426 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIV. No. 1134 



the case. But such an inference goes too fast. 



2. The behavior of certain groups, even when 

 viewed phenomenally, in abstraction from their 

 realities, as natural science views them, is 

 different from the behavior of the aggregate 

 of their components ungrouped; and the be- 

 havior of the components grouped is different 

 from their behavior ungrouped; different as 

 regards the scientific laws they observe. The 

 proper number of electrons act differently, 

 individually and collectively, before and after 

 being grouped into an atom of helium. And 

 so with the atoms that form molecules; the 

 molecules that form cells; the cells that form 

 organisms ; the organisms that form crowds or 

 societies. 



Here, as I see it, emerges the question of the 

 acceptance or rejection of vitalism, as a factor 

 in natural scientific explanation — 1, above, 

 shows we must accept it as a fact. If it can 

 be successfully maintained that a full knowl- 

 edge of the perceptual behavior of electrons, 

 atoms and molecules, before they are grouped 

 and regrouped into cells and organisms, will 

 enable us to predict their behavior, and the 

 behavior of the cells and organisms they form, 

 after the grouping and regrouping, then vital- 

 ism is not needed for natural scientific expla- 

 nation. If not, non-perceptual realities being 

 existent, potent and observable, in the case of 

 conscious beings, they, and therefore vitalism, 

 must be availed of to eke out our otherwise 

 incomplete explanations. Of course, our pres- 

 ent knowledge does not permit such predic- 

 tions, and therefore ordinary intercourse, the 

 social sciences, and psychology, are per force 

 vitalistic in explanation, for the present at 

 least. But the antivitalists maintain that full 

 prediction will come some day, and that mean- 

 time we should not be scientifically — I should 

 say natural scientifically; psychology at least 

 is a science — satisfied till it does; while the 

 vitalists believe our knowledge of outer per- 

 ceptual happenings never will permit full pre- 

 diction, though it probably will approximate 

 more and more closely to doing so. 



Whichever side is right, two facts should 

 not be forgotten. (1) Though living cells and 

 organisms act according to the chemical and 



physical laws observed by electrons, atoms and 

 molecules in their simpler groupings, they also, 

 and in addition, behave after the higher vital 

 fashion; i. e., intelligently and any explana- 

 tion offered by natural science that pretends 

 to explain intelligence away is incorrect or 

 incomplete, because false to the facts it is 

 bound to respect. (2) The real agents, whose 

 activities the sciences of nature, among others, 

 are called upon to describe and explain, are, 

 in the case of us men, the Egos of which we 

 are severally confusedly conscious. 



In sum, then, natural scientists, as such, 

 must deny vitalism, in order to achieve the 

 maximum of explanation in quantitative and 

 phenomenalistic terms; but practical and 

 philosophic men, viewing their problem en- 

 tire, and engaged in the larger game of living, 

 must recognize and reckon with the effective 

 reality of the human (and animal) Ego. 



I ask indulgence for the dogmatic tone, as- 

 sumed in the interest of terseness; it conceals 

 not a few modesties. 



S. E. Mezes 



The College or the City op New York 



THE ANIMAL DIET OF EARLY MAN 



It may be the merest speculation to say 

 what early man did or did not eat, but, there 

 appears to be rather strong zoological evidence 

 that man and his ancestors have long indulged 

 in three forms of animal food which to-day 

 are commonly found in markets. The perfect 

 adaptation to their definitive and intermedi- 

 ate hosts and the rather high degree of differ- 

 entiation of the three large tapeworm para- 

 sites of man must impress itself upon every 

 one who gives the matter consideration and 

 yet it is a point which I have not seen men- 

 tioned in the books on animal parasites with 

 which I am familiar. 



The tapeworms referred to are the beef 

 tapeworm, Taenia saginata; the pork tapeworm. 

 Taenia solium, and the fish tapeworm, Dibo- 

 thriocephalus latus. The definitive host of the 

 two tsenias is man, and I believe man alone. 

 The intermediate host of Taenia saginata is 

 Bos taurus. The common intermediate host 

 of Taenia solium is the pig, Sus scrofa, less 



