Xo. .V,9] 



DOCTRINES HELD AS VITALISM 



31' 1 



if we admit that what they state for the living is correct; 

 this conclusion results from a consideration of the na- 

 ture and method of science. Those mentioned under F, 

 on the other hand, if admitted for living things, make a 

 real difference of fundamental character between the two 

 fields (unless we admit experimental indeterminism for 

 the non-living also). 



E. Vitalism Based on New Laws of Action in Living 

 Things 



15. This "doctrine of organic autonomy" 8 is well ex- 

 pressed by Lovejoy as follows: 



What the vitalist maintains is that, even given a complete knowledge 

 both of all the laws of motion of inorganic particles and of the actual 



Lovejoy later continues : 



16. Now, with regard to all theories fulfilling these con- 

 ditions, the essential question is as follows : 



Even if it be granted that under the conditions found 

 in living things, the laws of action are diverse from those 

 observable in the non-living, does the science of living 

 things therefore bear a relation to the rest of science dif- 

 fering from that borne by the parts of inorganic science 

 to each other? Or would this be merely one example, out 

 of many, that from a knowledge of what happens under 

 given conditions, it is frequently not possible to predict 

 what will happen under other conditions? 



17. An affirmative answer to this latter question will 

 take awav the ground for dividing science into two di- 

 visions, vitalistic and non-vitalistic, on such a basis. In 

 the following it is proposed to examine the main sup- 



• Science, April 21, 1911. 



