492 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XV. No. 378. 



told that the reality behind the phenomena 

 of sense must be unlmown and unknow- 

 able, because we can never come at abso- 

 lute truth. But may not the naturalist be 

 moved to ask whether the conclusion fol- 

 lows from the premises 1 May it not prove 

 to be only the final transformation of the 

 protean fallacy of the undistributed mid- 

 dle? Instead of showing that we can 

 never know anything as it really is, may 

 not the relativity of knowledge show that 

 nature, as it really is, is relative and 

 dependent— that its being is not in itself? 

 "As no man fording a smf t stream, ' ' 

 says Huxley, putting into vigorous Eng- 

 lish a thought that has often found expres- 

 sion ; "as no man fording a swift stream 

 can dip his foot twice in the same water, 

 so no man can, with exactness, afSrm of 

 anything in the sensible world that it is. 

 As he utters the words, nay, as he thinks 

 them, the predicate ceases to be applicable ; 

 the present has become the past ; the ' is ' 

 should be ' was, ' and the more we learn 

 of the nature of things, the more evident 

 is it that what we call rest is only unper- 

 ceived activity. Thus the most obvious 

 attribute of the cosmos is its imperma- 

 nence. It assumes the aspect not so much 

 of a permanent entity as of a changeful 

 process, in which naught endures save the 

 flow of energy and the rational order which 

 pervades it." 



Every reflective student will, no doubt, 

 feel a responsive chord vibrating in his 

 OM'n thoughts in unison with those of Hux- 

 ley ; but should he not ask himself whether 

 the words, ' flow of energy and the rational 

 order ivhich pervades it,' mean anything, 

 except that the reality in which the flow- 

 ing river of nature endures and has its 

 being is rational energy, the energy of a 

 reason, the activity of a mind? 



Biological science seems to me to show, 

 with ever-increasing emphasis, that it is in 

 one sustaining mind that we ourselves, and 



all we know, or can hope to know, have 

 being. Even if this be neither absolute 

 truth nor necessary truth, may it not be 

 that still better truth, a scientific discov- 

 ery; and the greatest of all scientific dis- 

 coveries because it has, so far, been veri- 

 fied in every act of knowing? 



W. K. Brooks. 

 Johns Hopkins University. 



THE NATURE OF NERVE STIMULATION AND 

 OF CEAN0E8 IN IRRITABILITY.* 



As the conclusions of this paper supple- 

 ment those of Professor Loeb, and as he is 

 unable at present to publish an account of 

 his work simultaneously with mine, a brief 

 statement of the relationship of our work 

 appears to us both to be desirable. 



It is well known that Professor Loeb has 

 for the past several years been applying 

 the conclusions of physical chemistry in 

 the investigation of the phenomena of life, 

 as he was convinced that these conclusions 

 would clear up many physiological phe- 

 nomena. Of the several discoveries which 

 have rewarded his insight there are two of 

 apparently the most fundamental nature. 

 One of these was made several years ago 

 and published in Pick's Festschrift in 

 1899. It consisted in the demonstration 

 that muscle would only beat rhythmically 

 in solutions of electrolytes. This practi- 

 cally established the fact that contractility 

 was in its essence an electrical phenomenon. 

 About two years ago he expressed to me 

 the opinion that other life phenomena were 

 electrical, and not chemical or thermody- 

 nkmical. A second fundamental generali- 

 zation was made last summer at Woods 

 HoU and published in Pflilger's Archiv, 

 Volume 88, 1901, to the effect that the toxic 

 and antitoxic action of salts was a func- 

 tion of the number and sign of the elec- 



* This paper was prepared for publication early 

 in January, but has been delayed in its appear- 



