314 ADAPTATION AND PROGRESS 
social, was developed to a high point by this author, he gave 
almost no place to the concept of active adaptation. 
With a discussion of these two founders of sociology considered 
both as a science and philosophy, we turned to a discussion of 
methodology, considering especially the statistical method as 
developed by Quételet, the analogical method finding its most 
complete expression in Lilienfeld, the method of classification as 
exemplified by De Greef, and the inductive method as outlined by 
Comte and used by Darwin and his successors, — this method 
including the historical and what we termed the inverse historical, 
or the study of the present as a key to the interpretation of the 
past. 
Turning to the subject of passive physical adaptation, we 
contrasted the theories of Lamarck and Darwin, the former hold- 
ing that variation and progress were the result of the activity of 
the organism in response to felt need of adjustment to life condi- 
tions, these useful variations being transmitted by heredity; the 
latter laying chief stress on the passivity of the organism and the 
active character of nature in selecting, as it were, for survival, 
those organisms and species particularly qualified to win out in 
the struggle for existence (including the leaving of offspring), 
though resorting at times to the supplementary principle of use- 
inheritance. We reviewed also his Descent of Man in which the 
same principles are used to explain the development of social 
instincts, conscience, and indeed, all the qualities that go to make 
the winning individual and group. The contributions of Weis- 
mann, De Vries and Mendel were mentioned and a brief survey 
given of the standing of Darwinism today among leading biol- 
ogists. Their disagreement on points of vital importance in 
social philosophy led to the conclusion that biology furnished, as 
yet, a precarious foundation for a constructive theory of social 
progress. In almost every case, however, adaptation was the one 
thing insisted upon, though some gave wide latitude to the degree 
necessary for survival. 
This general spirit of uncertainty or positive disagreement 
furnished us a background for the study of social philosophers 
who have built their theories on the neo-Darwinian formula and 
