July 21, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



85 



Jennings ('14, p. 20), taking up the 

 problem as a scientific problem by the 

 method of radically experimental analysis, 

 reaches the following conclusion : 



The phenomena of life require nowhere the dif- 

 ferential action of a non-physieal agent. Their 

 occurrence is bound up throughout with that of 

 physical and material phenomena. Diversities in 

 them are determined by antecedent physical and 

 material diversities. They show, therefore, the 

 same type of relations to each other, to physical 

 conditions, and to matter, as do the phenomena 

 called physical. But they include phenomena not 

 found in the non-living, and therefore to be known 

 only through study of the living. Such is con- 

 scious individuality, the highest manifestation 

 from the interwoven tissue that makes up the ex- 

 perienced universe. 



That is to say, Jennings comes to the con- 

 clusion that the problem of vitalism has no 

 experimental meaning. With this opinion 

 presumably the majority of biologists -will 

 agree. 



Is this, then, the final answer of science 

 (physical science) to the problem of the 

 ages ? Is the case of Vitalism vs. Mechan- 

 ism closed and the verdict rendered in be- 

 half of the defendant? "Will the vitalist 

 accept the verdict? We may anticipate 

 that he will not, if we are to judge on the 

 basis of past experience. In the past when 

 verdicts have been rendered against him — 

 as in the Vital Spirits Case, the Urea Case, 

 the Vital Force Case, etc., he has always 

 shifted his ground, and although defeated 

 in every trial, he has always been able to 

 secure a rehearing of his case in the same 

 court — the court of physical science. Will 

 he do so now ? I am of the opinion that he 

 will. 



But on what grounds can he make an ap- 

 peal ? He can scarcely convince a scientific 

 jury that his case has not been heard in 

 all fairness and impartiality upon the basis 

 of the premises made. He may not fairly 

 claim that the experimental and analytical 

 logical methods have been inadequate or in- 



conclusive. So far as I can see, his only 

 chance of securing a rehearing at the court 

 of science or in the higher court of philos- 

 ophy (as suggested by Professor Thomp- 

 son, '11) would be to demonstrate that the 

 fundamental postulates upon which his 

 case has been previously tried have been in 

 error, and that the conclusions reached 

 have been based on false premises. On this 

 ground there would seem to be sufficient 

 justification for taking his case to the 

 higher court of philosophy, which has juris- 

 diction over matters relating to funda- 

 mental postulates. 



If, then, the vitalist can show that his 

 case has been prejudiced by the philosoph- 

 ical assumptions made in previous trials, if 

 it must be admitted that it makes a differ- 

 ence to the case of the vitalist whether it 

 be based upon materialistic, or dualistic or 

 idealistic postulates, and if it can be shown 

 that the basis upon which the case has been 

 tried has not been the only possible basis 

 upon which it might be tried and that, in 

 fact, it has been tried upon a wholly false 

 basis, then the vitalist is justified in de- 

 manding a rehearing in the higher court of 

 philosophy, which has jurisdiction over 

 such cases. Such considerations are, I 

 infer, the reasons for the selection of this 

 morning's topic. And if the outcome of 

 the discussion be the decision that the case 

 of vitalism has been prejudiced in the past 

 by the false premises made by the attor- 

 neys who have handled the case in the 

 court of science, then in all fairness the 

 vitalist should be granted the rehearing he 

 now demands. 



It has been frequently assumed in the 

 discussion of vitalism by scientific writers 

 that the formula of mechanism is adequate 

 to experience. This, for example, appears 

 to be the assumption which underlies the 

 argument of Jennings ('14). Shall this 

 assumption pass unchallenged? Certainly 



