!58 The American Naturalid. [February, 



At the afternoon session on Friday, Prof. J. MeK. Cattell, of Colum- 

 bia, read his President's Address. It was, on the whole, a defense of 

 that experimental method of which he is the leading representative in 

 this country, and was, therefore, in a way, a reply to the rather un- 

 favorable estimate of the method and its results which had been ex- 

 pressed by Prof. James of Harvard in his President's Address of the 

 preceding year. The burden of Prof. Cattell's argument was found in 

 the statement, that every science is either genetic or quantitative in its 

 method ; that those sciences which have been predominently quantita- 

 tive will undoubtedly, in time, be formulated in genetic terms, that, 

 conversely, into the genetic sciences also, such as biology and psychol- 

 ogy, the quantitative method will ultimately be introduced. This is 

 the aim of experimental psychology in the narrower sense. While ex- 

 pressing the strongest conviction of the importance of this experimental 

 method to the science of psychology, Prof. Cattell displayed such mod- 

 eration in his estimate of the results thus far achieved by it, and such 

 sympathetic insight into the aims and relative values of other methods, 

 that his address was received with the warmest applause by all, and no 

 one could be found to pass a criticism upon it. 



Prof. Chas. A. Strong, of the University of Chicago, read a paper on 

 "Consciousness and Time," of which, on account of its exceedingly 

 abstract character, I could not venture to give an analysis from 

 memory. 



The morning of Saturday, December 28th, was occupied by a dis- 



Prof. William James, of Harvard, opened the discussion by outlining 

 the general features of the problem at issue: First, whether conscious- 

 ness is coextensive with the universe or originated in time ; second, 

 whether consciousness is an active force capable of controlling brain 

 movement, or whether it is a mere epiphenomenon, produced by the 

 brain but not capable of affecting the brain ; third, whether conscious- 

 ness has been a factor in the production of adaptation. 



Prof. Cope, of the University of Pennsylvania, who had been es- 

 jtecially requested to take the leading part in the discussion, attacked 

 the question from the point of view of the paleontologist. He held that 

 natural selection is not sufficient to account for adaptation, that the 

 adaptation of the individual organ is the result of use, and that the 

 effects of use can be inherited. In supporting this position he gave many 

 illustrations, based upon his personal observation. He held further 

 that organic evolution involved combinations and recombinations of 

 matter which not only never could have been produced by the opera- 



