments, upon the negative results of which Mr. Reid Moir 

 relies, re]»roduced such conditions? Of course not!^ 



Mr. Reid Moir argues that because certain special and very limited 

 experiments have not produced a given result, that therefore 

 natural agencies cannot produce that result. If I had argued (upon 

 the same method but in the contrary sense) that because eoliths 

 can be reproduced by mechanical means, attd tvithout taking other 

 evidences into accoimt, that therefore natural agencies liave made the 

 eoliths, the criticism of my opponents would be justified. This has 



personalities. These were the outcome of an unfortunate misunderstanding, 

 and I have Mr. Moir's authority for stating that he has withdrawn them. 

 I am particularly glad of this, as one is naturally desirous of discussing 

 a theoretical question upon its own intrinsic merits, and in a spirit that is 

 personally friendly towards those from whom one differs. 



1 J. Keid Moir, Abstracts Proc. Geol. Soc, November 28, 1913, p. 16 ; and 

 elsewhere. 



^ In this I am taking the theory of my opponents as it stands. It may be 

 correct, but personally I am of opinion that the striations in question are due 

 essentially to solifluction, possibly, but not necessarily, assisted by the additional 

 weight of snow or ice. From the point of view of the flint chipping the matter 

 is not important, as either the soil or the ice would furnish the necessary pressure. 



